Nathan and Imperialsim

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 24 14:09:30 PDT 2002


Nathan says that term "imperialism" is an analysis-stopper that ought to be abandoned as outmoded; it was coined for a different world where it was the express goal, but now it's not the express goal, and so its applicability has be (and it's clear he thinks cannot be) justified to win over liberals and left-liberals who will otherwise support the war. I'm disappointed. No doubt the term (and our analysis) has be be justified, but we are reaching a point where it could not be clearer that imperialism of something like the classic Leninist form is precisely the issue--maybe not the capital export part, but in terms of global competition for control of raw materials. And in fact the pro-war crowd is using terms like "empire" without a blush. The humanitarian rhetoric of the Clinton administration has been abandoned. Bush talks a combination of high moralism (axis of evil, etc.) and unblinkered and unvarnished national interest: hence the first strike policy, the Bush doctrine (no one will ever be permitted to acquire the capability to compete militarily with the US), etc. What more do you want, Nathan? I'm more comfortable talking about US imperialism than I have ever been. What do you think is going on, that Bush really objects to S.H. because he's a wicked dictator? jks

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list