Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Brad DeLong wrote: I think the U.S. sanctions policy on Iraq is mistaken and counterproductive. But I don't think Clinton is morally culpable for the fact that the Iraqi government prefers not to spend its foreign exchange on pharmaceuticals and nutrition but to husband it for... other purposes. Brad, Albright said that the sanctions would last as long as Saddam remained in power. Saddam cannot buy water purification inputs which are much more important than drugs. Yes, Clinton is responsible. As I said, I think U.S. policy toward Iraq is a *big* mistake. But that does not mean that you should ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein wishes to use his foreign exchange for other purposes than public health. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
But Brad, he is forbidden to use the money for public health. Brad DeLong wrote: I think the U.S. sanctions policy on Iraq is mistaken and counterproductive. But I don't think Clinton is morally culpable for the fact that the Iraqi government prefers not to spend its foreign exchange on pharmaceuticals and nutrition but to husband it for... other purposes. Brad, Albright said that the sanctions would last as long as Saddam remained in power. Saddam cannot buy water purification inputs which are much more important than drugs. Yes, Clinton is responsible. As I said, I think U.S. policy toward Iraq is a *big* mistake. But that does not mean that you should ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein wishes to use his foreign exchange for other purposes than public health. Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Brad, Albright said that the sanctions would last as long as Saddam remained in power. Saddam cannot buy water purification inputs which are much more important than drugs. Yes, Clinton is responsible. As I said, I think U.S. policy toward Iraq is a *big* mistake. But that does not mean that you should ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein wishes to use his foreign exchange for other purposes than public health. Of course, Saddam doesn't care a bit about our opinions. The US power elite doesn't either, but they _should_ care. BTW, I don't think anyone on pen-l ever said that Saddam was a "good guy." Rather, he seems like the type that the US usually allies with. Hey, the US _was_ allied with him for quite awhile! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Public Health the IMF (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
But Brad, he is forbidden to use the money for public health. Brad DeLong wrote: I think the U.S. sanctions policy on Iraq is mistaken and counterproductive. But I don't think Clinton is morally culpable for the fact that the Iraqi government prefers not to spend its foreign exchange on pharmaceuticals and nutrition but to husband it for... other purposes. Brad, Albright said that the sanctions would last as long as Saddam remained in power. Saddam cannot buy water purification inputs which are much more important than drugs. Yes, Clinton is responsible. As I said, I think U.S. policy toward Iraq is a *big* mistake. But that does not mean that you should ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein wishes to use his foreign exchange for other purposes than public health. Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman And more generally speaking, all governments under the tutelage of the IMF have had to cut expenditures on public health, education, etc. * Unfortunately, it is not apparent that the imposition of SAPs proved effective in stabilizing economies and improving the lives of the poor. The amount of debt owed by countries to their creditors rose from $616 billion in 1980 to roughly $2.2 trillion at the end of 1997. "Structural adjustment did not reduce debts, cut poverty, nor return countries to the path of growth" (ibid.). To this day, creditor governments have insisted on compliance with IMF/WB economic adjustment programs as a condition for further aid and debt relief from other donors (Oxfam 1999). While generally less that 20 per cent of international debt is owed specifically to the IMF, this "gatekeeper" role between donors and borrowing countries has elevated significantly the power of the IMF in international financial negotiations. On the other hand, SAPs did succeed in returning borrowed dollars to wealthy nations of the north. Between 1983 and 1989, poor countries paid $242 billion more to creditors than they received in new loans; "the net transfer of resources from developed to developing countries changed from a positive flow of nearly $43 billion in 1981 to a negative flow of $33 billion in 1988" (World Bank Global Development Finance 1998 in Kim et.al. 2000). In the IMF's own evaluation of the "enhanced structural adjustment facility", it found that in sub-Saharan Africa average income growth per person fell by 0.5 percent a year during the first half of the 1990s (Oxfam 1999). In addition, on average only approximately half of the targeted reduction in national budget deficits was achieved, progress in reducing inflation was limited and savings rates (which determine domestic capacity for investment and future growth) were unchanged. "By any standards, this is poor performance. Measured against sub-Saharan Africa's needs, it represents a disaster" (ibid.). SAPs built an overhang of debt payments that cripples the capacity of southern governments to invest in economic and social growth. The human costs of economic stagnation and neglect of real development are staggering, but this seems to have little impact on the way the international financial institutions conduct their business. The outgoing Chief Economist of the IMF, Michael Mussa, has stated that "Our programmes are like medicine. Some of the medicine has harmful side-effects, and there are real questions about what the dosage ought to be. The best that can be hoped for is that we are prescribing more or less the right medicine in more or less the right dosage" (in Oxfam 1999). If this were a situation of individual medical treatment, the IMF could be held liable for malpractice. However, because governments of the south have largely been excluded from substantive policy-making and public participation has been ignored until late, macroeconomic adjustment policies have continued to ravage public expenditures for health and development with impunity. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/HUpapers/gender/b angser.html * The dictatorship of the ruling class -- one dollar, one vote! -- has pushed the poor into perpetual debt servitude, which, according to Michael Mussa, is "more or less the right medicine in more or less the right dosage" (a suggestive metaphor here). Consequences for public health have been disastrous. And the same dictatorship prefers enforcing intellectual property rights to providing cheap drugs to poor nations in the interest of public health. Yoshie
Re: Thatcher and nationalism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/08/00 10:59AM At 09:35 AM 09/08/2000 +0300, you wrote: Brad de Long wrote: Nationalist militarism is truly a powerful and insidious poison. Michael Keaney leaves out the apparent punch-line in his response to the above: Margaret Thatcher also suffered from the disease of "nationalist militarism," in an equally powerful and insidious way. The same thing can be said for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Gore, and Bush2, except that their militaristic nationalism is cloaked in universalistic rhetoric. CB: Actually, this group is international militarists ( militaristic transnationalists/globalists) . International militarism is a critical ingredient of imperialism.
