We can reopen the subject of the benefits of imperialism upon the (surviving) imperialized; below is my last go at it, with a reply from Yoshie. I would not be at all surprised to see the better-off Afghan women working in banks, eating Big Macs and quaffing iced 20-oz. Cokes before the year is out. Why, the dust must hardly have settled in Kabul before the doors of K.U. were flung open; I wish we could see that kind of action in some other places. And later we can discuss the effects of imperialism on the imperializers, or rather, the peoples of the countries where they base their power, which is a bit more ambiguous, to say the least. But onward! But cautiously: remember, you may be holding a gun to someone's head.
Subject: Re: Taliban/Birmingham
Gordon:
> But does the empire of Capital have any choice? It seems to
> me that its internal logic dictates its expansion by whatever
> means necessary into any and all unexploited regions. This
> would include, eventually, the imposition of liberalism and
> capitalism on the most recalcitrant areas, by seduction if
> possible, by violence if necessary. The being the case we
> must expect to see feminism of the liberal variety (women
> are differently-shaped men who can compete for the same jobs
> and roles) in Afghanistan as in America, even while everyone
> pays the most profound respect to cultural differences and
> other noble savage things. I have the vague idea that Marx
> regarded this sort of thing as progress, in fact, speaking of
> commies.
Yoshie Furuhashi:
> It is possible that a tiny number of educated & urbanized Afghan
> women of means will see their lives improve under a new dispensation
> forcibly brought about by the Empire; at the same time, lives of
> uneducated rural Afghan women will likely worsen under the same
> dispensation. Even the former is not guaranteed, however, as even
> RAWA (whose agenda should be perfectly harmless to the Empire) is
> excluded from the Bonn Meeting on the making of a new UN protectorate.