> 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.
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?
SA
************************************************ Because such a formulation aids the continuing leftist political amnesia about the class nature of the State and the resultant consciousness leads into support for the good States vs. opposition to the bad States iow, nationalism. Why not say that it reflects the wishes of the dominant faction of the ruling, capitalist class?
Mike B) *********************************************************************** http://wobblytimes.blogspot.com/