[ Thatcher and nationalism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/15/00 12:47PM Brad, Albright said that the sanctions would last as long as Saddam remained in power. Saddam cannot buy water purification inputs which are much more important than drugs. Yes, Clinton is responsible. As I said, I think U.S. policy toward Iraq is a *big* mistake. But that does not mean that you should ignore the fact that Saddam Hussein wishes to use his foreign exchange for other purposes than public health. Of course, Saddam doesn't care a bit about our opinions. The US power elite doesn't either, but they _should_ care. BTW, I don't think anyone on pen-l ever said that Saddam was a "good guy." Rather, he seems like the type that the US usually allies with. Hey, the US _was_ allied with him for quite awhile! ((( CB: Hey, maybe he had a really cool economic policy back then.
Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
I appreciate Brad's response here, but I do not hear him calling Clinton a war criminal, for the deaths of say, .5 mill. Iraqi kids. But is it not equally our business what the US does to bomb, kill and maim civilians and children in Columbia, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. Yep. I think the U.S. sanctions policy on Iraq is mistaken and counterproductive. But I don't think Clinton is morally culpable for the fact that the Iraqi government prefers not to spend its foreign exchange on pharmaceuticals and nutrition but to husband it for... other purposes. I do not hear you taking note of the fact that Saddam Hussein has launched wars of aggression on two of its neighbors. Nor do I hear you denouncing the butchers of Srebnitca... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Brad DeLong wrote: I think the U.S. sanctions policy on Iraq is mistaken and counterproductive. But I don't think Clinton is morally culpable for the fact that the Iraqi government prefers not to spend its foreign exchange on pharmaceuticals and nutrition but to husband it for... other purposes. Brad, Albright said that the sanctions would last as long as Saddam remained in power. Saddam cannot buy water purification inputs which are much more important than drugs. Yes, Clinton is responsible. Let's not debate this, though. Just leave it that you and I disagree. I do not have much love for Saddam or for any of the three governments that lead to the Yugoslavian tragedy. I don't see Milosovich as any worse in terms of human rights than the other 2, although his anti-market policies were better. I do not hear you taking note of the fact that Saddam Hussein has launched wars of aggression on two of its neighbors. Nor do I hear you denouncing the butchers of Srebnitca... Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Thatcher and nationalism
Is Brad a resident sparing partner ? CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/11/00 02:55PM I agree with everything the Doug says here. I used the word "provocative" to weasel out of saying something more precise. Doug wrote That seems a bit excessive. I was interested that Michael used the word "provocative" as a pejorative the other day; what's wrong with a little provocation now and then? Calling something "nutso" in the context of a substantive post is different from a screenful of personal abuse. It's useful to have Brad around to keep the rest of us on our toes; if we can't have a conversation with a bourgeois social democrat, we'll really end up talking only to ourselves. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Well this might be nice if nations intervened in other countries when bad things are done and were able to stop the bad things happenings. Often they cannot. Somalia and Rwanda are good examples. In practice however this practice would turn out to be the white man's burden, or the Monroe doctrine, or intervention for selfish interests but presented to the masses as a morality play with the US or whomever being the good guys against the bad guys. Good poetry doesn't necessarily equal good foreign policy. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Brad De Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11:31 PM Subject: [PEN-L:1847] Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism You do not explain why it is "nutso" to consider that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people. But isn't it common among certain types of pragmatist and "realists" to claim that foreign policy ought to be based upon advancing national interest? On this view, hardly nutso, what dictators do to their own people would be a nation's business only if it impacted significantly on national interests... No man is an island, entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, As well as if a promontory were, As well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; i It tolls for thee
Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/13/00 12:52AM As Doug said, you have a lot to offer the list, but sometimes you get on your high horse and seem to behave rather dogmatically. Let's look at the record: "(The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all)." I think that it is worthwhile to call this *nutso*. You think that calling it nutso is "dogmatic." I want to strongly assert that we are all one another's business: humans are social beings, after all. You think that such assertions are... impolite. I think that this is really weird. CB: Brad is playing dumb some here. He knows that the U.S. has often intervened in other countries in the name of international human rights principles, when their true motives were not to uphold international human rights standards. As he is an affiliate of the U.S. government, it is not nutso to suspect Brad of ulterior imperialist motives in his claim to be concerned about the treatment of people by national "dictators".
Thatcher and nationalism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/13/00 12:31AM You do not explain why it is "nutso" to consider that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people. But isn't it common among certain types of pragmatist and "realists" to claim that foreign policy ought to be based upon advancing national interest? On this view, hardly nutso, what dictators do to their own people would be a nation's business only if it impacted significantly on national interests... No man is an island, entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, As well as if a promontory were, As well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; i It tolls for thee ((( CB: Trouble is it is easy to imagine this being sung to the "tune" of The White Man's Burden, when it comes from a Yankee like you. Yankee go home !
Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Ken Hanley wrote: Well this might be nice if nations intervened in other countries when bad things are done and were able to stop the bad things happenings. When socialist nations did intervene, imperialist nations did not appreciate such interventions at all. Many intellectuals -- including many leftists -- in the West condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, though the Soviets were backing the side of modernizers -- whatever faults you may find in them -- against the forces of feudal reaction supported by the CIA. It is not just military interventions by socialist nations that courted the wrath of imperialists. The presence of Cuban engineers construction workers in Grenada was used as an excuse for the U.S. invasion of Grenada. The list is endless. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Well this might be nice if nations intervened in other countries when bad things are done and were able to stop the bad things happening... It was called World War II...
Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Yoshie writes: When socialist nations did intervene, imperialist nations did not appreciate such interventions at all. Many intellectuals -- including many leftists -- in the West condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, though the Soviets were backing the side of modernizers -- whatever faults you may find in them -- against the forces of feudal reaction supported by the CIA. It is not just military interventions by socialist nations that courted the wrath of imperialists. The presence of Cuban engineers construction workers in Grenada was used as an excuse for the U.S. invasion of Grenada. The list is endless. You don't understand: when the bad guys (Cuba, Iraq, etc.) do things, it's bad, but when the good guys (us) do things, it's good. It may seem that we are using the same methods, but our cause is just -- since we're fighting for freedom -- and you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Brad De Long wrote: Well this might be nice if nations intervened in other countries when bad things are done and were able to stop the bad things happening... It was called World War II... Yeah, and after the war, the U.S. assimilated most of the Nazi intelligence apparatus. They had such excellent files on the Russkis, you know. Doug
Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
In a message dated 9/13/00 4:27:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well this might be nice if nations intervened in other countries when bad things are done and were able to stop the bad things happenings. When socialist nations did intervene, imperialist nations did not appreciate such interventions at all. Many intellectuals -- including many leftists -- in the West condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, though the Soviets were backing the side of modernizers -- whatever faults you may find in them -- against the forces of feudal reaction supported by the CIA. It is not just military interventions by socialist nations that courted the wrath of imperialists. The presence of Cuban engineers construction workers in Grenada was used as an excuse for the U.S. invasion of Grenada. The list is endless. Yoshie's point is that what you count as "bad thing" depends on where you stand. Imperialist nations will (and do) intervene when things like popular resistance threaten their domination, because that's what they see as bad. --jks
J. S. Mill (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
In addition, I think that people like Brad -- who are part of the hegemonic ideological bloc in the media and universities -- need to realize that there are other opinions in the world besides those which are acceptable in the Clinton White House or the Bush inner circle. Of course, those of us who have deviant political opinions have to tolerate your perspective all the time, since we have no choice. Or is appealing for a little tolerance of deviant political positions contrary to the current definition of "democratic" values? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine * There are many reasons, doubtless, why doctrines which are the badge of a sect retain more of their vitality than those common to all recognized sects, and why more pains are taken by teachers to keep their meaning alive; but one reason certainly is, that the peculiar doctrines are more questioned, and have to be oftener defended against open gainsayers. Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their post, as soon as there is no enemy in the field. (J.S. Mill, "On Liberty") * Yoshie
Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
Brad DeLong wrote: I'm not Senator Albert Beveridge. I don't agree with Senator Albert Beveridge. Why are you claiming that I do? I'm not saying that at all. I think your arguments would hold more water if some of your righteous indignation were directed at U.S. government officials who are as guilty of the brutalities you so frequently highlight as committed by other regimes. Acknowledging your own country's history, where peoples of other languages and cultures were routinely subjugated without prior thought to their humanity, all in the name of manifest destiny, where the aspirations of peoples throughout the world were routinely subjugated by the interests of behemoths like the United Fruit Company, for example, would render your criticisms of the Galtieris of this world more credible. Whether it is your intention or not, you often give the impression that inhumanity is the preserve of regimes that do not adhere to the U.S. model of governance. Michael K.
