James Baird writes Tuesday Oct. 13/98: "The ruling class achieved its objectives in Vietnam (independent nationalism was crushed) and was able to manage the rebellion at home (ending the draft, "Vietnamization") with only minor hiccups. When you compare the American Imperial system with England at its height or Rome, you find a much more flexible and effective system. It can deal with overambitious leaders (compare Watergate to the rise of Augustus), requires very little in the way of administrative expense at the periphery (compare to England, which was never able to properly plunder the Americas, or Rome, which spent untold amounts on infrastructure in the provinces) "
Doyle This was addressed to Mike Cohen. Mike's points were more in line with noticing that under present conditions with a possible recession, and business cycle downturn, the conditions are ripe once again for social movements in this country. James point is not very useful in reply to Mike because are we supposed to sit on our hands when the bastards hurt us? I mean sure the U.S. achieved it's purposes against Vietnam, but there was a mass movement. Who here underestimates the ruling class. There is no large scale labor movement in this country. Yet Mike is right, and your comment is not called for. James Baird says that the system can misdirect the anger away from the right targets, so point the anger at the right targets, and quit worrying about someone else's confusion.
Doyle We need a labor movement because that is who will get hurt when the social welfare doesn't protect workers laid off in a recession. Whether or not this is the biggest most successful imperial power ever, we need to stand up for ourselves even if it isn't clear what it leads to. Put your mind like Mike to making something happen, quit this stuff about how difficult the US is. It won't help. It is fundamentally irrelevent. The alternative is to keep on racing to the bottom.
Doyle One more thing, to me, this period is leading to big power rivalry. They are going to fight amongst themselves in whatever way is left to them when the U.S. loses hegemony over currency. There is leverage for us to create our own institutional responses to the crisis that may happen. We haven't had this opportunity since the thirties, not just Vietnam. Already it is clear that the consensus that Washington has been promoting for the Reagan era is finally coming to it's end point. The criticism of the IMF is criticism of U.S. hegemonic policies, and allows alternatives to be put forward. You better believe Mike is right and you are wrong. regards, Doyle Saylor