"Those who wish to label the u.s. ruling class and its primary agents in the great media, the DP, and the RP "stupid" ...  must show not only that the Iraq invasion has _no_ chance of culminating with troops permanently stationed there but that _other_ strategies to the same end were available and more feasible. You can't do it." Carrol <div>On 4/11/06, Carrol Cox <<a href="mailto:cbcox@ilstu.edu"> cbcox@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Doug Henwood wrote: > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > >U.S. imperialism _must_ establish and maintain military bases in the > >mideast. > > Who makes decisions for this thing, U.S. imperialism? A robot? Consult any of the analysts of imperialism. Luxemburg. Lenin. Trotsky. Wood. Others. I'm not going to try to rewrite any of them. </blockquote><div> Doug and Carol, Unlike Carol, I don't believe that one can underestimate the "stupidity" of the ruling class.  At least not at a certain stage of its development.  Sartre once said that "Stupidity is a form of oppression."  It is also sufficient to say that "Willed ignorance of the world of the oppressed is the stupidity of the oppressors."  But more specifically Carol fails to distinguish, the difference between the ruling class as a wole and any specific regime, that happens to be in power at any given time.  I think reading Marx's "18th Brumaire" is enough of an illustration here.  The Bush Regime is not the ruling class as a whole. Essentially, since World War II and the expansion of the "imperial presidency," the U.S. goes through an 18th Brumaire every four to eight years.  Essentially the imperial presidency is a form of institutionalized Bonapartism  The meaning of this for the rulers and owners of our society is a matter of continuous negotiation and the scandals and delegitimation of Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Regan, & Clinton are only incidents of the negotiations of elected Bonapartsm with the rulers and owners of society.  So let me put  it simply.  The Bush Regime is incompetent and stupid.  But their incompetence and stupidity reflect broad sectors of the ruling class and reflect the relations of power in our society that allow for such incompetence and stupidity.  Further, the general goals of the Bush Regime are not different from the ruling class as a whole, and those goals are "rational" and well thought out.  When we use such terms as "U.S. imperialism" or "the ruling class" it is generally a black box term.  The question is what is the "wiring" in the box. The actual contents of the box of social relations we call "U.S. imperialism" or "the ruling class" will vary from place to place, time to time, and society to society.  I know you know this.  Perhaps Doug, you asked your question because you were irked that Carol was not specific or seemed over simplistic. Along with Carol's above list (Luxemburg. Lenin. Trotsky. Wood) I would add especially, William Appleman Williams, Wallerstein, Chomsky, and others.  But I don't think that Carol really addresses your specific question.  "U.S. imperialism" must maintain military bases in the Mideast.  I think this is actually an expression of a geopolitical goal and this goal is generally a consensuses among the foreign policy elite and those who finance both the right-wing and 'liberal' think tanks.  I think there is plenty of evidence of this and much of it has been presented by Chomsky among others.  The specific debate is the relation between maintaining U.S. imperial dominance and the decision to go to war in Iraq.  One reason,  for going to war in Iraq would be to establish secure military bases in the region.  This seems to be a goal of all sectors of the rulers and owners of U.S. society and government.  But many foreign policy analysts simply opposed the Iraq war, because of some of the predictable consequences that are now playing out before our eyes.  I also think that most of us underestimated the absolute incompetence, lack of planning, and general "stupidity" of the Bush Regime.  The incompetence is both shocking and dangerous.  Dangerous because we are the most violent and powerful country in the world.  And now we are a wounded predator and a wounded predator is liable to lash out without much reason, thus using nuclear weapons on Iran, I think is a real threat.  But now that we know we have underestimated the stupidity of the Bush Regime, we should not underestimate the social value of such stupidity.  The "stupidity" of the Bush Regime is goal oriented.  It seems to me that the Bush sector of the Ruling Class, wants to prove that the only kind of international social relations that matter are those that are based on crude coercion and military power.  They believe that since the U.S. is the most violent nation in the world and is potentially a nation that can destroy the whole world, and on the other hand we are "diplomatically" weak, that the U.S. should play to its strengths, and than includes using military force when ever possible and nuclear weapons if feasible.  Jerry </div></div> -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture</a> Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/">http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/</a>