Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (60313)	12/7/2002 10:04:34 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bill, I think Harris got the Marxism thing right. But I'm not so sure about Chomsky - he's been pretty consistent since before the immiseration thing got expanded. Take a look at this blast from the past. I quite enjoyed parts of it - he's a very acute observer monkeyfist.com His bete noir has always been repression. He sees it under every bed and, lets face it, there's plenty of it around. He's totally consistent - he's against everybody's repression. It all came back to me when I read that article. He regarded the cold war as totally illegitimate. It was a cooperative venture between the Soviet and US managerial classes as they supported each other.... Oh, here's another one, not Chomsky. I hadn't thought of Bookchin in a long while. It's in the footnotes riothero.com The attempt to describe Marx's immiseration theory in international terms instead of national (as Marx did) is sheer subterfuge. In the first place, this theoretical legerdemain simply tries to sidestep the question of why immiseration has not occurred within the industrial strongholds of capitalism, the only areas which form a technologically adequate point of departure for a classless society . If we are to pin our hopes on the colonial world as "the proletariat," this position conceals a very real danger: genocide. America and her recent ally Russia have all the technical means to bomb the underdeveloped world into submission. A threat lurks on the historical horizon--the development of the United States into a truly fascist imperium of the nazi type. It is sheer rubbish to say that this country is a "paper tiger." It is a thermonuclear tiger and the American ruling class, lacking any cultural restraints, is capable of being even more vicious than the German. I don't subscribe to the sentiments in the last couple of sentences. But he's right in that it's irresponsible of revolutionary movements to place the poorest of the poor in direct opposition to the developed world. From a marxist point of view, they should be getting on with capitalist development, not participating in utopian fantasies. I think Harris is right about one of the intellectual sources of the large sentiment in Europe and N America which sees the US as the source of all that's wrong. Troll the Marxist websites and the anti-war sites and you find indeed much about US motive being that of enrichment through pauperization of the 3rd world. I think much of the rest of source of the particular version of anti-american expression from Europe and N America actually is Chomsky. He's been travelling the world publishing and speaking to young people for almost 40 years. But it's Chomsky-lite because although Chomsky is extremely critical of the US, he's also equally critical of everyone else. Difficulty with his message, as far as the problems of 3rd world people are concerned, is that it doesn't get to their immediate problems in a form that's really related to the sorts of things that developed countries could do which would be truly helpful - eg cancelling subsidies and tariffs. A million folk on the Champs Elysee or the Mall protesting EU and US subsidies to agriculture would do far more good than demonstrating against WTO. As far as ME is concerned, I've always thought the real source of the anger is US support of the crappy regimes there. Every player there, including the regimes themselves, have taken advantage of that. I'm still thinking about this stuff. I'll write to John later.

To: LindyBill who wrote (60313)	12/7/2002 10:41:56 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bill, After a careful read of Harris, I've concluded that particular piece could be scrunched down and appear as one of the weaker op ed pieces in the WSJ. He does not offer a basis for a serious argument. It's certainly not sufficiently serious for what I thought was a serious foreign policy journal. And is so far as it publishes those articles by Kagan and Pollack and friend. As for your comment that he is talking about the "World left", unfortunately that's not what he says he is doing. He repeatedly refers to the American left. Perhaps it's time to have the conversation about the American left. You and Nadine continue to offer posts which insist that the American left either hates America, is anit-American, or something similar. I think it's time one or both of you made your case. So those of us who wish can respond. Here is my suggestion for an outline of the case that needs to be made. Tell me if the outline is different from one you would propose. 1. What is the idea of America or the practice of America that when criticized, the critic is considered anti-American? And what counter idea of America is the basis for the criticism? And is that idea simply a different idea of America? Or an unAmerican idea of America? As I recall from some of your posts, you think this is particularly true of the environmental movement. I would be happy for you to document this with leading spokespersons from that movement, if you wish. 2. Specifically, name the critics who offer these unAmerican criticisms and some documentation that they offer it. At least enough so that those of us who wish to argue with you can see what the context is. 3. In what sense are that person's writings or speeches an index of "the American left". Please provide some links, text, argument, whatever to document that. I've done a bit more thinking about my post of last night. Some more names which you or Harris could research their work to see if it evidences the anti-Americanism he talks about. Stan Greenberg's wife is Rose de Lauro (I hope I'm spelling that right) who just lost out to Bob Menendez to chair the House Democratic Caucus. A fairly influential member of the House Dem Leadership. If the American left were so anti-American, seems to me that should show up in her speeches. Marian Wright Edelman, long time leader of the Children's Defense Fund, once upon a time a close friend of Hillary and Bill. Usually placed to the left of Bill and Hillary politically. She has written a great deal. Someone should take a look. Peter Edelman, Marian's husband. Resigned from the Clinton administration in protest of his signing the welfare bill. I think he's on the faculty at Georgetown now. Surely that's left enough to be someone on the American left. Perhaps you or Harris could look through his writings to substantiate this charge. I am serious here. I've only been half way serious with your previous posts and Nadine's about the anti-Americanism of the American left. I assumed you would say it, drop it, and move on. But that's not happening. It's become a theme of both of your posts. Well, fine. Substantiate. Let's argue it. So long as Ken feels its sufficiently relevant and civil to let it continue. As for Harris' ability to exegete Marx, it's terrible. But we won't go there. That's a conversation that the thread learns nothing from. I know enough to know he's either not done his homework or chose not to convince his reader that he had done so. Perhaps he assumes that the audience for the Hoover Institution publication is so consistently right wing that whatever he says about Marx will be accepted as such. As for whether Frank knows his Marx, I don't know. We'll see.