Nathan and Imperialsim

[Justin Schwartz]

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