Re: Re: Re: Blowback
Greetings Economists, Gene Coyle writes to Carrol, Carrol, I was talking of blowback, not the overthrow of capitalism. Kenya, Bali, and ... wherever is next seems to me evidence of blowback. Gene Coyle Doyle The point that Carrol made is still the same. You say that the unforeseen consequences for Capitalists is the blowback. And that is stupid since it is obvious to someone who is anti-capitalist that things don't go according to so-called planning for them. You have a cognitive theory of smart and insightful that says if you are smart you will see the truth i.e. blowback and will then not be a Capitalist. That doesn't work as a political strategy. Huge societies can be formed like the former Soviet Union in which the social norm is to reject Capitalist methods, and yet 'stupid' as the U.S. capitalist are they pulled the Soviet Union down. So the cognitive part of your analysis is not working. In fact I would simply say about blowback that it says that what Capitalism claims works doesn't work for ordinary working class people. But any sort of theory that rests upon saying they are stupid because what they say is supposed to work doesn't is not appropriate. Understanding how minds work is both key to a major part of creating a socialist society, and that for the most part terms like stupid are simply folk psychology's of how one might understand ordinary human interchange of information. You elide the point by trying to say Carrol misunderstands you not talking about the overthrow of Capitalism. This is all I have to say about this. In order to address this in a serious vein it can't be you said this I said that, it has to be an attempt to make depth to any point. There is nothing about what you said that refutes Carrol's point at all, but if you can take this up and demonstrate that stupid means something in a serious manner go for it. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blowback
Doyle, I was not intending to refute Carrol. I agreed with what he wrote. My initial remark should have been Bush's policy is fraught with error. And thanks for pointing out my cognitive theory. Gene Coyle Doyle Saylor wrote: Greetings Economists, Gene Coyle writes to Carrol, Carrol, I was talking of blowback, not the overthrow of capitalism. Kenya, Bali, and ... wherever is next seems to me evidence of blowback. Gene Coyle Doyle The point that Carrol made is still the same. You say that the unforeseen consequences for Capitalists is the blowback. And that is stupid since it is obvious to someone who is anti-capitalist that things don't go according to so-called planning for them. You have a cognitive theory of smart and insightful that says if you are smart you will see the truth i.e. blowback and will then not be a Capitalist. That doesn't work as a political strategy. Huge societies can be formed like the former Soviet Union in which the social norm is to reject Capitalist methods, and yet 'stupid' as the U.S. capitalist are they pulled the Soviet Union down. So the cognitive part of your analysis is not working. In fact I would simply say about blowback that it says that what Capitalism claims works doesn't work for ordinary working class people. But any sort of theory that rests upon saying they are stupid because what they say is supposed to work doesn't is not appropriate. Understanding how minds work is both key to a major part of creating a socialist society, and that for the most part terms like stupid are simply folk psychology's of how one might understand ordinary human interchange of information. You elide the point by trying to say Carrol misunderstands you not talking about the overthrow of Capitalism. This is all I have to say about this. In order to address this in a serious vein it can't be you said this I said that, it has to be an attempt to make depth to any point. There is nothing about what you said that refutes Carrol's point at all, but if you can take this up and demonstrate that stupid means something in a serious manner go for it. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blowback
Greetings Economists, Gene Coyle writes, Doyle, I was not intending to refute Carrol. I agreed with what he wrote. My initial remark should have been Bush's policy is fraught with error. And thanks for pointing out my cognitive theory. Doyle: I'm not sure what to say. Your welcome for your response. I think about this area of cognition quite a bit partly because it relates to disability rights so directly. I think it interesting that you responded in the way you did originally. Frankly I just don't know if anyone reads anything I write. So it surprises me when someone actually writes something like you wrote. I know this, from my standpoint, it isn't so much you might now say 'fraught with error', but the intense feeling that surrounds a word like stupid is the real meaning to me. In these email forums most of the writing that catches attention is usually some conflict between two or more people. But so much real life is not about how people disagree, but how people find a common way to do things, and find ways to become friends and comrades. It gives me no pleasure to read you correcting an 'error'. What matters to me is to the heartfelt development of a great left. To feel we can say what we can and be heard in all the variety and energy we have. To find strength in each other. I hope you can read me as trying to build something not tear you down. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Blowback
