Greetings Economists, Soula Avramidis writes, wouldn't it be better if all the masks are dropped and an all out war takes place instaed of this painful gestation period, espaecially, that pathetic european social democracy that pushes an argument of ultra imperialism.
Doyle The U.S. has made itself clear for example through threats to Iraq that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons. The world as a whole is organized around nation states. Your note takes the tack that SA, that if that 80% of humanity called the third world lets air altogether at once they will necessarily shift things in their favour Doyle, which says 80% of humanity would do something together presupposes an international form of cooperation far from being evident and practical at this moment. The primary conglomeration somewhat independent of the U.S. is the European Union which possibly together could stand up to the U.S. power in the military arena if they had some time to build up their forces. Secondarily, China has the unified resources in population and other ways to some day possibly have the power to stand up to the U.S. The rest of the world has large numbers of people with considerable difficulties getting together. For example language barriers and religious barriers. What do you think people will do? They are used to a certain way of life. They (for the most part) haven't got a clue about how to make contact with the rest of humanity to make union against the U.S. Further if Iraq uses biological weapons against Israel in the conflict that the U.S. is seemingly forcing upon it, the U.S. and it's ally, Israel, will use nuclear weapons against Iraq. Nuclear weapons (by themselves) will scare the global community into submission. Some countries like Pakistan have nukes, but no means to use them against the U.S. The U.S. can easily destroy every last city in Pakistan and poison the land forever. That Roman peace works quite well in empires was established 2000 years ago. 80% of humanity wants to live and get along peacefully not die in futile conflicts against an unknown or unknowable enemy on the other side of the globe. They only stand up when their way of life is threatened by capitalist development in their land in their homes. Hence Iran revolted via religious means when left wing alternatives were crushed and made too weak to respond to capitalist systemic workings. The U.S. specializes in the destruction of infrastructure of nations when it attacks. Destroy water supplies, transportation, distribution of supplies. A population is quickly reduced to famine. That doesn't require nuclear weapons. That is the standard strategy of war. The world power elites are tied into the global system. More likely to happen is that someday the big capitalist decide to fight over resources like oil and in that turmoil the 'international' working class gets stirred up enough to form large scale groupings something like those that arose in Russian during their revolution, or China during theirs. Religion is far less likely to provide revolutionary change beyond the border of a nation that has for the most part a single religion population. In any case the general problem of standing up to the U.S. by a religion is more or less the same issue as facing the working class, and the particular religion would have to solve the same set of problems as the working class in terms of global unity. Since the religious aren't materialists they are vulnerable to science which the U.S. well knows since it sponsors an immense scientific establishment to make war weapons with despite the Christian Fundamentalist of the U.S. Republican party. Etc Etc Etc Etc ad nauseum. thanks, Doyle Saylor
