>On 3/7/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> It isn't free, it is coerced. However the point "Andie" is making is
>> that capitalism uses economic coercion (work for us or starve) rather
> > than political coercion (work for us or we'll shoot you).
>
>It's important to understand what makes capitalism what it is, to
>counteract commodity fetishism. That's where theory matters.
Its a lot more than that. Ultimately, capitalism depends also on the consent of the working class. This is important to understand in the context of strategy and tactics, which means this question of economic vs political coercion is critical.
If your understanding is that the capitalist class rules via physical force (politically) then you are likely to be inclined towards fighting the class war by taking up arms. However once you realise that they rule economically, it becomes apparent that this is completely the wrong strategy.
Even if you could defeat what is ultimately an economic dictatorship by taking up arms, it is doubtful such a strategy can achieve economic and political freedom. The means are simply too incongruous with the ends. From the point of view of winning the support of the working class, which is obviously essential to such an end, this is also a big problem. It is absolutely clear that the great majority of the working class in capitalist societies (who compose the overwhelming majority) are not interested in replacing economic dictatorship with political dictatorship. Most people, correctly, view that as a backward step socially.
So you see, this apparently insignificant "theoretical" misunderstanding of capitalism is the first step down a slippery slope towards inevitable defeat.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas