> [Bounced bec it came from non-sub'd address. In pre-emptive response,
> I'd say that openness and liberalization are very different from
> independence; the U.S. wants an economically open & liberalized, but
> one still politically subordinate to the U.S. Armed forces and
> independent foreign policies are very different from creating
> U.S.-style financial and labor markets.]
This seems correct to me. In fact I would see the Yugoslav War as being motivated partly by U.S. desire to keep Europe militarily subject to U.S. power. But I would push it further. I do not believe that the U.S. ruling class would *ever*, under any conditions, surrender peacefully its world hegemony or its position *as* the ruling class in United States. That is, the only route from here (U.S. capital hegemony) to there (either European capital hegemony or working-class hegemony in the U.S.) can only come about through violence (war or civil war). What would be the arguments against that position.
(Incidentally, it seems to me that Mark's focus on the immorality and/or decadence of capitalism is at best irrelevant and possibly an obstruction to building a resistance to capitalism. The problem with cancer as a metaphor is that cancer is usually victorious.)
Carrol