Re: Developments in the world economy and the conceptofforeign ownership
On May 28, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Marvin Gandall wrote:
Were your examples above typically reservations expressed in
private or open criticism of government preparations for war? In the case of Iraq,
I think it’s clear that the differences within the ruling class were openly
and sharply expressed to an unprecedented degree, and not only from
opposition Democrats, but more notably by Scowcroft and other veterans of the Republican establishment.
On WW I, I don’t know; I’ll ask my friend who’s doing the diss on it.
On the Civil War, it was all quite in the open - though once the
South fired on the North, the NYC bourgeoisie turned into
superpatriots and vowed to crush the slavocracy. On Iraq, much of it
was in the open. The general principle, I think, is that capitalists
usually defer to the state; they may not support a war before it
starts, but once it does, it becomes part of the status quo.
Iraq points to the problem I’ve been talking about for a while - the
lack of a coherent ruling class in the U.S. today. How could they
“stop” the war when Bush, Cheney & Co. were in control of the state.
There are ways to destroy a leadership through scandal and general
bad press, but once a war has started, no one wants the home team to
lose - and it’s not like they had an alternative roster and strategy
in reserve.
For someone practically on the belief that the Council on Foreign
Relations is a major architect of U.S. foreign policy, it’s quite
something to hear the CFR audience and guests moan about the weakened
role of the U.S. today. And for now, there’s not much they can do
about it.
Doug