From: "david jacob jurriaan bendien" <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: power
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:42:34 +0100


Hi. 

Obviously, though not necessarily, the state plays an important role in
military power, in sofar as it is normally in control and able to mobilise
military forces.  I agree that as long as there is a symbolic dimension to
human life, there will be power related to it.  I am merely distinguishing
between symbolic relations and the power relations which are expressed
through them. What is the nature of the research you are working on ?

Jurriaan 

----------
> From: Jukka Laari <jlaari-AT-dodo.jyu.fi>
> To: marxism-thaxis-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> Subject: M-TH: Re: power
> Date: Sunday, November 16, 1997 1:25 AM
> 
> Hello!
> 
> David wrote: 
> 
> > 2. The difference between economic power and military power ? "Very
> > generally", I would say economic power is based on the ownership of
> > "assets" with a market value, usually legally recognised, whereas
military
> > power is based on control over, and the ability to mobilise armed
forces. 
> 
> And state plays no role in military power? 
> 
> > 3.  Laari's argument seems to be than symbols may have an "intrinsic
power"
> > of their own.  But I am not sure where this discussion is leading. 
> 
> No, I truly don't argue that symbols have some intrinsic power. 
> 
> Question was about symbolic power, and whether it (or what seems to 
> be symbolic power) could be 'reduced' to - that is, explained 
> throughly by - some other form of power. Justin have already referred 
> to one form of symbolic power. My point was that as long as there is 
> something symbolic ("symbolism"?) to human existence there will also 
> be power related to it, power not reducible to some other form. 
> 
> Yours, Jukka L 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---