Thatcher and nationalism
But is it not equally our business what the US does to bomb, kill and maim civilians and children in Columbia, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. Yep.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Brad, to begin with this sort of talk does not belong here because of the tone. Also, your position would have more credibility if you were more consistent in its application. The US has an appalling record of supporting dictators throughout the world. In addition, the human rights record here at home in the US leaves much to be desired. Brad De Long wrote: But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thatcher and nationalism
I appreciate Brad's response here, but I do not hear him calling Clinton a war criminal, for the deaths of say, .5 mill. Iraqi kids. But is it not equally our business what the US does to bomb, kill and maim civilians and children in Columbia, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. Yep. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thatcher and nationalism
At 07:33 PM 09/11/2000 -0700, you wrote: But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. This kind of dogmatic style is a total turn-off, simply a way of shutting off any further discussion... In my experience, people who jump to the level of meta-discussion--urge that others be filtered, urge that others be excluded, talk about issues of discursive process, condemn others for style--do so primarily in an attempt to *avoid* a substantive discussion. Please don't remain at what I see as the sterile and pointless level of meta-discourse. Please return to the level of substantive discussion: Your claim that Argentina's internal arrangements are no business of any non-Argentine is truly remarkable and extraordinary. Defend your belief: tell us why you think dictators have a valid hunting license to turn their countries into free-fire zones for their amusement, with no one else having the right to say "boo." Brad DeLong
Re: Thatcher and nationalism
I think that this post deserves further comment. Brad DeLong wrote: At 07:33 PM 09/11/2000 -0700, you wrote: But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. This kind of dogmatic style is a total turn-off, simply a way of shutting off any further discussion... Jim did not deny that we should try to understand and communicate about what happens in other places. He seemed to be responding to Brad's "dogmatic style." In my experience, people who jump to the level of meta-discussion--urge that others be filtered, urge that others be excluded, talk about issues of discursive process, condemn others for style--do so primarily in an attempt to *avoid* a substantive discussion. Jim's call to filter was wrong, but it was not because you wanted a substantive discussion. As Doug said, you have a lot to offer the list, but sometimes you get on your high horse and seem to behave rather dogmatically. Please don't remain at what I see as the sterile and pointless level of meta-discourse. Please return to the level of substantive discussion: Your claim that Argentina's internal arrangements are no business of any non-Argentine is truly remarkable and extraordinary. Jim did not say that, did he. Are you lumping Jim and Nestor together. Nestor is away and cannot respond right now. Defend your belief: tell us why you think dictators have a valid hunting license to turn their countries into free-fire zones for their amusement, with no one else having the right to say "boo." I don't think that anybody advocates dictatorship here, although the US may well be called a class dictatorship. How can you hope to have a real democracy where a small group controls the means of communication? Being rich, this US ruling class has the luxury of providing a better life for 70-80% of the population than most countries do, but what the US offers hardly seems like a democracy. Vote for BushGore! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thatcher and nationalism
You do not explain why it is "nutso" to consider that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people. But isn't it common among certain types of pragmatist and "realists" to claim that foreign policy ought to be based upon advancing national interest? On this view, hardly nutso, what dictators do to their own people would be a nation's business only if it impacted significantly on national interests. On the whole this policy seems to have been adopted by the US, as well as many other countries, although not always. On this view of foreign policy democracy could be seen as negative if it were thought to impact negatively on national interest. For example, a democratic government in Chile was overthrown with the aid of the US and financial aid cut off whereas the following military dicatorship was supported with loans etc. A relatively progressive communist regime in Afghanistan was replaced by a reactionary, feudal, theocracy, that persecutes women. Of course often interventions are justified by rhetoric that claims we cannot stand by and let certain things happen such as the Serb expulsion of Kosovans from Kosova, but surely someone of your sophistication cannot accept this nonsense at face value.To a considerable extent the expulsions were a predictable result of NATO's own actions. The resulting actions themselves involved war crimes, killing of the innocent etc. and did little in the short term to stop the expulsions since NATO was unwilling to risk casualties. In some instances public outcry may cause nations to make at least some attempt to prevent atrocities by dictators but when no vital interests of great nations are involved the result is usually of little benefit to those at the receiving end. The case of Rwanda is a good example. The UN was not given the resources and did little to stop the atrocities it knew were about to occur. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:02 AM Subject: [PEN-L:1835] Thatcher and nationalism At 07:33 PM 09/11/2000 -0700, you wrote: But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. This kind of dogmatic style is a total turn-off, simply a way of shutting off any further discussion... In my experience, people who jump to the level of meta-discussion--urge that others be filtered, urge that others be excluded, talk about issues of discursive process, condemn others for style--do so primarily in an attempt to *avoid* a substantive discussion. Please don't remain at what I see as the sterile and pointless level of meta-discourse. Please return to the level of substantive discussion: Your claim that Argentina's internal arrangements are no business of any non-Argentine is truly remarkable and extraordinary. Defend your belief: tell us why you think dictators have a valid hunting license to turn their countries into free-fire zones for their amusement, with no one else having the right to say "boo." Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
As Doug said, you have a lot to offer the list, but sometimes you get on your high horse and seem to behave rather dogmatically. Let's look at the record: "(The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all)." I think that it is worthwhile to call this *nutso*. You think that calling it nutso is "dogmatic." I want to strongly assert that we are all one another's business: humans are social beings, after all. You think that such assertions are... impolite. I think that this is really weird. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Brad, you are welcome to disagree with Nestor; the problem was with your tone -- "nusto " As Doug said, you have a lot to offer the list, but sometimes you get on your high horse and seem to behave rather dogmatically. Let's look at the record: "(The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all)." I think that it is worthwhile to call this *nutso*. You think that calling it nutso is "dogmatic." I want to strongly assert that we are all one another's business: humans are social beings, after all. You think that such assertions are... impolite. I think that this is really weird. Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
You do not explain why it is "nutso" to consider that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people. But isn't it common among certain types of pragmatist and "realists" to claim that foreign policy ought to be based upon advancing national interest? On this view, hardly nutso, what dictators do to their own people would be a nation's business only if it impacted significantly on national interests... No man is an island, entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, As well as if a promontory were, As well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; i It tolls for thee
Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
Brad DeLong wrote: On the one hand, trees and hills. On the other hand, people. On what theory of political justice can the first ever trump the second? Well, Senator Albert Beveridge seemed to have a fairly firm grasp of one such. I guess it depends on which people you are addressing. Michael K.
Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
En relación a [PEN-L:1680] Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism, el 10 Sep 00, a las 21:13, Brad DeLong dijo: (The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all). Positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. The U.S. constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Surely it is *all* of our business that *every* government in the world be a democracy. Wow. Brad must be a great humorist, or an enemy. There was a James Monroe who once said "America for Americans" thus implying "Those Latino Republics to the South for us". Now, the American constitution, which rules the "states" (in fact, provinces) of the USA is extended to the whole planet. I am 90% convinced that this has been a display of good humor by Brad. Could you please sweep away the remaining 10%, Brad? Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
What does geography suggest that Alsace-Lorraine is part of, France or Germany? Or more to the point today, East Jerusalem? --jks In a message dated Mon, 11 Sep 2000 1:43:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For what they are worth, my views on the Malvinas are very simple. Geography alone would suggest that they are a part of Argentina, and I would recognise Argentinian sovereignty. Michael K. On the one hand, trees and hills. On the other hand, people. On what theory of political justice can the first ever trump the second? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Néstor wrote: (The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all). Brad writes: Positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. Michael, isn't this the kind of abusive rhetoric which gets people expelled from pen-l. (NB: I'm not in favor of expelling anyone. If Brad doesn't clean up his act, I encourage everyone to put him on their filter lists.) The U.S. constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Surely it is *all* of our business that *every* government in the world be a democracy. What about democracy on a world scale, in the relations between countries? The US regularly violates democratic canons in international relations (in addition to imposing dictatorships within countries). Recently, the US imposed "democracy" on a small province in the Balkans (Kosova/o) using strategic bombing, economic blockade, etc. against the province's internationally-recognized government (Serbia), which itself seems to have been elected democratically. To be somewhat crude, when Néstor talks about "imperialism," it refers to the system of world dictatorship, in which the US and its allies (and its proxies, the IMF, the World Bank, etc.) dictate to the rest of the world, in the interests of capital. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Jim Devine: Michael, isn't this the kind of abusive rhetoric which gets people expelled from pen-l. (NB: I'm not in favor of expelling anyone. If Brad doesn't clean up his act, I encourage everyone to put him on their filter lists.) I think it is okay if you are a Professor and edit a prestigious journal. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Jim Devine wrote: Michael, isn't this the kind of abusive rhetoric which gets people expelled from pen-l. (NB: I'm not in favor of expelling anyone. If Brad doesn't clean up his act, I encourage everyone to put him on their filter lists.) That seems a bit excessive. I was interested that Michael used the word "provocative" as a pejorative the other day; what's wrong with a little provocation now and then? Calling something "nutso" in the context of a substantive post is different from a screenful of personal abuse. It's useful to have Brad around to keep the rest of us on our toes; if we can't have a conversation with a bourgeois social democrat, we'll really end up talking only to ourselves. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
That seems a bit excessive. I was interested that Michael used the word "provocative" as a pejorative the other day; what's wrong with a little provocation now and then? Calling something "nutso" in the context of a substantive post is different from a screenful of personal abuse. It's useful to have Brad around to keep the rest of us on our toes; if we can't have a conversation with a bourgeois social democrat, we'll really end up talking only to ourselves. Doug Yeah, but it's only Marxists that keep getting expelled or suspended. And I am aware that a number of people continue to complain to Michael privately about my 'provocative' posts, expressing a desire that I be thrown off PEN-L once and for all. Louis Proyect The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
I agree with everything the Doug says here. I used the word "provocative" to weasel out of saying something more precise. Doug wrote That seems a bit excessive. I was interested that Michael used the word "provocative" as a pejorative the other day; what's wrong with a little provocation now and then? Calling something "nutso" in the context of a substantive post is different from a screenful of personal abuse. It's useful to have Brad around to keep the rest of us on our toes; if we can't have a conversation with a bourgeois social democrat, we'll really end up talking only to ourselves. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Hi Jim and Doug, Brad writes: Positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. Michael, isn't this the kind of abusive rhetoric which gets people expelled from pen-l. (NB: I'm not in favor of expelling anyone. If Brad doesn't clean up his act, I encourage everyone to put him on their filter lists.) What's to clean? I'm with Doug on this one. And I, too, was amazed to see "provocative" disparaged by our list owner. Don't most of us hope to be provocative, at least part of the time? Or is it that we're not supposed to provoke the members of the clan (list). But how else can we maintain the health of the community -- how else can we be some sort of certain that our arguments are sound? Jo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Néstor wrote: (The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all). Brad writes: Positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. Michael, isn't this the kind of abusive rhetoric which gets people expelled from pen-l. (NB: I'm not in favor of expelling anyone. If Brad doesn't clean up his act, I encourage everyone to put him on their filter lists.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
