Hi, I'm new to this list but have enjoyed browsing through the archives and reading old discussions.
I think Doug and Max make excellent points about imperialism. This is a strange time to be arguing that imperialism is an irrelevant concept, when it is now being openly championed by a whole wing of the political establishment.
Actually, I think we can say that the new "Bush doctrine" represents a new phase of imperialism, which is in some ways closer to the "classical" version described by Lenin, Bukharin and others than to that of the cold war era. Rather than simply relying on proxy states to secure US control, the 'hawk' wing of the ruling class is pushing for a much direct, interventionist approach-- pre-emptive strikes, counter-proliferation, etc. Increasingly, they are throwing out alot of the old rules of international relations, like reliance on the UN and assesing the risks of new wars. There was a very good Boston Globe article recently where an unnamed administration official was asked about the potential upheaval in the middle east that a new war on Iraq would create; the answer he gave was something like, "well, we're going to stir the pot and see what comes up." My liberal friends say over and over again, "Cheney and Rumsfield are crazy" and I say, yeah, they're crazy, but that craziness has a logic which Lenin and others described brilliantly a long time ago. At bottom Bush's war on terrorism is a bid to accelerate an agenda of imperial control over the resources of the Middle East and the world, to claim an unconditional right to use military force, as well as of course to get their way at home. You don't have to look too hard to hear them say as much.
In the course of the anti-war movement last winter and spring, those of us who argued for anti-imperialist politics were dismissed by many (including on the left) as knee-jerk, simplistic, etc.(I'm in the ISO and we got a ton of these arguments)But I would argue that such politics are the only basis upon which a new opposition to the war drive can be built. People need to understand that the US government cannot bring democracy or justice anywhere in the world. Thirty years ago millions of Americans understood this basic idea: that, as MLK jr put it, the US governmet was not a force for piece but "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." Imperialism is not just a slanderous phrase, it describes the world we live in.
John
--- "Max B. Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> I've been collecting articles of just this type --
> statements of avowed support for imperialism. I've
> got a bunch and will put them up on my web site,
> hopefully
> before the U.S. gets done auctioning off drilling
> rights
> in Iraq. All assistance in this vein gratefully
> accepted.
> I've also got old documents from Mark Twain and the
> Anti-
> Imperialist League. My ambition is to rehabilitate
> the
> word -- take the scare connotations out of it.
>
> mbs
>
>
> " . . . . 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
>
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com