I have been thinking about the horrendous cost of the U.S. support forIsrael. H. Kissinger in an answer to why so much financial support for Israel replied "it costs less than maintaining the sixth fleet in the Mediterranean" Does anybody believe that Israel would exist except for theNazis? with the benefit of hindsight it is really a wonder why the Arabs exist. and if one adds to that in modern times one needs a state to exist, (I do not adhere to this view) then the Arab failed states would only represent what an ahistorical people the Arabs are. two things are certain if it were not for nazism or European capitalism Israel would not exist and two it is the Arabs that were thrown to the sea and more so, given the balance of forces will continue to be thrown to the sea for some time to come. In effect, the Middle East Holocaust is a continuation of theoriginal one. will the holocaust end? In abook about the life of Jews in 19 century Damascus (well written with actual records) it seems on the whole in that stable division of labour things ran smoothly. in fact in the local culture there wereno pejorative uses of the term jew as there was in europe. it is ironic however, how thejews that were the victims of capital in europe tend to be the gendarme of capital the middle east. someone referred to this as the prison guard mentality "if you are paid by the master you torture on his behalf". By the way Dr Israel the head of the human rights body in israel thinks that this is so becaus! e only 10 to 15 percent in israel lost immediate relatives in the holocaust. and according to some who just came from israel the hate level became strong recently and that is quite worrisome according to her article. although there were peace treaties between jordan egypt and israel trade between these economies is very very small (excluding oil from Sinai). It seems because of the structure and prefereed status of Israeli exports in the west- it is only geographically in middle east but economically in europe. However, once Harry magdoff said to me in correspondence that Israel could even export weapons to the arab regimes so long as it could be politically engineered for it to remain the gendarme. Will it end? I think it has to end in the US first or what has to end is imperialism.I assume all sorts of unimaginable consequences will flow out of theattempt to remake the Middle East. I wonder if anyone in power gives anythought whatsoever to long-term consequences. Indeed a culture of fatalism is developing and gaining momentum. It is often said that Islam hasa better relationship with death than it does with life. The culture of suicide bombers is spreading quickly and the Islamic clergy seem to be cozy with an idea that sort fits neatly in the ethos of arab society. We are already in the long term, as for the longer term we will be all dead.-- Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929Tel. 530-898-5321E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Blowback
At 1:24 PM -0600 12/10/02, Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: If they're so stupid, gang, how come they've managed to run the world all these centuries? I think it's wisest to assume they know what they're doing. It's unwise to underestimate an enemy. They think they know what they are doing, but they don't have all the cards necessary to win once and for all. At 3:52 PM -0600 12/10/02, Carrol Cox wrote: Joan Robninson and others demonstrated fairly conclusively that Luxemburg's technical economics in _The Accumulation of Capital_ were erroneous, but Luxemburg's insight, that capitalism had to expand endlessly or collapse was correct. Those who want to call the Bush administration and its DP supporters stupid need to explain by what alternative strategy u.s. capital can keep maintain u.s. (against EU, China, Japan) control of mideastern oil. The strategy may ruinously fail -- I hope so. But no one has suggested a better one. In fact all the criticism of it that gets published is by marginal left critics who want it to fail, and who would oppose any alternative strategy with the same goals. We are on the lookout for weak links in the chain of capitalism and imperialism, so to speak. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: Blowback
We are on the lookout for weak links in the chain of capitalism and imperialism, so to speak.they are one and the same they are one and the same they are one and the same they are one and the same they are one and the same they are one and the same they are one and the same Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 1:24 PM -0600 12/10/02, Carrol Cox wrote:Doug Henwood wrote: If they're so stupid, gang, how come they've managed to run the world all these centuries?I think it's wisest to assume "they" know what they're doing. It'sunwise to underestimate an enemy."They" think "they" know what they are doing, but they don't have all the cards necessary to win once and for all.At 3:52 PM -0600 12/10/02, Carrol Cox wrote:Joan Robninson and others demonstrated fairly conclusively thatLuxemburg's technical economics in _The Accumulation of Capital_ wereerroneous, but Luxemburg's insight, that capitalism had to expandendlessly or collapse was correct. Those who want to call the Bushadministration and its DP supporters stupid need to explain by whatalternative strategy u.s. capital ! can keep maintain u.s. (against EU,China, Japan) control of mideastern oil. The strategy may ruinously fail-- I hope so. But no one has suggested a better one. In fact all thecriticism of it that gets published is by marginal left critics who wantit to fail, and who would oppose any alternative strategy with the samegoals.We are on the lookout for weak links in the chain of capitalism and imperialism, so to speak.-- Yoshie* Calendar of Events in Columbus: * Anti-War Activist Resources: * Student International Forum: * Committee for Justice in Palestine: Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: Re: Blowback
