release Milosevic!

[Todd Archer]

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:54:05 -0500
From: "Peter K." <peterk at enteract.com>
Subject:

>Todd Archer wrote:
>
>>Um, I thought the argument was about US intervention (specifically
>>unilateral intervention) in OTHER countries . . . .  Cleaning your
>>own house is another ballgame, isn't it?
>
>"We are the world...."
>
>Doug

>The subject line, Todd, is about releasing the war criminal Milosevic.

Yes, I saw that.  So why bring in US desegregation?  I took it as meaning 
that you feel the use of power by an "outside" force is OK so long as that 
force is wielded for "good" purposes, such as desegregation.  I simply 
pointed out that the argument seemed to be off tack: neither about Milosevic 
nor about US international interventions.

>I proposed the analogy that some might have argued that Northerners
>should have cleaned up their own house before FORCING the South to 
> >desegregate.

Yes, but I think there's a good case that the North didn't do it out of the 
goodness of their hearts, as Doug and Gordon mentioned.

>And it's a bit naive to think that the Civil Rights movement on its >own 
>could have forced the South to desegregate. And it is debatable >who 
>deserves more credit, the Soviet Union or the Civil Rights
>movement but I bet those involved in the Civil Rights movement were >just 
>happy it happened and did't really care if the Soviet Union lent >an 
>ideological hand. On the other hand I bet desegregating the >American South 
>wasn't high on the Soviet Union's agenda and even if it >was, what
>business of theirs was it to tell Southern blacks and whites how to >live? 
>The US is a sovereign naiton after all.

Yeah, so circumstance happened to be blowing the right way to force the 
North to do something it might not have gotten around to doing.  The 
conjunction of these forces in just the right alignment, enabling people to 
take advantage of that is what I call "good luck" and "taking advantage of 
the situation."

>The world is becoming one economy, what with the Japanese producing >and 
>selling us key components for our imperial Tomahawk missiles, etc.

Well, I tend to follow Doug's critique of globalization: for such a powerful 
force, it seems skeletaly thin.  And I have to ask: why is it becoming one 
economy, and who's driving?

>The closing of the western ports were hurting the economy
>significantly, so maybe world trade *is* crucial to the economy, at >least 
>during these fragile times.

Well, isn't world trade crucial to capitalism in general and its always 
fragile times?  No wonder capitalism seems to be often referred to as "late 
capitalism": it's always on the brink of doom, like a runner whose feet have 
gone so far ahead they threaten to bring the runner down (heh!  Like the 
Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons!).

>Anyway, if it is becoming one economy, why not try to make it one - >just 
>and equitable of course - society? Isn't that what >internationalism is all 
>about?

>Peter

Off hand I don't see a problem with that project, it's just that right now 
the people who are in charge of and the system in place for making that 
happen isn't one I'm too fond of.

I always thought "left" internationalism was as much a response and 
counterpoint to capital's internationalism, than just acceptance of 
"internationalism in general".

Todd

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx