Is reduction always "bad", logically or otherwise? Depends on the subject matter and situation. The subject is something the US could bring a halt to - exclusively - if it wanted to. In fact, no reductive logic is required to expose a fact the whole world outside the USA already knows. The situation? Cramped postings from a workplace to an email list. A limited venue. Time and space only for putting out core concepts relevant to the (ever changing) moment. We're not writing The Book here... The prejudice against reduction is itself a form of philosophical absolutism, which I reject.
But reductionISM? I deny the charge of adhering to any such religion.
>" There is no independent socialist state of Cuba. Cuba, as I will
>never tire of repeating - is an annex of the Soviet Union, pure and
>simple, nothing more. "
Well, Henry the K. was basically - shall we say, "reductively" - right about Cuba at the time. I'd never call Kissinger stupid, just because he is a war criminal - how's for reduction. Is Henry "just" or "in essence" a war criminal?
Today, Cuba is actually - nominally - much more "independent" politically, and much more dependent economically on the capitalist world system. But it was never "socialist", except in political intent. And it is not at all analogous to "Israel" - an Anglo-American-style settler state still in process of eradicating the "natives". So "Israel" is not reducible to South Africa as well as Cuba.
>Henry K, oops, I mean Brad M. surely cannot actually mean that Israel is
>"nothing more" than a puppet that automatically does whatever the US tells
>it to
>do, because that, of course, is easy to disprove with a library card. This
>claim
>of "dual-loyalist" puppetry is what antisemitic right-wing conspiracy
>theorists
>claim. Or am I responding to the wrong list again? This isn't the Liberty
>Lobby
>list is it? Oh, that's right, they have briefly folded. I guess their
>arguments
>had to go somewhere.
You're putting words in my mouth. I said "annex". That is not a "puppet". Puppets need to be told what to do - annexes don't, because they are (by definition) integral to the system. "Israel" no more needs to be "told what to do" than the Cincinnati or New York police departments, as they go about their daily business oppressing African - Americans and others. Except when they are "too aggressive", as Colin Powell just put it. Then they get a tongue - clucking. But they are no told what to do.
Chip, I'll take a chance - you really think and sound like an American. Are you?
Because, alas, the rest of the post degenerates into a pile of crude insults, slurs and potential slanders. Suffice to say:
- I never said "Ideological movement leaders "deliberately" seek to destroy their "imagined communities." I was not generalizing about "all 'ideological movement leaders". More words in the mouth. Perhaps you think me a "puppet"? Two very specific phenomena - Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan - were referred to, for reasons that should be self evident, politically.
- Berlet informs us that Reality is Complex. No kidding! Too complex to be exhaustively analyzed on an email list. Anyone who pretends to use it for that purpose can't possibility be serious. However, all attempts are welcome!
- The remainder is basically to call me a unconscious, far right antisemitic clone of Henry Kissinger. Not a shred of comparative evidence is presented to demonstrate this spurious claim - except for the Kissinger part :-D. Actually my (hardly original) point derives and parallels, in part, recent positions of Edward Said and (shudder, reductionism!) Noam Chomsky. See "Prospects for Peace in the Middle East", The University of Toledo, March 4, 2001. Right away on the fourth paragraph is said,
"Third and last comment is that the US role is significant throughout these cases and very often decisive—and in fact decisive in the four specific cases that I mentioned. Furthermore, however important a factor it might be, it should be central to our own concerns for perfectly obvious reasons—it’s the one factor that we can directly influence. The others we may deplore, but we can’t do much about them. That’s a truism, or ought to be a truism. But it’s important to emphasize it, because it is almost universally rejected. The prevailing doctrine is that we should focus laser-like on the crimes of others and lament them, and we should ignore or deny our own. Or more accurately, we should structure the way we view things so as to dismiss the possibility of looking into the mirror—shape discourse so the question of our own responsibilities can’t even arise, or more accurately, can arise only in one connection—namely the connection of how we should react to the crimes of others..."
After addressing several of the complexities of the Middle East, it concludes:
"Israel itself is — not surprisingly — becoming very much like the United States. It now has tremendous inequality, very high levels of poverty, stagnating or declining wages and deteriorating working conditions—rather like the United States, more so than most other industrial societies. As in the United States, the economy is based crucially on the dynamic state sector, sometimes concealed under the rubric of military industry. It’s not really surprising that the US should favor arrangements in its outpost that look pretty much like the United States itself."
