there is a possiblity of reform but it will be that that deepens the international division of labour- poor nations poorer and rich bought off working classes in the rich countries, all under the banner of nationalism. what will it take in between 2001 and 2010 to bring the rate of profit to levels higher than that of the nineties. the demand component in the third world is irrelevant so commodity relaization is out and war is in. --- Greg Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The first thing I should say is that I am not > altogether convinced that the Taliban has collapsed, > it was in Kurisowa's film the Seven Samurai that the > character Kambei says that every good fortress > leaves a way open to entice the enemy into a trap. > > Kabul is such an opening, and has been used as such > in previous Afghan wars, Kabul has been taken many > times, holding it and leaving it is where the > trouble begins. Kabul is a magnet, naturally for the > Northern Alliance, but it is also an Allenby's > Damascus, the place where imperial power must be > demonstrated by governance - it is one place where > large numbers of American's must congregate and then > be enclosed by winter (a mini-Stalingrad comes to > mind). Of course this is mere speculation and the > Taliban may have simply run into the hills never to > return. > > A lot of POWs may be the most convincing sign of > real collapse, even the signs of joy at the the > Taliban's exodus may be a misreading of actual > loyalities when push comes to shove. But so much for > armchair readings of far off battles - chances are > that things are exactly as portrayed in the media > and it is all over bar the shouting. > > "So at the moment of victory for the Empire, we > should ask what version of > Empire it will be. Not of course a social > imperialist one. But why not a > social democratic one? Will that keep the multitude > under more effective > control?" > > "Can the US hegemonists and the neo-liberals > maintain a stable and > defensible front line against this war of movement?" > > A good and thoughtful contribution Chris especially > these last two paragraphs which is the critical > contradiction of our period. Things are moving fast, > so fast I find it difficult to keep in view very > much of the whole picture. Intentions are one thing > (re Bush and Blair) the contradictions they are > responding to another, somewhere in between history > is being made. > > I am also glad you raised the all important problem > of whether reforms help or hamper humanity. The > normal knee-jerk reaction from Marxists is that the > mere mention of raising reforms is to succomb to > reformism. > > However, the contradiction we face is our own > irrelevance, that is if we do not start to raise > sensible and realisable reforms the direction is > given and it is not in the end a pretty one. There > is no-one putting forward the interests of working > class in any meaningful way, there is no coherence > to what is said on the left and no political > direction except cultish oppositionalism. > > In short, unless individual states are reformed, the > international order cannot be otherwise than > chaotic. > > What seems to be ignored is the predicament of > historical social-democracy. There is no social > ground for such reformism, in just a decade it seems > to have evaporated completely. Yet the > revolutionary left reifies reforms as the essence of > reformism, which was never the case - reformism is > not even simple the restriction of struggle to > legalisied procedures though it necessarily requires > this form, but the substitution of class power for > inter-class recognition of leadership - little > wonder it has vanished as the ruling class cares > little for the fine balancing of social hegemony > within any particular state. > > The question is what does the left fear from > realisable reforms when the historical conditions > for reformism have so obviously dissappeared? > > Practicality and realisability would bring coherence > and platform to any number of class interests, > interests in making the state much more democratic, > controling capital and providing for all variety of > social need without relying on bureacratic measures. > > It seems obvious that by so changing states from the > bottom up, there becomes a basis in the real world > for creating a more sensible international order. > > Could this lead to Empire more completely, in the > end, stupidfying the masses (multitude if you like), > it is difficult to see how, in fact it seems > difficult to comprehend how Empire may be fought by > any other means. For Empire to recreate reformism on > a significant scale in this period of time would be > to turn the clock back and recreate a parochial > bourgeoisie. > > Greg Schofield > Perth Australia > > > > > > > > > > --- Message Received --- > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:31:29 +0000 > Subject: [PEN-L:19564] Victory to Empire > > <snipped> > >
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
