Thank you for the response. You raised an important, and but difficult issue that we all are struggling with. My three brief responses below are brief, since you are more familiar with this subject more than I do. I will post them in three segments. (These are random responses, not well formulated. I hope you will get the basic idea)

1) You are familiar with the statement that “In social production men enter in to relations with others…..” The “social” can mean any type of social relations. However, as the capitalist mode of production expands ‘class relation’ (how it is produced and managed) begins to influence and dominate all other relations. The society experiences the realization of class relation (not relations) in many different ways. Capitalism does not care how class relation is realized as long as its primary objective is achieved. As the capitalism progresses, all other relations get progressively subordinated (or reduced) to the logic of class relation. In this sense class reductionism occur within (and by) the system itself, that is to say reductionism is internal to the systems own reproduction. The system in turn mystifies class relation, and does everything to distract it from popular consciousness and dissent. This does not mean all other relations disappear of become irrelevant or they passively let class relation to dominate.

You see, when you live in a period of mature capitalism faced with multiple crises, class relation becomes common sense. You just feel it, but your capacity to express it in concrete forms is limited, partly because the very language and technologies available to do are also commodified. The task of the politically engaged intellectuals is to demystify ‘class relation’ and bring it to the centre of their politics. In that respect, when you say my analysis as ‘class reductionism,’ I take it as a complement. If that happens worldwide we can hope for a better future.

I think class reductionism as an intellectual and political practice has certain advantages if we succeed in brining class to the centre of counter hegemonic politics. Sometimes, I also find that the allegation of class reductionism by certain academics, NGOs and social movement theorists has the effect of ghettoizing the class from the centre of social criticism and political mobilizations, and in the process undermining struggle associated with such practices. This is no different to what the allegations of ‘communist’ ‘naxelite’ etc., by the Western governments and the Religious Right did to discredit any criticism of the capitalist system.

2) You say my analysis is class reductionism. But you do not give any examples. Having said that, my two part article does exactly what you are saying. My discussion of different manifestations and causes of militarization shows how class relations are manifested/recomposed in many different ways and therein the role of the religion, NGOs, political parties, media, intellectuals etc. I am in agreement with you that class relation is recomposed and how the society experiences it is complex. This, I think is a response to spatially specific and diverse manifestation of crises of capitalist system. It is not negation of centrality of class. So the topic of militarization, I think, is a very productive way of understanding how class relation is reproduced in myriad of different ways.

We have plenty to learn from the scholars of feminism, political geography, political ecology and critical legal theory, I mean those sympathetic to Marxist perspective. They have contributed a great deal to our understanding of the limitations of the conventional analysis of class. But they also agree that elimination of class differences will not automatically eliminate the gender, race, and spatial inequalities and the issues relating to eco system. The continuing decomposition of class in terms of non-class identities can also undermine the success of diverse social struggles. I may also add even nation state as an ‘imagined community,’ (including the similar projects by the fascist separatist groups) hence the notion of sovereignty, is a class project to the extend it has to do with the spatial unevenness of the capitalist development.

The trouble with most progressive activists today is that they tend to separate economic and political equality. They are more concerned about later. So the formal equalities they succeed in achieving in the domain of politics are always undermined by the equalities in the domain of politics. The reason I believe is decentring class the centre of praxis. Bringing class in to the centre of radical while not settle all types of inequalities, it will create an essential, but not sufficient prerequisites for addressing these inequalities. Class based politics is less divisive and more productive. I also do not completely exclude the possibility of working through non-class based struggles to achieve economic equality.

In part II I will give my take on Laclau, Gramsci and others.

In answer to the very Leninist question ‘What is to be done?’, which any serious political comment must address explicitly or implicitly, Jude wants us to vote for precisely whom? Mr/Ms X? Unsurprisingly, Dayapala Tiranagama’s piece on the elections, while echoing some of Jude’s concerns, is far more concrete and therefore vastly better.

The cold war situation is now in limbo and threat of nuclear MAD is less.But because of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan which was created by Bush & Bliar the defence budget of the US and the West cannot lessen nor will it in the case of China,Russia or India for that matter, because it is all linked .It is not possible to go into the aspect of this linkage for want of time and space. But is is a fact that the military budget of all would still escalate because there are always risks like the possibility of WMD or fissile material falling into wrong hands and the shadows of Iran,North Korea,the Al-Queda other assorted asymmetrical elements will be relied upon as justification That is the characteristic of ‘Capitalism’ and it’s military industrial complex.It cannot afford sharing depleting energy resources on an equal basis or deal with the effects of global warming without heaping burdens on developing countries.In this context both MR and SF are just pawns playing a minnow role in a global set up and the average voter in Lanka is completely kept ignorant of those issues and is fed a diet of religious and racial extremism and relied upon to vote Comrade Bahu must have our support to deal with the Herculean task of keeping the voter informed.. .

This is an interesting article. However, I disagree with your assertion that “Militarization is a product and integral part of the neoliberal economy.”- Militarisation has happened in socialist countries as well. A country does not have to be a neoliberal one for militarisation to take place. Take for example the former USSR, North Korea and perhaps Cuba. Those countries were not neo liberal but militarisation took place.
I also contest your assertion that miliatrisation is integral to the neoliberal economy. Miliatarisation may be an offshoot of the neoliberal economy but it is not an integral part of it.

“I will vote for the one who, over the next two months, convinces me he is the most promising person to begin an incremental demilitarization by abolishing the executive presidency, revoking the PTA, offering a tangible political settlement to the ethnic conflict, depoliticizing the civil service foreign services, immediately releasing the IDPs, and taking measures to remove negative elements of ethnic exclusivity from national symbols, institutions and education. If Fonseka and Rajapaksha can pride themselves on standing against the many forces opposed to the war, they could also do the same regarding these policies.”-
I am in agreement with you on the above. But I am certain that neither MR or SF if elected to power will do any of the above that you have recommended. It is likely that MR will be reelected because he does have a large following. After all it is his Government that won the war. SF was a succesful army commander and the buck stops there. He is no politician. He should try getting into Parliament by contesting Ambalangoda.
The only neoliberal in politician in Sri Lanka is Ranil Wickremasinghe and sections of the present UNF. Neither MR or SF are neoliberal. However, militarisation in Sri Lanka will continue even though our politicians except for Ranil W are not neo-liberal.