But is it not equally our business what the US does to bomb, kill and maim civilians and children in Columbia, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. etc. not also our business, particularly when it is done by the very people that Brad calls "us". Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what dictators do to their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Thatcher and nationalism
(The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all). Positively, totally, utterly, completely nutso. The U.S. constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Surely it is *all* of our business that *every* government in the world be a democracy. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
En relación a [PEN-L:1484] Re: Imperialist progressivism (was R, el 8 Sep 00, a las 9:16, Michael Perelman dijo: The debate on the Falklands/Malvinas is troubling. I thought the outcome meant that Thatcher triumphed politically, while the junta had to face political defeat, eventually. The Junta, as a bunch of people, yes. The defeat was the ultimate victory of the interests they had fought for. Even in their defeat they paid a good service to their masters. The Argentina that emerged from the South Atlantic battles was a defeated country, and its ruling classes had lost every sense of national defence, on any ground. It was quite easy for imperialists to push the dagger of debt to the core of the country, force the destruction of the productive assets, destroy the state, and imbue a good deal of the population with a defeatist and cynical mood. That is why the flags of supermarkets are so symbolic here. They replaced the flag of the country. Remember _Robocop_, I insist. As to rights, such matters are troubling. I live on property stolen from the Mexicans who stole it from the Native Americans. To begin with, Mexicans are mostly of mixed racial stock, and the Spanish colony was a more complex thing than the Anglo American massive slaughter of Indians. Today's Mexicans (and with more reason those of the 19th. Century) are appropiate inheritors of both the Indian and the Iberian assets, cultural as well as material. And, as regards the war between Mexico and the United States in the late 1840s, Mexico arrived at an agreement, however unjust, and signed a treaty. This was explained by the very Mexican government when imperialist speakers tried to raise the same argument against the rights of Argentina over the Malvinas. We have never surrendered our rights (Menem put us at the border of the abyss, but not even he dared to leap). We are still, technically and (more important) spiritually at war with England. One of the few good results of the war was that today, almost nobody in Argentina still believes (as many believed during most of the 20th. Century) that England was a civilized and reasonable patron. While I recognize past injustices, I would not be happy to see either group reclaim their land. Africa still suffers enormously from the problems caused by imperialist borders, but how could you rectify the past mistakes today? I send you to my above: this is not the same problem as in Africa. The Malvinas were seized by force, and we have not (and will never) admit to it. Though we Argentinians are probably the most Extreme West on earth (a French essayist defined Latin America as the Extreme West, in what I consider a very sharp fit of insight), we are, on this issue, as patient as a Chinese. We shall wait and when the moment comes, we shall be able to recover our occupied territories. On the other hand, in the current state of indefension that Argentina has been left after the 1982 war (a state of affairs that has been consciously generated by the same high commands that lost the war!) the solution passes through the Latino Americanization of the conflict, which connects with our basic and essential problem: the construction of the Latin American nation that was the idea of the generation of the Independence, and of --Leon Trotsky! A hug, Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thatcher and nationalism
Brad de Long wrote: Nationalist militarism is truly a powerful and insidious poison. One need only study the ends to which the entire Falklands debacle was used by Margaret Thatcher herself. Prior to the invasion (which, incidentally, was known of for months in advance by MI6 and the FCO) the British government was ideologically committed to spending cuts across the board (some more than others, of course -- the first thing Thatcher did on coming to power, prior to her assault on labour, was to raise the salaries of the police, judiciary and military). In order to pay for the monstrously expensive Trident missiles, cuts were being made elsewhere in the military budget, including the planned sale of battle cruiser HMS Invincible to the Australians. How convenient, then, that the hapless Galtieri should provide the perfect excuse to cancel these cuts, and in so doing allow Thatcher to ride to an otherwise impossible election victory in 1983 on the back of some of the most sickening gung ho imperialistic nationalism witnessed since 1945. Obituaries for the recently deceased Robert Runcie, Archbishop of Canterbury, reminded everyone of Thatcher's fury at his reconciliatory prayers for the Argentine dead at Westminster Abbey. The needless slaughter of the conscripts (poorly trained, hardly willing participants) who were on board the Belgrano, outside the exclusion zone and sailing AWAY from it, was also given the go-ahead by Thatcher herself -- an order that took years to establish, despite the supposed sovereignty of the British parliament. It was only thanks to the persistence of one MP, Tam Dalyell, and a brave civil servant, Clive Ponting, who, believing that his duty was to Parliament, leaked the information to Dalyell. Thatcher subsequently passed legislation changing the employment conditions of civil servants, thereby swearing them to secrecy. When most of us outside of Argentina look at the Junta's early 1980s war to conquer the Malvinas Islands, we see it as analogous to Indonesia's occupation of East Timor: not a "just war" but a most unjust war. Fair enough. Few could condone the actions of the desperate Galtieri junta. But, given that the UK govt had plenty of advance warning over his planned invasion, the war was not only unjust, but wholly unnecessary. The Thatcher govt is as implicated for having allowed it to happen at all. Michael K.
Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
Not only Brad DeLong but also Mike Kearney. OK, politics is a long exercise in patience... As Toussaint Louverture said: "La France entiére vient contre nous!" Will answer to just two basic assertions here, which are the only ones that matter. As to condemnation of "militarism", won't return to the issue any more. I reserve to my own people the right to resort to military means (or any other) to put an end to this abject era of imperialist exaction and social crime that Argentina is passing through since 1975 at least.. 1) Thatcher's use of the Argentinian war over the Malvinas (Falklands is a wrong name, sorry, it is as if you explained a Palestinian that Israel is the name of his/her own land) in 1982 and the duty of an English progressive. If, as Tam Dalyell has shown, Thatcher prepared the war in order to win her elections, the duty of a socialist or a progressive in England would have been to support Argentina. Had Thatcher lost the war her carreer would have melt down. But British Leftists (with exceptions, some of which I am proud to be friend to) preferred to hide their pro-imperialist soul by adducing that this war against the sovereign rights of a Third World people was, in fact, a war against "tyrant Galtieri". In so doing, they immediately ranked with the Thatcher they said to defend. For an imperialist "progressive" it is absolutely unimportant whether the armies of a semicolonial country are aiming at their own population or at the invading armies of the imperial powers. For a true progressive, this "slight" difference is full of meaning. And it certainly was full of meaning for us here in Argentina, who were tear gassed on March 30th 1982 and were surprised to see that, by a chance of History, the same regime adopted a progressive position on the basic issue of sovereignty that marks the essence of being a Third World nation. I am convinced that many in the Western Powers will "explain" away, with the shallowness of an empyricist sociologist from Harvard or London, that we Argentinians were goaded into a frenzy of nationalism by a decaying military regime, just as the lower strata of their own countries saw themselves intoxicated with (this time, yes) chauvinistic militarism. This is very logic, they are taking care of the backs of the imperialists, they are "Her Majesty's opposition". The problem, however, is that precisely because they are members of an imperialist community they exert a strong pressure on people in the countries under military and economic attack from their own ruling classes. Cultural imperialism is the name of this, and it is a basic weapon in the arsenal of Meggy Bloodihands. Ah, the strange roads by which the Empires are built 2) Malvinas and East Timor. I am very suspicious, indeed, of the situation in East Timor. Will not extend on this, because this is an issue I know little about and because I know that the Eastern Timorese have been waging a protracted and tremendous war for their own rights. There are two things that I have in clear, however, and they are that (a) East Timor exists as an independent area of the Malay world because at the moment of decolonization it was in the hands of the Portuguese empire, in fact the most putrid of all colonial empires (yes, most putrid than the British empire, which is a lot of rot indeed, but well, the metropolis itself was, since the Treaty of Methuen, a virtual colony of England!). Had in 1945 East Timor been in the hands of these other "great civilizators", the Dutch, then there would have never existed an East Timor issue, and (b) it is becoming more obvious with the days that the outcome of this "humanitarian" intervention by Australian troops in Indonesian internal affairs to defend the East Timorese has created a new protectorat in the Asia-Pacific area, at the same time that it has boosted Australian imperialist militarism high. The Malvinas are not the same thing as East Timor. The population in the Malvinas are the result of forcible eviction, by a British fleet, of the legal and recognized Argentinian settlement there. Argentina has never surrendered to the joint American-British invasion of the islands in 1833, nor have we ever denied the right of the transplanted populations of the islands to become full Argentinians with due respect to their cultural traditions provided they ceased to consider themselves a Plantation. On this, we shall be inflexible, and in the end we shall win. This issue is a basic question for our politics, and a good standing on the Malvinas issue may turn a rogue into a sometimes unexpected revolutionary. FYI, when Galtieri, the _majestic General_ of Haigh and Reagan, discovered that he had been trapped by his supposed friends, he faintly discovered that in order to go ahead and win the war he had to mobilize the most progressive forces in the country, he had to organize a militant national front, he
Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote: I reserve to my own people the right to resort to military means (or any other) to put an end to this abject era of imperialist exaction and social crime that Argentina is passing through since 1975 at least.. Fair enough. I am surprised, however, by your implication that you would count among the exercises of this right the diktats of oppressive military rulers. 1) Thatcher's use of the Argentinian war over the Malvinas (Falklands is a wrong name, sorry, it is as if you explained a Palestinian that Israel is the name of his/her own land) in 1982 and the duty of an English progressive. I am well aware of this, and my use of the name "Falklands" was never intended to be a slur upon you or any other Argentinian member of the list. Surely the tone of my previous contribution sufficiently communicated my opposition to the official British line. If, as Tam Dalyell has shown, Thatcher prepared the war in order to win her elections, the duty of a socialist or a progressive in England would have been to support Argentina. Supporting "Argentina" in this case would have been to support Galtieri and his entourage. As a socialist/progressive/call it what you will, I, in retrospect (being the tender age of 14 at the time) do not consider it my duty to have done so. There were many who actively opposed the needless slaughter of Argentinian conscripts by British forces under direct orders from an administration eager for some "good copy". And much of the information to which I referred became known only subsequently, making it rather difficult to identify "duty" at the time. Nevertheless, the lack of that information did not preclude active opposition to Thatcher's militarism. Had Thatcher lost the war her carreer would have melt down. That is very probable. But British Leftists (with exceptions, some