Charles had written: >>>I can't tell if you are opposing the Marxist idea that capitalist wars are integral to the capitalist system; or whether you are saying that this war is an exception. <<< I answered: >>neither. I was opposing crude economic determinism and teleology (i.e., something like profiteering from a Marshall-type plan occurs _because_ it was planned ahead of time by NATO). << Chas. responds: >I'd say mystified, inability to find ruthless economic motives in capitalists is much more of a problem than seeing economic determinism and teleology, crude or otherwise. The bourgeoisie should not be seen as lacking vulgar and vicious motives and plans. To declare that they would not crudely plan ahead of time to profiteer from this war and others is very misleading. The capitalists promote, demand and require a gigantic , standing military. They don't have to specifically plan to profiteer from the recovery financing of a given war. It just naturally follows. Thus, they require their governments to be militarist in general and to wage war as an ongoing institution. < I'm not denying that capitalists have ruthless economic motives. Rather, I'm denying (a) that capitalists always get what they want and (b) that what happens is always something planned ahead of time by the capitalists. Put it in terms of another era of history: (a) when various "Western" capitalists and upper-crust types backed Hitler in the 1930s as a way to fight the USSR and "bolshevism" in general, they were being disgustingly immoral. Many of the Western elite were also antisemitic, racist, etc. But my understanding is that the vast majority of them were not hoping to get the Hitler they got, one who organized the slaying of about 10 million civilians (Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, commies, etc.) and, even worse from their perspective, attacked France and England. Similarly, the Western elite seem to have wanted to actually prevent the Russian Revolution from surviving when they sent troops to intervene in Russia immediately after 1917. In neither case did the capitalist elite get what they want. (b) while I bet that the US/NATO elite doesn't care enough about any war profiteering that occurs in order to act to prevent it, it's hard to see the war profiteers as being a big lobbying group. The military-industrial complex seems to care more about having a big budget; they don't seem to need actual war. In fact, a war like that which is currently frying the FRY may easily backfire, undermining popular support in the US or NATO for large military budget. That, of course, is an important reason why the power elite was hoping for a quick-and-easy war, with Milosevic surrendering after a small bombing campaign. >It is quite naive to dismiss the idea that sectors of the bourgeoisie would not plan to make money off of NATO's attack in every which way ahead of time, including the post-war Marshall Plan type plan in Yugoslavia. They may let Clinton pick the particular time and place, but what they demand is a standing institution of war with all the attendant money making opportunities. Otherwise you portray the bourgeoisie as lucky innocent bystanders who reap a windfall.< don't you think that there are lots of other situations that generate big windfalls for capitalists, so tht actual war (a very risky event in most cases) isn't needed? for example, an IMF/WB "structural adjustment" program drives some poor country up against the wall, while pushing the government there to privatize government agencies. With the economy in a tailspin, the privatized agencies are sold for a song. BTW, it's important to realize that parts of the capitalist class -- i.e., those in the poor country in this example -- can _lose_ due to elite policies. Do you think the Serbian capitalists are doing well? >>From a theoretical standpoint "economic determinism and teleology" is not an error at this level of analysis. Those are criticisms of a more general level of analysis. A specific event can economically determined and teleological, in the sense that it is directed to a specific goal. << Sure, there are some conspiracies that attain their goals and sometimes specific lobbying groups attain their goals. But most political events are the result of the interaction of a large number of competing groups pushing for different goals, sometimes coalescing, sometimes not, often compromising, sometimes not. Conspiratorial groups face opposition from other conspiracies, as do lobbyists. So I think it's a mistake to always look for the "hidden hand" of conspiracy at work. I wrote: >>All wars are different. All have some similar bases in capitalism, i.e., in trying to cope with class antagonisms by external means and as a result of competition amongst capitals. But there are also a lot of other things that change over time -- such as the nature of the hegemonic power, opposition from non-capitalist systems (like the USSR) -- so that each war is different. << Chas: responds: >Yes, all wars are different, but each is not an entirely unique event. Science is an effort to find general patterns that are common to a group of phenomena. The common feature of capitalist wars is that are motivated by profiteering in many ways. This war is not an exception to that general pattern. Like all capitalist wars, it has vulgar economic motives underlying the welter of other surface dimensions. < Maybe, but the most plausible motives for the current war seem to be "economic" only if you stretch the definition so far that it breaks: the US is trying to impose its New Order (neoliberalism), while trying to use human rights as a legitimating force for that order. NATO is trying to maintain order in its "back yard," while trying to justify its own existence in a post-Soviet world. In the mix, we see lots of different lobbying groups and factions pushing for their programs. Maybe someone wants access to the famous mines of Serbia, but they're counterbalanced to some extent by those dyed-in-the-wool Clinton haters in Congress. Etc. I would interpret the wars of the last 200 years among the "core" rich capitalist countries in terms of nation-state contention, including the struggle to attain and maintain hegemony, made more complicated from 1917 to 1989 (and especially from 1945 to 1989) by the pressure from an alternative class system centered in the USSR. There was an economic basis to this nation-state competition, but these days there's an ongoing process of de-linking of nation-states and their capitalist classes, so that the capitalist class is becoming global at the same time that states remain national. It's this changing global socio-economic situation that helps us understand the different kinds of wars the world has seen. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