Greetings Economists, Carrol Cox writes, Viewed abstractly, from outside history, their strategy has been stupid for 500 years, and Massive retaliation for everything describes the crushing of rebellions in the english countryside in the 16th century, the long massacre of the 18th century described by Linebaugh, the incredibly expensive conquest and repression of India over several centuries, the long blood repression in England in the early 19th century culminating in the suppression of the Chartists, Leopold, u.s. slavery, on and on and on. It was all incredibly irrational, destructive, and horrrible -- and it worked. Doyle I think this point is excellent. I would add that saying the opposition is stupid is a pretty empty point that usually reflects how the speaker or writer feels about the capitalist. In disability rights terms of course there is a parallel to that when one calls whomever crazy, etc. That is how we tend to see the structure of society as society appears to us in daily life. Stupid people cause trouble. Crazy people cause trouble. The key element is how we feel. Human emotion is a labor process which has a definite outcome. We feel a certain way and we act on those feelings. In historical terms managing those feelings has evolved with the structure of societies we created. So for good example because everyone is familiar with the process we practice rational thinking to exclude the 'irrationality' of emotions. Taking empty pejoratives out of every day speech in order to recognize the political impact of their usage is common to Christian sects that admonish their membership to not take God's name in vain, goddamn. Regulating emotion structure is also a pacifist tactic as in non-violence. Turn the cheek and love your enemy. That such tactics do work in some emotions of some people allows us to at least understand that certain kinds of non-verbal forms of communication of brainwork do things we can't quite rationalize in the classic enlightenment terms. The big issue in organizing people is how to manage the whole group's emotional connectivity to the group. It is not hard to understand that we belong to a group because we feel we do, not because we can rationalize belonging (speak the words). We can though say that in the case of empty phrases like 'stupid', that the solution is to make a group process that as a whole everyone feels subject to and can employ in their lives comfortably. It is not enough to say that the label 'stupid' does not apply to the capitalist. One must in some profound sense say why the system doesn't work for working class people. And they 'feel' like a part of that rationalization of the brainwork we call feeling. That when in pain the working class says 'stupid' capitalists, and puts into the empty place holder of intense feelings some thing appropriate to working class power and systemic thinking. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Blowback
soula avramidis wrote: they are one and the same Yes, in the way I and my skin or I and my skeleton are both the same. One might say that imperialism is the mode of existence of capitalism. However one phrases the identity, it is still necessary to see that conceptually capitalism and imperialism may and must be separated for analysis. One important reason for this is tactical. It is possible to organize larges numbers of people against imperialism who do _not_ see the two as the same, and who could not, to begin with, be mobilized under the slogan of anti-capitalism. Carrol
Weak Links? Re: Blowback
Title: Weak Links? Re: Blowback At 1:12 AM -0800 12/11/02, soula avramidis wrote: We are on the lookout for weak links in the chain of capitalism and imperialism, so to speak. they are one and the same By they you are referring to capitalism and imperialism, right? If so, I agree; perhaps, the word and was misleading, but I used the chain in the singular form. I was thinking of the fact that the power elite don't everywhere have the same quality and quantity of, and more importantly command over the loyalty of, armed forces; the same economic conditions; the same degree of ideological hegemony; etc. * The imperialist front was broken at its weakest link, Czarist Russia. This is Lenin's splendid formula. Its meaning is that Russia was the most backward and economically weakest of all the imperialist states. That is precisely why her ruling classes were the first to collapse as they had loaded an unbearable burden on the insufficient productive forces of the country. Uneven, sporadic development thus compelled the proletariat of the most backward imperialist country to be the first to seize power. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1928-3rd/ti03.htm * That was then. Where are weak links today, and where is the weakest link -- within each nation and among nations? -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Re: Re: Re: Blowback
