the author (Robert Wright) was once accused of "Marxism" and I wondered what in heck the basis for that barb was. I guess it's his hard-core "base determines superstructure" vision. He seems to believe in a linear causation (with no feedback) from "growth of the world market inside nations" to "democracy" which then has linear causation to "peace between nations." Yuk. HRC deserves him.
On 7/18/06, John Gulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gulick sez: I shouldn't take the bait, but the sheer awfulness of mainstream foreign policy-think leaves me no choice. If only I could club this putz over the head with a hardback copy of Neil Smith's The Endgame of Globalization – literally. Not for the sake of his edification – far be it for me to aggrandize my own capabilities – but for my own existential release. Plus the humble folks at Pen-L would be spared the collateral damage of my screed. The bullshit detector began to ring the instant this mediocrity began dropping braindead clichés about the stark differences between the "realists" who endorse a "US first" foreign policy (never, never! NEVER! interrogate the notion of an undifferentiated "national interest" – we're all in this together!) and the "liberals" who selflessly espouse the liberation of humankind (3 million Vietnamese dead at the hands of our best and brightest, killing them with kindness I suppose). Rules #1 and #2 of mainstream foreign policy-think: take the claims of respective US foreign policy doctrines AT FACE VALUE (a grotesque innocence unbefitting an infant, much less a serious scholar-citizen) and represent invidious tactical differences as stark programmatic alternatives. Devine asks: Is this guy going to be HRC's foreign policy advisor? Gulick sez: This is little more than warmed-over 1990's globaloney. Take note: the secret to neutralizing "rogue states" that serve as "terrorist havens" is to enmesh them in "commercial interdependence" with the benign world market, a process which by fiat "lifts all boats" and thus dissolves the social bases of "hating America," in addition to creating an abiding "peace interest" among economic elites and ruling groups everywhere. (Whoops, there's no accounting for World War I breaking out in the wake of historically unparalleled growth in cross-national capital and trade flows… facts never seem to get in the way of playing the broken record for the umpteenth time.) China and India are getting chummier because they both have succumbed to the gospel of capitalist globalization… right. To the extent they are setting aside past disputes it is because they understand the imperative to triangulate or be triangulated against in the struggle to make capitalist globalization work on their own respective terms. To the extent they are not it is because they are rivals for foreign direct investment and world market share (China wants India's producer services niche, India wants China's contract manufacturing niche) in a globalized capitalism where the tendency toward the rising organic composition of K inexorably pits the "emerging countries" in merciless mercantilist competition with one another, lest they be destabilized by the displaced rural masses teeming into their cities. Who is this carpetbagger, the bastard offspring of Tom Friedman? Did I say warmed-over "1990's globaloney"? I meant warmed-over 1950's-1960's modernization theory. Did I say "warmed-over 1950's-1960's modernization theory"? I meant warmed-over 1770's The Wealth of Nations. Talk about academic dishonesty… of near-millennial proportions. The kind of studied idiocy which is a prerequisite to gainful employment as an IR specialist (nearly) anywhere. You'll notice the explicit absence of any mention of post-Washington Consensus Latin America in this pabulum… it's a bit inconvenient when on the basis of lived experience hundreds of millions of voters and tens of millions of land-poor peasant and urban poor street fighters resist the globaloney mantra that subjection to the world market=a "win-win" (gag me with a fucking maggot) for everyone. Of course, he's the sort who'd arrange cooked exit polls and other soft political technologies to ensure that the election of our kind of guy is a fait accompli (Calderon anyone?), even if it brazenly flies in the face of the bourgeois democratic norms he overtly worships (and surely scolds the likes of Putin for disrespecting!). Sometimes transparent procedures take a back seat to desired outcomes when the holy grail of "commercial interdependence" is at stake, ya know? It is particularly amusing that the author takes to task the neo-cons for their dogmatic attachment to articles of faith about the insuperable might and righteousness of the US, and goes on to display an equally religious belief in the virtuosity of universal capitalist globalization. But then again, he's probably a cynical sophist who knows that the Washington Consensus is indeed in large part a Washington con – what else are we to make of someone who makes it seem as if the neo-cons actually subscribe to their own public rationales (the democracy and human rights song and dance) for the Iraq misadventure? Let's be charitable and presume that he understands the Straussian principle of the "benevolent lie" and like the neo-cons, practices it, even if it requires frequently resorting to stale nostrums about the dichotomous vocations of "realists" and "liberals." Now, let me exorcise being exercised by getting some exercise… to the pool! John Gulick Knoxville, TN Morristown, NJ
-- Jim Devine / "You need a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
