• BOMBS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think the argument is that economics and politics are not independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Whomever controls the food supply has power over the population, which means it has political power. Whomever has power over the population, has power over the food supply. Basically, economics and politics are different perspectives on power.

    For example, the political structures in the West create the rules over who gets to obtain power through the economy. From the other direction, the people with economic power get to control who gets to obtain power through the political structures.

    • Soleos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Everything is politics” is an argument that right wing grifters often use. Culture? Politics! Sexual orientation? Politics! Science? Politics!

      The “everything is politics” argument is the warped kind of thinking of people that are trying to gain control over others.

      • Soleos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that “politics” is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.