At 02:06 PM 12/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: joanna bujes wrote: I assume all sorts of unimaginable consequences will flow out of the attempt to remake the Middle East. I wonder if anyone in power gives any thought whatsoever to long-term consequences. Nah. They're too stupid and too arrogant. If they're so stupid, gang, how come they've managed to run the world all these centuries? Doug ...while killing a million here, a million there. They haven't been running the world; the workers have been running the worldinsofar as making it run. Joannna
Re: Re: Blowback
Carrol, I was talking of blowback, not the overthrow of capitalism. Kenya, Bali, and ... wherever is next seems to me evidence of blowback. Gene Coyle Carrol Cox wrote: Eugene Coyle wrote: I say stupid in the following sense: The US has adopted the same strategy as has Israel -- massive retaliation for everything. It is clear that Israel's strategy cannot bring it peace. Nor can the US. There is already only limited geography where US tourists can freely venture, and that geography is going to shrink. And of course it will blowback to this continent. And the stupid response is even more massive retaliation -- never mind who or what the target. And then, ... , followed by more massive retaliation. Fortress America is a stupid strategy, never mind anything else to say about it. Viewed abstractly, from outside history, their strategy has been stupid for 500 years, and Massive retaliation for everything describes the crushing of rebellions in the english countryside in the 16th century, the long massacre of the 18th century described by Linebaugh, the incredibly expensive conquest and repression of India over several centuries, the long blood repression in England in the early 19th century culminating in the suppression of the Chartists, Leopold, u.s. slavery, on and on and on. It was all incredibly irrational, destructive, and horrrible -- and it worked. Joan Robninson and others demonstrated fairly conclusively that Luxemburg's technical economics in _The Accumulation of Capital_ were erroneous, but Luxemburg's insight, that capitalism had to expand endlessly or collapse was correct. Those who want to call the Bush administration and its DP supporters stupid need to explain by what alternative strategy u.s. capital can keep maintain u.s. (against EU, China, Japan) control of mideastern oil. The strategy may ruinously fail -- I hope so. But no one has suggested a better one. In fact all the criticism of it that gets published is by marginal left critics who want it to fail, and who would oppose any alternative strategy with the same goals. There was a similar fatal fall in the hippy critique of the Vietnam War as expressed in the slogan, Give peace a chance -- which assumed shared goals but alternative strategies. As it turned out, peace did achieve the same original goal, the immiseration of the Vietnamese people, but only after the tremendous destructiveness of many years of warfare. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Blowback
Eugene Coyle wrote: Carrol, I was talking of blowback, not the overthrow of capitalism. Kenya, Bali, and ... wherever is next seems to me evidence of blowback. Gene Coyle Yeah -- I see. I'm thinking out loud in what follows. That makes my response a bit skewed, or irrelevant to your point. But I think it can still stand as a general argument. Note that at the end I speak of _intra-imperialist_ rivalry, and perhaps even at some point war. To cite Luxemburg again, the blowback can take the form either of her barbarism or her socialism. That could be a more complicated blowback. As I argued here (and as others have argued here and elsewhere), the U.S. (and the ruling class seems pretty unified on this) is using the challenge posed by Al-Q as a pretext for firming up _military_ control of mideastern oil. And from there point of view, what difference does Kenya, Bali, another u.s. warship or two, a London hotel. Ultimately, the u.s. capitalist class cares no more for westerners than for Palestinians or Iraqi. The Blowback affects not the u.s. (as distinct of us, the people of the u.s.) but merely people. Bin Laden in that recent statement argued that the people of the U.S. were just as responsible as the state. That's vicious nonsense -- but nevertheless it is _us_ not the state that he can attack. And when he does that, it gives the state more room for maneuver. So I guess I still want to say they aren't stupid. Albright's statement that it was worth it (however we define that it) means that she thinks it perfectly acceptable that the rest of us suffer from blowback. She won't -- she hopes. They need to keep control of oil. (Control: 'they' don't need it themselves.) There is _no_ abstractly intelligent way to do that. Just as there is no abstractly intelligent way for Israel to maintain itself as a pure western enclave lording it over the Palestinians. Assume they _know_ that there will be blowback -- but simply think (perhaps correctly form the perspective of u.s. imperialism, that is u.s. capitalism) that there is no alternative. I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er. Macbeth III.4. 135-37 Carrol
Re: Weak Links? Re: Blowback
my mistake i did not see the word weak when reading off screen. in fact when i saw the eye doctor two days ago he says there is nothing he can do about it. Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 1:12 AM -0800 12/11/02, soula avramidis wrote: We are on the lookout for weak links in the chain of capitalism and imperialism, so to speak. they are one and the same By "they" you are referring to "capitalism and imperialism," right? If so, I agree; perhaps, the word "and" was misleading, but I used "the chain" in the singular form. I was thinking of the fact that the power elite don't everywhere have the same quality and quantity of, and more importantly command over the loyalty of, armed forces; the same economic conditions; the same degree of ideological hegemony; etc. * "The imperialist front was broken at its weakest link, Czarist Russia." This is Lenin's splendid formula. Its meaning is that Russia was the most backward and economically weakest of all the imperialist states. That is precisely why her ruling classes were the first to collapse as they had loaded an unbearable burden on the insufficient productive forces of the country. Uneven, sporadic development thus compelled the proletariat of the most backward imperialist country to be the first to seize power. http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1928-3rd/ti03.htm * That was then. Where are weak links today, and where is the weakest link -- within each nation and among nations? -- Yoshie* Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html* Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html* Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/* Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/my mistakeDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
RE: Blowback
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32956] Blowback Michael Perelman: I have been thinking about the horrendous cost of the U.S. support for Israel. Does anybody believe that Israel would exist except for the Nazis? In effect, the Middle East Holocaust is a continuation of the original one. I don't like the word Holocaust as it's been applied. It's best to avoid it, since it's used as part of pro-Israel propaganda. Better is Isaac Deutscher's explanation of the connection between the Nazis and Israel: it's as if someone had jumped out of a burning building -- and had fallen and squashed his neighbor (the Palestinians). JD
Re: Blowback
Any public mention of consequences is against the Patriot Act. Besides the heartlessness of the government, these people are stupid. And the conseaquences will fall hardest on the weakest of us, but on the rest of us as well. Gene Coyle Michael Perelman wrote: I have been thinking about the horrendous cost of the U.S. support for Israel. Does anybody believe that Israel would exist except for the Nazis? In effect, the Middle East Holocaust is a continuation of the original one. I assume all sorts of unimaginable consequences will flow out of the attempt to remake the Middle East. I wonder if anyone in power gives any thought whatsoever to long-term consequences.
Re: Blowback
At 10:39 AM 12/10/2002 -0800, you wrote: I have been thinking about the horrendous cost of the U.S. support for Israel. Does anybody believe that Israel would exist except for the Nazis? In effect, the Middle East Holocaust is a continuation of the original one. I forgot who it was who said that Israel was Hitler's last wish. At any rate, the only political party (and flag) that were legal in pre-war Germany was the Zionist party and flag. Do I believe that Israel would exist except for the Nazis? Hard to say. The Zionists pictured themselves as the natural representatives of western civ in the Middle East long before Hitler. Bible in one hand; gun in the other: it's an old story. Just another civilizing mission for those middle eastern sand-niggers. They thought it would be a win-win situation for both the European powers and for the jews. That scenario is being played out right now...except the alliance is with the U.S. I assume all sorts of unimaginable consequences will flow out of the attempt to remake the Middle East. I wonder if anyone in power gives any thought whatsoever to long-term consequences. Nah. They're too stupid and too arrogant. Joanna
Re: RE: Blowback
Better is Isaac Deutscher's explanation of the connection between the Nazis and Israel: it's as if someone had jumped out of a burning building -- and had fallen and squashed his neighbor (the Palestinians). Say what? Joanna
Re: RE: Blowback
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't like the word Holocaust as it's been applied. It's best to avoid it, since it's used as part of pro-Israel propaganda. Better is Isaac Deutscher's explanation of the connection between the Nazis and Israel: it's as if someone had jumped out of a burning building -- and had fallen and squashed his neighbor (the Palestinians). Still better would be: it's as if someone had jumped out of a burning building, had fallen and squashed his neighbor (the Palestinians), and on arising had then jumped up and down on that neighbor. Carl _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Re: Blowback
