parthasarathy kalalesrinivasaranga wrote:
>
> There is a confusion. Anti US is actaully anti US establishment in
> control of State. People who are anti US are not not anti US people.
> They pity the good democratic people of US that they do not know know
> how to bring into power a goverment whihc is really democratic andf
> peaceloving.
Yes, of course. You may notice that I deliberately avoided using Doug's fog-producing term, "anti-american." That term has no content. I use "U.S." to mean the imperialist power of the u.s. as embodied in its ruling institutions. There is no convenient single term, and attempts at something more descriptive always runs aground on the lack of agreement over how class power is exercised in the u.s.
So, with the qualifications that parthasarathy kalalesrinivasaranga suggests here, the point remains that the _material content_ of the phrase "anti-imperialism" is opposition to the power in the world of the u.s. state and the interests that state represents. Failure to grasp this results only in endless empiricist fog, freezing both theoretical understanding and political action.
Carrol