[lbo-talk] OMFG ...algorithms over unions

[Carrol Cox]

Doug Henwood writes: Yeah, I know you feel this way, but you could make an
argument from a purely bourgeois POV that they were very stupid. Bush left
the U.S. deep in debt, helped contribute to the worst economic crisis in 80
years, demonstrated to the world the limits of U.S. military power, weakened
the prestige of the country in a purely imperial sense, and made things in
Iraq far worse than the would have been without his war. So, yeah, if I'm a
serious bourgeois, I'd call them stupid.

------------

1. U.S. deep in debt

2. the worst economic crisis in 80 years

3. limits of U.S. military power ("the world" is too vague to count its
ideas as relevant here)

4. Iraq far worse than the would have been without his war

	------

(It would be perfectly satisfactory to respond to all this with a So? And I
may return to that.)

The first two points may be flatly rejected: The debt was and is an
absolutely necessary foundation to legitimize austerity, and of course any
major shift within capitalism involves a crisis of some sort. Sow what! 

Of course there are limits to military power, but there is no indication
that the limits referred to here are at all dangerous to capital: The new
era is an era of Endless War, and the limits revealed are an illusion
generated by false assumptions (illusions) as to what marks a 'successful'
Military operation. What Doug's fourth point is in fact evidence of the
_success_ not the failure of Bush's policy. Iraq is no longer  an
independent state (as it threatened to be under Saddam Hussein). All is
well. What global capitalism cannot tolerate is the existence of stable
independent regimes, whether "left"(Honduras) or (as Saddam's) "right."

Peace and prosperity are not at all essential to capitalism; too much of
either would be a threat.

Carrol

Carrol