I wrote: >> Is there anyone on pen-l who sees Serbia as "socialist"? in what sense? what do they mean by "socialism" and in what sense does Serbia fit this definition?<< Michael P. writes: >I think that socialism is coming to mean anyone who defies the market (except for unusal circumstantaces, such as Helms-Burton). So Milosevic, the banker, is a socialist in the same sense that Malaysia is socialist. Remember, Jim, we live in world where Clinton is a leftist and Newt G. is a moderate.< Econ. books have always defined "socialism" as "nonmarket." But I see no reason why socialists should follow the hegemonic definition. If the rest of the world is jumping off a cliff, should we follow them? In the same message, I wrote: >>It's pretty clear that the US/NATO war against Serbia is small-i imperialistic, as Barkley says. And such policies can be (and often are) incompetent; consider the history of the US war against Vietnam. << saith Doug: >Incompetent? Which part? The 2-3 million dead? The poisoning of the land? The suppression of revolution elsewhere in Asia? Was that done inefficiently?< Last time I checked, the US lost the war against Vietnam (as did Vietnam itself, in the classic lose-lose situation, since as Doug notes, the US punished it in a BIG way). For a long time, the process of this loss mobilized opposition to the US _status quo_ for quite a long time. The resistance by Vietnam mobilized people around the world. Sure, the US eventually _won_ (especially after the late 1970s), but at least there was a temporary set-back. Of course, it's much too simplistic to views these matters in a win vs. lose framework. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia now!
