Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2006, at 6:55 AM, Angelus Novus wrote:
>
> > Such an alliance is within the realm of possibility,
> > but why this pining for a better imperialist bloc?
>
> Because it's anti-American, of course. Sometimes it seems that
> imperialism - and global hierarchy - aren't the enemy, but only
> Washington is.
Imperialism is an abstraction, not an enemy one can oppose. All progress anywhere depends on weakening u.s. power, so the only intelligent anti-imperialism _in the u.s._ is unflagging opposition to u.s. power, everywhere, on every issue. You are as silly as a german communist in the 1930s protesting that his comrades were anti-german instead of anti-imperialist.
And that silliness accounts for the many times when you have to quietly change a positon. I told you back in the spring of 2003 that 14% opposition in Iraq to the u.s. occupation made that occupation a 100% disaster. With your clinging to nuances you clung to some other meaningless large figure not demanding an immediate end. Then you cover up your silliness by saying that you changed your mind when the facts (i.e. fairly meaningless polls) changed.
Carrol
Carrol
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk