Just catching up here....
Nathan Newman wrote:
>But at the moment, that isn't an alternative. The alternative seems to be
>either a world of ethnic hatred and killing in disintegrating nation-states
>(fed by global capital and great powers) versus imperial hegemony by the US
>and its allies (supported by other parts of global capital and great
>powers).
So does that mean bombing of Indonesia (for East Timor) should start once the glorious operation over Yugoslavia is over? And how about that cruise missile into the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
>The anti-imperialists can list ten thousand reasons why NATO is evil and is
>responsible for ills throughout the world, and it will fail to convince most
>progressives supporting the NATO intervention, since they agree with all the
>criticism you list against NATO.
But press on anyway? This is utterly cynical - "We know this is an evil institution, but we support it anyway, because there is no alternative." Does the application of evil cure evil in some sort of political homeopathy?
>Yes, Pax Americana is the politics of Robert Rubin and the stable money
>boys, of Eisenhower Republicanism with liberal cultural values. But are
>the speculative kleptocracies of ethnic hatred a better alternative worth
>defending?
This is public relations talk, Nathan, not political analysis. You create a set of bogus binaries and choose the "lesser evils" between them. At least with the Democrats and Republicans, the lesser evils are part of our inheritance. Here you are creating them ex nihilo to justify your support of imperialism.
>If there is a logic to how to build global socialism from that anti-imperial
>defense of regimes like Milosevic's, I honestly would like to hear it.
If there is a logic to how to build global socialism from a U.S.-dominated NATO as global zapping force, I honestly would like to hear it.
>These are BAD, BAD alternatives, but for that reason attacking NATO and its
>motives won't convince anyone on the progressive side of the divide on this
>issue.
Who are these "progressive" warriors, anyway? Blairites and Clintonites? By what definition are they "progressive"? New York Times and Guardian editorialists? Some Democratic Congressional hacks? You don't even have The Nation with you on this one. You've got the Third Way wing of the bourgeoisie, which is as antisocialist as Reagan and Thatcher.
>We know we are allying with bad guys on this
Oh, the "our SOB" defense?
>but we get frustrated
>that those on the anti-imperialist side of the debate refuse to recognize
>the bad guys they are lining up with, not just Milosevic but the whole
>system of capitalist looting that is thriving amidst ethnic clensing. And
>the anti-imperialists are failing to provide any argument for what comes
>next and how a defeat of the imperialists will lead to global socialism.
The U.S. has been the single most powerful anti-socialist force on earth for almost a century. Any reduction in its international power would broaden the possibilities for political experimentation around the world. Any confirmation or intensification of its power would narrow them.
>If someone has a line of argument for how to move from defense of
>Milosevic's Yugoslavia to a global socialist system, I honestly would like
>to hear it. And to be honest, it is the failure of the anti-imperialist
>viewpoint to articulate such a positive vision that accounts for a large
>part of the defection of progressives in the case of Kosovo.
No. To quote Tariq Ali, it's a confession of their weakness and bankruptcy.
>If evil lies
>down every long-term path, than short-term opportunistic alliances, even
>with the bombers of NATO, look more attractive than an anti-imperial line
>promising no hope at all.
So when are you signing up for the KLA? Or is it left to the children of the poor to die in the defense of whatever it is you're defending?
Doug