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: tekboy who wrote (64530)	1/5/2003 10:36:49 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

PS I think "soft power" is less temporary favorable opinion than a general durable appeal of our model, akin to a sort of Gramscian ideological hegemony that complements our more traditional material hegemony. So I don't see even these bozos undermining it--again, at least not yet. Well, let's hope you are right. My wife watched a bit of Wolf Blitzer today around lunch and said Scowcroft and Brezsinski (terrible spelling) were the guests. Each agreed that the distaste for the US in other parts of the globe, while a factor before Bush II came into office, had accelerated dramatically since. If she quoted Scowcroft correctly, that's extremely surprising. There are several places I would think to look for the consequences here, all of them having to do with the relative constrictions on the foreign policy actions of governments because of their citizenry's growing distaste for, at least, current American foreign policy. Gramsci!! You are spending too much time at home these days. Need to take a lecture tour or two. Perhaps China. ;-)

To: tekboy who wrote (64530)	1/6/2003 5:06:16 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

a sort of Gramscian ideological hegemony All right. That will be enough of that. lindybill@makesmyheadhurt.com

To: tekboy who wrote (64530)	1/6/2003 4:55:19 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think "soft power" is less temporary favorable opinion than a general durable appeal of our model, akin to a sort of Gramscian ideological hegemony that complements our more traditional material hegemony. So I don't see even these bozos undermining it--again, at least not yet. En ingles, por favor, para los tontos.

To: tekboy who wrote (64530)	1/6/2003 5:43:50 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

akin to a sort of Gramscian ideological hegemony that complements our more traditional material hegemony whoops, you know that kind of talk can land you in the FADG Jail... --fl@shirreve.com

To: tekboy who wrote (64530)	1/7/2003 12:35:16 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

PS I think "soft power" is less temporary favorable opinion than a general durable appeal of our model, akin to a sort of Gramscian ideological hegemony that complements our more traditional material hegemony. So I don't see even these bozos undermining it--again, at least not yet. Undermining the "sort of Gramscian ideological hegemony" [oooh!] or soft power Vigorous attempts are being made on the ground in India trying to do just that. The outbursts of "communal violence" are visible expression of fascist ideology like that seen between the World Wars. They have lots of mini Crystal Nights in India. The darker corners and closets of the present national government party there contain people with very nasty ideas. The long term friction between Pakistan and India can be described partly, perhaps mainly, as competition between theologically and culturally based fascisms. (I'm over doing it here but not as much as I'd like to be). The Chinese power holders for a long time have publicly objected to democracy on cultural grounds. Is this changing? The street disorder found in a number of European countries is partly (mainly?) due to conflicts between immigrants (and their descendants) holding theologically based fascist ideas, and the larger community. The repressive regimes in the ME have fed and watered theological fascists for years. And the bete noir, Iraq, has a fascist ruling party. I think a case could be made - some of the neocons seem to be making it in Washington - that preemptive invasion of Iraq and democratic "missionary work" there is necessary to stop, and reverse, the recent erosion of soft power in S Asia and the Middle East. Since so much of the opposition to the US (Western) power is fascist with expansionary ideological and political structures implied in that, the neocons have a good point: Fascism is not usually amenable to much in the way of negotiation and no really good argument can be made for waiting for each and all its various examples to collapse from their weight of internal corruption. (Becuz how long is that going to take, and how much damage will they do in the meantime, and how much grit are they going to throw in modernity's machinery?) I'm presuming the attractive model you mention above is modernity, as exemplified by the US especially. If I read another hand wringing article about the "American Imperium" I think I'll cry and stamp my feet. I read this stuff and ask, "Where's the tribute? Where are the colonies? Where are the satraps and proconsuls?" It's becoming a really louse-ridden metaphor. Ignatieff sort of gets it, I think. But Lord! what a production. As they built their railways, dug their canals, and laid their cables the smarter 19th century British people knew the jig was up for Empire and the game was modernity, commerce, and the white man's burden, and they dumped their anglo colonies starting 1867. The whole project fell in the, in a black hole with WW1 because it killed too many smart people and they were depressed as hell - pre WW1 the Brits had dozens like Churchill and afterwards, few young ones like him at all. In WW2 modernity fought for its life. Since WW2 the US has become very powerful and vigorous (fighting the Cold War and being modern, yada yada), and the world has become a lot smaller (communications and transportation revolution, yada yada). The process is accelerating and will accelerate further as infant super powers (China, Russia, perhaps India and EU) grow powerful and we don't know how they're going to turn out. So in the meantime, what are we gonna do? The fascists used to be across the water or up in the mountains, now they're right down the street. They've captured good bits of the UN, the big experiment in world regulation/cooperation, and hide behind it as they continue their activities of genocide, etc. One of their unofficial subsidiaries recently murdered 3000 Americans in a morning's work. Several official members of the club have biological/chemical weapons and they're all dying to get the big bang. So is the US going to wait until its allies stop denying why they fought WW2 and the Cold War? As you say, the appeal of the model is durable, (and so are those of the Easter Bunny, Christian charity and fascism), but that doesn't mean it's indestructible, has to prevail or even prosper, or not be taken way from people, or not suffer great damage in its various exemplars. The 9/11 crimes gave all the fascist operators a big shot in the arm. They all hold glorious images from that morning and they've all manufactured some more in their minds' eyes and not all of the pictures they entertain include the US in their future and none of them contain both democracy and reason. frank@iworecleancollarsandabrannewsuitformygravesolecismattheinstit.ute