The Divisions in NATO

christian a. gregory cgregory at nwe.ufl.edu
Wed Apr 21 05:18:34 PDT 1999


chris wrote:

"What you citizens of the US do is of course your decision, but I continue to hope for a more inflected position than that it is a mark of marxist purity that you just oppose all and every action by your government.

"After all in the American Civil War, Marx himself objectively and knowingly advocated alliance with the northern capitalists in the consolidation of the USA over the whole of the federation. This was in the interests of the abolition of slavery but more importantly the unity of the working people of the USA.

"Kneejerk rejection of all compromises with capitalism and imperialism is not always anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. As marxism goes, it is pretty sloppy."

one snide response to this would be: when my government takes an "inflected" position (whatever that means), then perhaps i will.

frankly, and less snidely, i don't see what marx and the civil war have to do with this--any more than being nuanced, inflected, subtle or anything else. the anti-war responses that i've seen haven't been born on the wings of some marxist idea of purity, but on the obvious contradictions in the u.s.' (and nato's) position. i.e. you don't have to oppose every action of the u.s. government in principle to see that 1. clinton's explanations for the offensive just don't wash; 2. his desire for a war without casualties or ground troops is, as i think suck magazine put it, like his desire to get a blowjob but not have sex (or have national health care without offending private interests, etc.); 3. clinton and co. treat international law with disdain, except when it suits their purposes.

marx was right about the civil war. but no one has demonstrated that even one kosovar has been saved by dint of nato's offensive offensive. and you've not shown how any of this would bring about class unity. if the u.s. wants a war in the name of "saving kosovo" (by destroying it, natch), i say fine. but put the troops down--if clinton really thinks he's right, he should be willing to do that. otherwise, this is an extremely expensive (and painful) example of clinton's self-serving spin game.

best christian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list