[lbo-talk] sprinting rightwards

[Miles Jackson]

Julio Huato wrote:
> Political power is "extra-economic" power, i.e. power outside of the
> market sphere.  It's relatively concentrated and organized.  In normal
> times, it is *universal* in scope. It enjoys a large measure of social
> legitimacy and acceptance.  Etc.
>   
This is the crux.  Politics and economy are not "separate spheres" of 
social life!  There is no political power that is "extra-economic", and 
there is no economic activity that is "extra-political".  The political 
and economic systems in any society are mutually determined; thus any 
analysis that tries to understand politics as "outside the economy" or 
the economy as "outside politics" obscures the social processes that 
create and sustain the integrated political economy of a society.


> Take the resistance to the occupation of Iraq.  If you're serious
> about it, you cannot limit it to individually dropping out, or
> protesting locally or even nationally.  You have to dispute the making
> and implementation of foreign policy, the management of the military
> power of the country -- i.e. you have to enter electoral politics!
>   
Now, I agree with this: if you want to challenge the military actions of 
the state, electoral politics is one viable strategy.  (Although I can't 
resist mentioning that the 2006 elections didn't really change much, did 
they?  As far as I can tell, the war machine rolls on!)


> Again, State power is massive, concentrated, organized, universally
> vested social power.  Concentration, organization, and universality
> compound social power.  Electoral politics is too important to be left
> to the politicians alone.  IMO, and I say this with all due respect,
> the fact that some people in the left, in rich countries for the most
> part, argue that socialism can be built without taking State power is
> a rationalization of the fact that they have remained politically
> marginal for generations.  It's like Aesop's fabled fox dissing the
> grapes he couldn't reach.
Leaving the ad hominem aside, I think the biggest problem with the 
"foster socialism by controlling the State" argument is that the 
strategy isn't very effective.  Russia?  China?  Eastern Europe?

Miles