Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> And the point
> is that if the Iraq war is not core to imperialism-- ie. imperialists can
> oppose it
"Core" is I think an incorrect term to use in attempting to analyze imperialism (seen as a mode of existence of capitalism). I don't see how one can make sense of any statement "X is the core of imperialism," where X refers to a specific event or policy. At least I've been reading, thinking, talking, and writing of imperialism for some 35 years now and this is the first time I've encountered any such silly phrase.
But of course imperialists can oppose given imperialist ventures, without ceasing in the least to be imperialists (even highly self-conscious ones). Many very aggressive supporters of U.S. imperialism eventually actively urged withdrawal from Vietnam. Everyone of every persuasion will advocate pulling out of a clearly counter-productive action. On another list I recently got involved in something approaching a flame war with someone who was arguing that the "central contradiction" in the anti-war movement was between anti-imperialists and "pro-imperialists." I called it a stupidly sectarian position. And of course "anti-imperialist and pro-imperialist" is a far from exhaustive categorization of the populace. Most people are neither.
Carrol