joanna bujes wrote: I assume all sorts of unimaginable consequences will flow out of the attempt to remake the Middle East. I wonder if anyone in power gives any thought whatsoever to long-term consequences. Nah. They're too stupid and too arrogant. If they're so stupid, gang, how come they've managed to run the world all these centuries? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Blowback
Doug Henwood wrote: If they're so stupid, gang, how come they've managed to run the world all these centuries? I think it's wisest to assume they know what they're doing. It's unwise to underestimate an enemy. But success in running the world is in itself no evidence for anything. As far as I can tell, capitalism runs just as well for capitalism pretty much regardless of the capacities of the people running things at any one time. (Or the capacities of those opposing it for that matter.) If (as I would think) capitalism is an inherently self-destructive AND self-repairing system, the appearance of stupidity or incompetence would simply be an epiphemenon of one aspect of capitalism, while the appearance of competence would simply be an epiphenmenon of another aspect. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Blowback
I say stupid in the following sense: The US has adopted the same strategy as has Israel -- massive retaliation for everything. It is clear that Israel's strategy cannot bring it peace. Nor can the US. There is already only limited geography where US tourists can freely venture, and that geography is going to shrink. And of course it will blowback to this continent. And the stupid response is even more massive retaliation -- never mind who or what the target. And then, ... , followed by more massive retaliation. Fortress America is a stupid strategy, never mind anything else to say about it. Doug Henwood wrote: joanna bujes wrote: I assume all sorts of unimaginable consequences will flow out of the attempt to remake the Middle East. I wonder if anyone in power gives any thought whatsoever to long-term consequences. Nah. They're too stupid and too arrogant. If they're so stupid, gang, how come they've managed to run the world all these centuries? Doug
Re: Re: Blowback
- Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any public mention of consequences is against the Patriot Act. Besides the heartlessness of the government, these people are stupid. And the conseaquences will fall hardest on the weakest of us, but on the rest of us as well. Gene Coyle They're not stupid, they're acting in a manner consistent with the way their pet theorists say politicians act. Public Choice theory and Realist IR theory [with all their flaws] have performed brilliantly in both descriptive/prescriptive functions for the Repugs. That's why Waltz and his gang took out a full page piece in the NYT, they fear the consequences of the Bushies acting in a manner consistent with the descriptions of the Waltzian paradigm; the amoralism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ian
Re: Blowback
Eugene Coyle wrote: I say stupid in the following sense: The US has adopted the same strategy as has Israel -- massive retaliation for everything. It is clear that Israel's strategy cannot bring it peace. Nor can the US. There is already only limited geography where US tourists can freely venture, and that geography is going to shrink. And of course it will blowback to this continent. And the stupid response is even more massive retaliation -- never mind who or what the target. And then, ... , followed by more massive retaliation. Fortress America is a stupid strategy, never mind anything else to say about it. Viewed abstractly, from outside history, their strategy has been stupid for 500 years, and Massive retaliation for everything describes the crushing of rebellions in the english countryside in the 16th century, the long massacre of the 18th century described by Linebaugh, the incredibly expensive conquest and repression of India over several centuries, the long blood repression in England in the early 19th century culminating in the suppression of the Chartists, Leopold, u.s. slavery, on and on and on. It was all incredibly irrational, destructive, and horrrible -- and it worked. Joan Robninson and others demonstrated fairly conclusively that Luxemburg's technical economics in _The Accumulation of Capital_ were erroneous, but Luxemburg's insight, that capitalism had to expand endlessly or collapse was correct. Those who want to call the Bush administration and its DP supporters stupid need to explain by what alternative strategy u.s. capital can keep maintain u.s. (against EU, China, Japan) control of mideastern oil. The strategy may ruinously fail -- I hope so. But no one has suggested a better one. In fact all the criticism of it that gets published is by marginal left critics who want it to fail, and who would oppose any alternative strategy with the same goals. There was a similar fatal fall in the hippy critique of the Vietnam War as expressed in the slogan, Give peace a chance -- which assumed shared goals but alternative strategies. As it turned out, peace did achieve the same original goal, the immiseration of the Vietnamese people, but only after the tremendous destructiveness of many years of warfare. Carrol
