[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on New American Imperialism

Tue Jun 29 00:08:55 CDT 2010

Yes but bracket these causes or causal factors and then ask what conditions 
existed which allowed for and supported the existence and strength of said 
bracketed causal factors.  I believe that the conditions and factors upon 
which such causal factors arose and came into play no longer exist for the 
reasons that I cited and have to wonder if there is anything under current 
conditions that stand a chance of generating the same sorts of causal 
factors and supporting (1) a strong and effective resistance to an American 
invasion and occupation which would make an over-bureaucratized, high tech, 
establishment leadership take any real notice and have a significant effect 
on their assessments of cost-benefits, (2) generate a revolt of a 
non-conscript military made up of "true believing" volunteers who believe 
"my country right or wrong" and "with the white Christian god on our side 
against the heathens" or a revolt of hired mercenaries under contract to 
private corporations hired by the US Government to do what the conscripted 
military of the Viet Nam days did, or (3) the reaching of a conclusion by 70 
% of the public that the US Government's actions in the Middle East and 
elsewhere as "fundamentally wrong, immoral, or unwarranted" rather than a 
mistake or miscalculation in strategy or tactics that has become too 
financially costly to the American public to finance any longer or over an 
extended haul.

In short, I regard the causal factors mentioned to be surface structure and 
ask if that or a similar surface structure has the grounding in 
sub-structural conditions to support or sustain the generation of or 
continued existence of a surface structure of causal factors similar to that 
of the Viet Nam period.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:53 PM
To: "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com>
Cc: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>; <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on New American Imperialism

> What brought the Vietnam War to a close was, in order of decreasing 
> importance,
>
> (a) the resistance of the Vietnamese people to the American invasion of 
> South Vietnam;
>
> (b) the revolt of the conscript army the US had sent on an imperial 
> mission; and
>
> (c) the conclusion by about 70% of the American public by the late 1960s 
> that the war was "fundamentally wrong and immoral," not "a mistake" (in 
> the words of the longitudinal poll by Chicago Council on Foreign 
> Relations).
>
> And with the close of the war the Vietnamese experiment in building an 
> economically successful post-colonial society was destroyed.  Since the 
> principal US war aim was to prevent that from happening, the US won the 
> war.
>
>
> On 6/28/10 4:30 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
>> Good point Stuart even if it may be a little optimistic.  It is good to
>> understand and respect one's enemies and their capabilities; but it is 
>> not so
>> good to hope in the face of past history and experience for those who are 
>> easily
>> deceived to become less so or for those who went along to get along 
>> before to
>> suddenly see the light and stand up against the machine. It is certainly
>> optimistic to assume that the masses will take up arms against the 
>> establishment
>> and become anything more than "paper tigers" armed with words until their
>> personal interests are at stake in a real and immediate way. Should that 
>> happen,
>> they will become frightened sheep who will follow anyone who appears to 
>> offer
>> simple answers and courses of action that play to the fears. The tea 
>> party
>> movement, the Arizona reaction to immigration, the white power movements, 
>> etc.
>> tend to give evidence to this and serve as potential examples and 
>> illustrations
>> just as the McCarthyism, the racist, and the anti-immigrant movements of 
>> the
>> past did.
>>
>> The almost complete bureaucratization, transformation from an 
>> industrialized
>> society into a high tech service society, and the corporatization of the 
>> U.s.
>> and most of the Western world has changed the conditions drastically from 
>> what
>> existed even in the 1960 so as to alter the possibilities for rebellion 
>> and
>> revolt of the masses back then which influenced the establishment and 
>> brought
>> the Viet Nam war to a close. The substantive disregard for the beliefs,
>> interests, and desires of masses (or even those who voted for him) by the 
>> Obama
>> administration with respect to policies, practices, and actions gives 
>> ample
>> evidence of this change in that we hear all kinds of disparaging comments 
>> and
>> talk but little actual rebellion by the masses - even the collage age 
>> members of
>> the public. We certainly do not see the working classes or the poor out 
>> on the
>> streets disrupting business as usual, refusing to volunteer for service 
>> in the
>> military establishment, cutting back on their conspicuous consumption and
>> consumerism, etc. The fact that they are hurting economically has 
>> effectively
>> restricted their ability to engage in consumerism and conspicuous 
>> consumption;
>> but it has not curbed their desire to do so if they were given the 
>> capability to
>> do so. They complain about losses of jobs to China, Mexico, and other 
>> third
>> world countries while on their way to shop at Wal-Mart so as to buy cheap
>> products produced by low wage workers in those third world countries.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 3:40 PM
>> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> Cc: <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on New American Imperialism
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 02:35:33PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> Of course, it's not an excuse for 'staying' (i.e., continuing to kill
>>>> people) or a justification of aggression and occupation to say that 
>>>> that is
>>>> the policy of the entire US political establishment. That's what we've
>>>> been saying all along, in the face of those who thought Obama would 
>>>> save us
>>>> from the Awful McCain (or Palin! or the Teapartiers!) - and so we had 
>>>> to
>>>> support him...
>>>>
>>>> Like Ophelia, we were the more deceived.
>>>
>>> Right -- it's nothing like an excuse. But it is good for us to 
>>> understand
>>> the dynamics of wars, who gains what from them, and how they're 
>>> sustained,
>>> in order to be able to fit arguments against them.
>>>
>>> If the strongest thing sustaining our Af/Pak war is US "political 
>>> necessity",
>>> that actually seems encouraging, because a raucous movement saying that
>>> it's a war that the American people don't want could change that 
>>> political fact.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/28/10 1:58 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>>> ... One comment that surprised me was that, from Obama's point of 
>>>>> view,
>>>>> Chomsky thinks the dominant reasons for sticking with the war in
>>>>> Afghanistan,
>>>>> at this point, are domestic ones: backing out would be political 
>>>>> suicide.
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.