>Recognition that reproduction of capitalism ultimately depends on
>force doesn't mean, though, that "taking up arms," in the fashion, for
>instance, Fidel Castro, et al. once did, is an effective strategy even
>in very poor parts of the world -- in fact, that is very rarely the
>case. It does mean keeping in mind that, even if you come to power
>through electoral means, the other side often will not let you govern
>peacefully when they decide you've gone too far, as Mossadegh, Arbenz,
>Allende, etc. realized, and, but for the support of loyal soldiers and
>civilian masses, Chavez might have ended up sharing their fate.
Why "but for the support of loyal soldiers and civilian masses"? If it all "ultimately depends on force", then surely the US government can muster the military force to overthrow Chavez?
If the answer is, the US public wouldn't take too kindly to that kind of naked aggression, then capitalism doesn't "ultimately depends on (military) force". Rather, it must be that it ultimately depends on public consent. If indeed we assume capitalism is even threatened by Chavez.
>As far as the West is concerned, very few workers are thinking right
>now of establishing a concrete alternative to "capitalist economic
>dictatorship." Hence relative peace at home.
If that's relative peace, then spare us turmoil.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas