Below please find the simple statement of a complex (social) ‘fact:’
Politics always lag behind economics, far behind. The state apparatus is far more resistant than is often possible to believe; and it succeeds, at moments of crisis, in organizing greater forces that remain loyal to the regime than the depth of the crisis might lead one to suppose.
In analyzing the different social forces that have operated in hstory, and that operate in the political activity of a state, due place must be given to the military and the bureaucratic elements. It should not be forgotten, however, that by army and bureaucracy we mean not simply the effective military and bureaucratic elements, __but also the social strata from which these elements of the state apparatus are traditionally recruited. __ (Emphasis added, natch!)
If you’re going to evoke ‘class’ without sounding like an asshole, I think you need to start from the point of view outlined above.
Now the airing of two (literally) academic pet peeves:
1) Hey you! You cannot get away with substituting “hegemony” for “consent.” That kind of truncation bites!
2) Acts of deconstruction are productive. Thus nobody should be using ‘deconstruct’ as a synonym of “destruction,” or to mean “disassembling.” The ‘taking apart’ is only the first step in the process, and I’m continually shocked to encounter people who’ve allegedly read more than 2 pages of Derrida but still commit this error.
And now, an embarassing admission to balance things:
I think I’m guilty of having confused Rosa Luxembourg and Emma Goldman for some time.