Anderson weighs in

[Peter K.]

>Underestimating capitalism's strength during the Cold War? It's easy
>to say that in retrospect, but when the USSR was outgrowing the West
>and matching the U.S. in space technology and military, and
>nationalist and socialist revolutions were sweeping the Third World,
>it wasn't hard to conclude that capitalism was, in the words of a
>Wallace Stevens title, on the way to the bus. Surely much of the
>right thought so; Bill Buckley famously announced the mission of
>National Review as standing athwart the tracks of history and yelling
>"Stop!," and Whittaker Chambers was saying things like "It is is idle
>to talk about stopping the decline of the West - it is already a
>wreck from within." So maybe Anderson is overestimating the strength
>of capitalism now. And overestimating the strength of the U.S. Which
>is convenient for his style of politics, since it absolves him of the
>need to do anything, since his part of the world doesn't count for
>much, and there's nothing to be done anyway. Maybe he's just talking
>his portfolio.
>
>Doug

What is his style of politics? Seems Chomskyan to me. He ends the piece with "The arrogance of the
‘international community’ and its rights of intervention across the globe are not a series of
arbitrary events or disconnected episodes. They compose a system, which needs to be fought with a
coherence not less than its own." How does this absolve him?

If his analysis of the US's power is correct then the two main "anti-war"
parties, the RCP and the WWP, were wrong to put their faith in foreign
Cold War vestiges like the Shining Path and North Korea, respectively.
Neither have much of a chance, while the patient work of Brazil's
Workers Party has paid off. However perhaps I'm being too optimistic
here and Friedmans' golden straightjacket will neutralize Lula. At least
there's a chance.

Peter