(no subject)

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Fri Sep 14 14:07:06 PDT 2001


At 07:55 PM 9/14/01 +0000, Carl wrote:
>The LBO list remains a fertile field for false dichotomies. I have nowhere
>praised the Taliban as hail fellows. In fact, last year as I recall I was
>lambasted on the list for ethnic insensitivity for citing an article about
>the Taliban's brutal penal code.
>
>The fact is, the Taliban oversee a weak impoverished society, whereas the US
>as always strides the globe like a colossus and now has blood in its eye as
>never before. Our capacity to contribute to global catastrophe through
>reckless action far exceeds that of the Taliban or anyone else. Since we
>have a sentimental false view of ourselves as the good guys and remain
>forever blind to the woes caused by our empire building, the chances are
>excellent that we will indulge in wild overreaction that will breed still
>worse ills.

Let's put things in the proper perspective. There is a difference between getting a shorter end of the stick in the US - which is the essence of the most of the anti-capitalist diatribe here, and for the most part true - and the fundamental barbarity of fascist, theocratic or feudal regimes overseas. Those who do not see that difference are either blind or in denial.

To maintain that these autocratic regimes are the sole creation and responsibility of the US is pure lunacy, plain and simple. While these regimes might have received US support, that does not mean that US support is the sole factor that created them, keeps them running, and makes doing evil things. These Frankensteins were created from the local material, and we simply do not know whether they would be any better, worse, or about the same without the US support, beacause we do not have the counterfactual. At best we can speculate. And in the vein of such speculation, there is a reason to believe that the US support might have some softening effect on the harshness of local autocracy, as a comparison of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait (both client states of the US) and Iraq seem to suggest. Or we can speculate otherwise by contrasting, say, Cuba and Central America. One is free to pick the speculative poison to one's mind.

What is more, hasty, ahistorical generalizations can be even more misleading, indeed. The fact that the US played an essentially evil role in, say, Chile in the 1970s does not mean that it plays equally evil role in supporting, say, Middle Eastern states in the 1990s.

While I am far from glorifying the US system, I am not blind to facts either. And the facts are such that this is a remarkably open, free, affluent, and yes, equitable society comparing to most other countries. Only a fool can maintain otherwise. Thus an intelligent critique of the status quo in this country is that things could be much better than they currently are, given the vastness of US resources - as opposed to demonstrably false claims that things are terrible here.

What is more, blaming the US for all imaginable evils in the world (esp. the third world) is a pure conspiratorial fantasy that imputes super-agency, omniscience, and omnipotence to Washington bureaucrats. That's hogwash. A more realistic view is that Washington bureaucracy is an opportunistic satisficer - they mainly react to things devloping in the world in a manner that satisfies in the short run key pleyers at the moment, while largely oblivious to long term consequences of their actions.

In other words, they may opportunistically support or oppose various leaders in various parts of the world to satisfy various domestic or foreign constituencies, but their decisions may or may not backfire later.

In that vein, it is one thing to accuse the US administration of political myopia, opportunism, or lack of imagination - which is essentially true, and quite a different thing to hold it responsible for all imaginable evil in the world - which is sheer lunacy. That lunacy, however, seem to be valid currency among many third world dictators and propagandists who blame the external force for their own exceses, corruption, or ineptitude. This might be fine, since every power figure does that to some extent. What I find foolish, to say the least, is that self-proclaimed "progressives" with big pretenses to critical thinking, take this tripe for its face value and repeat ad nauseam as their political 'programme.'

wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list