On 2010-08-13, at 10:51 AM, SA wrote:
> Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> That's why I think it is misleading for Mearsheimer-Walt and their supporters to presuppose and to argue, as you do, that the American and Israeli governments are acting against the national interest of both countries. Not only do we not know that for the reasons I've mentioned above, but there is no such thing, IMO, as a "national" interest. That's a fallacy, shared by liberals and social democrats. Call me an unrepentant historical materialist, but I still view the past and present in terms of "class" interests (acknowledging that classes are internally divided, BTW, to head off anticipated criticism)
>
> I agree that "national interest" is a fallacy. But the problem with the concept of "class interest" is that it's usually presented tautologically. The state's current foreign policy is in the "class interest" of capitalists. How do we know that it's in the capitalists' class interest? Because it's currently the state's foreign policy. Etc. This reasoning is circular.
I start with the assumption that the capitalists' general class interest is to secure and advance their power and property against those who would curtail it at home and abroad, and that they effectively control the state which is the instrument for doing so. I evaluate state policies within this context. It's possible to do so while taking into account that the link between state policy and ruling class interest is sometimes more and sometimes less apparent, that the state has a degree of relative autonomy in order to mediate disputes between capitalists and between the classes, and that there will invariably be a wing of the ruling class perceiving state policy to be against its particular or the general class interest. There's nothing circular about this method of analysis, which I credit with having continuously deepened my understanding since I first became acquainted with Marxism as student.
> In talking to others, to make them aware of the destructiveness of the current policy, is it really necessary to persuade them that the policy reflects the wishes of the capitalist class? Why not just limit oneself to what's uncontroversial: that it reflects the wishes of those who support the policy?
I'm not a sectarian, you know. It depends on how the conversation unfolds. I couldn't agree more that you have to start by reaching out to others using their vernacular rather than our own, and pitched to their present liberal-democratic level of consciousness, and and that what counts is whether you get gain agreement that the particular policy of their government is destructive of their interest - and all this short of launching into a controversial and threatening indictment of the system. If the conversation happens to segue into whose interests the government is representing, as it often does in discussion of economic and foreign policy, it's hard to avoid talking about the state and capitalism, nor would I ever want to.