"It’s also not surprising that the US has been pursing the policy called “dual containment” — isolating Iran and Iraq — the two countries of the region that have not subordinated themselves to the US-dominated system of global order. However, that policy is collapsing. And it’s unsustainable. The regional countries are not accepting it any longer. Outside the US and to a limited extent England, there is very little support and strong opposition. Within the United States, opposition is also developing in the crucial area, the business world, which is unhappy about being forced to cede major opportunities to rivals. Remember that Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world and Iran has plenty of resources too. So it is reasonable to expect that somehow or other, these two regions will be re-incorporated under US control. Not easily — because there’s plenty of problems in doing that. In fact the whole region is extremely volatile and very dangerous. There is no doubt that the US role remains critical, probably decisive, which is good for us because that’s the one factor that we can influence—a fact that confers upon us responsibilities which are very grave."
The question and answer that followed raised many issues, but note this:
"Question: Do you think it’s is a good idea to push the idea of divestment from Israel the same way that we used to push it for white South Africa?
Answer: I regard the United States as the primary guilty party here, for the past 30 years. And for us to push for divestment from the United States doesn’t really mean anything. What we ought to do is push for changes in US policy. Now it makes good sense to press for not sending attack helicopters to Israel, for example. In fact it makes very good sense to try get some newspaper in the United States to report the fact that it’s happening. That would be a start. And then to stop sending military weapons that are being used for repression. And you can take steps like that. But I don’t think divestment from Israel would make much sense, even if such a policy were imaginable (and it’s not).
Our primary concern, I think, should be change in fundamental US policy, which has been driving this thing for decades. And that should be within our range. That’s what we’re supposed to be able to do: change US policy."
Chomsky is right about Israel, even if he is wrong on the tactic of divestment. It is not South Africa, because of the exclusive and intimate US involvement in the Middle East, of which "Israel" is only one particular manifestation. But go read it yourself. Don't waste your time - and my time - on me, go refute Chomsky or Said.
Nor is any analytical demonstration of the "logical fallacies" involved presented, except for the assertion that Reality is Complex:
>"Can we be more specific and careful about the differences among Zionism, >Jews,
>Israel the state, the various political movements and parties in Israel, race,
>nationality, ethnicity, religion, nationalism, imperialism, capitalism, fascism,
>oppression, repression, institutional forms of racism, consensual forms of
>racism, policies, practices, etc.?"
The answer is, sadly, no. There isn't time - not just on this list or at work, but possibility with regards to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. A bona fide fascist, Ariel Sharon - and let it be made clear, with emphasis, that Sharon is the closest approximation to a genuine Fascist in the world today, in the literal sense of the word - has been elected Prime Minister in a landslide Hitler could only dream of. There is the very real and present danger of a catastrophe now. But apparently you just don't see it, Chip - it's all just "hysteria".
I don't think you understand what is going on, Chip, here on this list and elsewhere in the USA and the world. An analysis of the complex political - economic ties binding the 51st State to the USA, and to the rest of the world, would be very useful right now, but aside from that, I and some others are not primarily engaged in pedantic exercises here, but in political action, in both theoretical and practical areas - usually compressed together - as time permits. We are primarily engaged, not in an academic exercise (although, speaking for myself, such exercises are certainly welcome as refreshing counterpoint, if nothing else) , but in a intense _political struggle_, in case you haven't noticed. And I provoked this cluster of threads, and at least brought an end to the fucking silence, angry over a piece of terrorist vandalism and arson here in SF against a politically innocuous "Israeli-Palestinian" peace mural, acts that forced the owner of the building to close down the mural. Now what thugs did that. I say some of their political soulmates are right here on this list, as elsewhere in US society. You know, "They did it to us, so we can do it to them". Now, there's a brilliant piece of "logic". No wonder our opponents on this issue have the habit of calling us "stupid".
So that is what's happening, Chip. You've succeeded somewhat in distracting from the issue at hand and wasting people's time, which of course is your practical political purpose - not "impartial academic discourse". In the process it is unclear just where you stand, Chip, except for some unspecified "criticisms of Israel" - my. how bold.
But your deep _political_ hostility comes through loud and clear. I'm sure we would find deep practical political differences on a host of issues. Where do you stand, Chip? Me, I'm communist. I'm for the abolition of capitalism. This will require "abolishing" the United States, as a state, and therefore I hardly recognize its - let alone its annex, Israel's - "right to exist". And that is hardly "reducible" to the _need_ for a homeland for Americans, Jews or anybody else.
But you're "depressed" by all of this. Good to hear that. Get used to the feeling, because it's going to get worse shortly (I won't vouch for the long run). Me, I feel great, loving every minute of it.
But you _are_ an American, Chip, even if you are not from this country. You think just like one. How's that for an insult? In my book, that's the ultimate insult: "You, you.....American!" :-D, :-D, :-D
Here's the question of the hour: How long would "Israel" last if the USA were to completely pull the plug, politically, economically and militarily. And the Europeans or some other major power did not fill the void?
My answer: About as long as the state of Connecticut.
Your answer: I await, until then I will ignore you absurd posts on this particular issue.
Sincerely, -Brad Mayer Oakland, CA