Ian Murray wrote:
>
>
> I can't write/speak for MH, but the US is not imperialist either; that's
> reifying networks/classes that contingently capture Gov. institutions to
> advance their agenda and foist the costs on those who are insufficiently
> organized to prevent them from carrying through on their strategies.
We have here an either/or, which can be (provisionally) resolved in coalitions but cannot be resolved in theory (i.e. in understanding of the fundamental forces which generate human relations in the early 21st century). The fundamental isue cannot be usefully debated on maillists; all we can do is clarify the contending positions, and then explore the various ways in which the difference can be (provisionally) resolved in coalitions.
1. Imperialism is a policy.
2. Imperialism is the mode of existence of capitalism.
---
My position is No. 2. Ian's No. 1.
The basis for coalition politics combining those who hold these opposite positions is that up to a point the behavior of a given nation remains the same regardless of whether (1) or (2) describes the causes of that behavior.
That is, there is no fundamental barrier to a coalition against u.s. imperialist policy even i one element of the coalition assumes that the u.s. cannot not be imperialist and a second element assumes that the u.s. is merely contingently under the control of a particular network of interests pursuing an imperialist policy. While (from my position) the U.S. will continue to pursue an imperialist strategy so long as it remains a capitalist society (just as I will eating as long as I remain alive), particular manifestations of that mode of existence can be combatted (just as I could be prevented from eating a given category of foods).
I'm _not_ debating this question in this post; I'm merely trying to clarify what the positions are.
Carrol