(1) I don't think that we should assume that the ruling class and governing elite always choose what we think is "good for them" or "good for capitalism" or "good for the empire." Unions are "good for capitalism," but there would be no unions if we left it up to the preference of capitalists. Dialectical irony is that capitalists, more often than not, have been forced to do "what's good for capitalism" by militant assertions of working-class power. Likewise, imperialists won't do "what's good for the empire" unless workers at home and colonized natives abroad (and sometimes other imperialists at home and/or abroad) stiffly resist their pursuit of power (recall that no empire gave up its colonies without struggle). As of now, there is not enough resistance to the Bush regime in any of the sectors that I mentioned above, so they will do what they damn please (which does benefit a minuscule fraction of the ruling class, i.e., their cronies), however unwise it may turn out to be in the long term.
(2) Imperialists tend to pursue self-destructive policy (there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing" in capitalism and imperialism, i.e., too much class power in the hands of capitalists and imperialists) in the twilight of the empire. Another dialectical irony is that even "victory" can turn into its opposite:
At 8:59 AM -0500 12/9/02, Michael Pollak wrote:
>>>We are soldiers and our only duty is to win. Therefore, to be
>>>precise, I would now like to ask you a question: Should France
>>>remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all
>>>the necessary consequences....
>>
>>Should the United States remain an empire?
>
>Well, the speech you've quoted here by Colonel Mathieu casts a
>double light on that question. Many people have argued that torture
>was in fact what lost Algeria for France. People who see this movie
>don't always realize that it portrays how the FLN *lost* the Battle
>of Algiers in 1957. Militarily, torture worked. And yet, as the
>movie shows in compressed form, the FLN won the war years later
Remember, the US "defeated" the Tet Offensive, too.
It ain't over till it's over (both for capitalists and workers, colonizers and colonized).
(3) For "neo-colonialism" to operate "efficiently," there would have to be certain material conditions on the ground -- the very conditions sorely lacking in Afghanistan: most importantly, the "native comprador bourgeoisie" who can exploit the "neo-colony," and the native power elite who can manage it, on behalf of the empire while lining their own pockets and cultivating clients (e.g., corporatist unions).
At 8:59 AM -0500 12/9/02, Michael Pollak wrote:
>For such a neo-colonial empire, you don't need Colonel Massus.
>Local colonels do just fine.
Not if the salaries of local colonels have to be paid for by the empire, rather than by taxes on the colonized natives. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>