of which I am proud to be friend to) preferred to hide their pro-imperialist soul by adducing that this war against the sovereign rights of a Third World people was, in fact, a war against "tyrant Galtieri". In so doing, they immediately ranked with the Thatcher they said to defend. That's a gross over-statement. There were many within Thatcher's own party, administration even, who were very unhappy with the manner in which she conducted the entire episode. Her foreign secretary, Francis Pym, for example, spent much of his time trying to find a means to a negotiated settlement and found himself frozen out of Thatcher's "Star Chamber" as a result. And whatever the capitulations of the Labour Party leadership, there were plenty of leftists who campaigned against a "military solution". For an imperialist "progressive" it is absolutely unimportant whether the armies of a semicolonial country are aiming at their own population or at the invading armies of the imperial powers. For a true progressive, this "slight" difference is full of meaning. And it certainly was full of meaning for us here in Argentina, who were tear gassed on March 30th 1982 and were surprised to see that, by a chance of History, the same regime adopted a progressive position on the basic issue of sovereignty that marks the essence of being a Third World nation. So opportunism had nothing to do with it then? I am convinced that many in the Western Powers will "explain" away, with the shallowness of an empyricist sociologist from Harvard or London, that we Argentinians were goaded into a frenzy of nationalism by a decaying military regime, just as the lower strata of their own countries saw themselves intoxicated with (this time, yes) chauvinistic militarism. This is very logic, they are taking care of the backs of the imperialists, they are "Her Majesty's opposition". The problem, however, is that precisely because they are members of an imperialist community they exert a strong pressure on people in the countries under military and economic attack from their own ruling classes. Cultural imperialism is the name of this, and it is a basic weapon in the arsenal of Meggy Bloodihands. Ah, the strange roads by which the Empires are built Well I guess that's me sorted out then. I had no idea I was such an imperialist for not backing Galtieri. For what they are worth, my views on the Malvinas are very simple. Geography alone would suggest that they are a part of Argentina, and I would recognise Argentinian sovereignty. I don't recognise the progressivism of opportunists who employ nationalism as a means (unsuccessful in Galtieri's case) to distract the oppressed from their oppression. And if you read my original post you will find that I made that point squarely with regard to the actions of Margaret Thatcher and her administration. Thank you for your earlier post on Peron. Michael K.
Re: Re: Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
En relación a [PEN-L:1459] Re: Imperialist progressivism (was R, el 8 Sep 00, a las 4:46, Brad De Long dijo: So Galtieri's strategy would have worked: the domestic opposition on the left would have forgotten his crimes and thrown their support behind his regime--if only he had won his war, and so distracted giddy minds with foreign quarrels. The imperialist mind is strong. When the issue is that of socialist revolution to win an anticolonial war he brings the fate of that small individual, Galtieri -[long digression here] whose hands were by the way, blood stained but less blood stained than the hands of those (included many colleagues of our economist in California) who opposed the war, and, for example, continued to pay the Foreign Debt to England during the confrontation [end of long digression]-, as if it mattered a dime. The only thing that Brad DeLong is interested in, in fact, is a personal vendetta with a despicable rogue, not the opening of a vast battlefield for socialism and revolution. Progressive imperialism, not imperialist progressivism. The adjective was misplaced. Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Imperialist progressivism (was Re: Thatcher and nationalism)
Dear Michael Kearney, I apologize for my harshness on you. It is evident that you are interested in discussion, not in deploying your wisdom on me as Brad does. So that excuse me if, for the time being, I cannot answer to your posting (by the way, I am afraid that we are getting too far away from the main subject on PEN-L, what does our moderator think?). If you want, I can answer you later. So that you were 14 in 1982? Well, then there are a lot of things that I need to explain to you. I was much older, 30 to be precise, and I already had a long history of socialist and revolutionary struggle behind me by that moment. And it was precisely due to that history that I knew that the reasons why Galtieri was deciding the war (which later on proved not to be mere opportunism) were unimportant. You say on your letter that supporting Argentina was supporting Galtieri. That is wrong. Supporting Galtieri was supporting Argentina --against everything that Galtieri stood for!! Such is history in a semicolonial country, dear Michael More later. A friendly hug from an apologizing Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thatcher and nationalism
At 09:35 AM 09/08/2000 +0300, you wrote: Brad de Long wrote: Nationalist militarism is truly a powerful and insidious poison. Michael Keaney leaves out the apparent punch-line in his response to the above: Margaret Thatcher also suffered from the disease of "nationalist militarism," in an equally powerful and insidious way. The same thing can be said for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Gore, and Bush2, except that their militaristic nationalism is cloaked in universalistic rhetoric. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Thatcher and nationalism
Keaney Michael wrote: . Few could condone the actions of the desperate Galtieri junta. But, given that the UK govt had plenty of advance warning over his planned invasion, the war was not only unjust, but wholly unnecessary. The Thatcher govt is as implicated for having allowed it to happen at all. There was only *one* conceivable just action by the UK -- returning the Malvinas to Argentina without any conditions. I don't see how for progressives this can be a question with two sides -- there is only one: the UK was wrong and Argentina was right. (The internal structure of Argentina is not the business of interlopers from the imperialist world -- and interloping from alleged leftists is the worst of all. The question for leftists is not whether the UK was wrong but how we can make the wrongness of the UK visible to as many as possible. It is a tactical problem in the war against imperialism. Carrol
