Re: [A-List] What rivalry?

[Rob Schaap <rschaap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

G'day Bob,

Ain't a structurally significant lump of US debt held by the Euro (and
Japanese) bourgeoisie?  We should also bear in mind that recent imperial
pronouncements suggest a pan-Anglo-Saxon dimension informs the fond
imaginings of the currently ascendant elements of the US ruling class.
The policy explicitly aims at keeping the rest of the west firmly in its
place, and that's gonna genuinely and durably antagonise the rest of the
'first world' and the capacity of their bourgeoisies continually to
develop avenues of accumulation.  Or do you think the trilateralist
big-B bourgeoisie is so integrated as to circumvent such problems?
That's not a rhetorical question, I just don't know.

What think you, comrade?

Cheers,
Rob.

Bob Enoch wrote:
>
> What is meant by "inter-imperialist rivalry" in a militarily uni-polar
> world?
>  What is the hard evidence of this rivalry in the case of the EU and
> theEmpire?
> Rivalry implies not only a conflicting interest, but also the ability and
> the will, to pursue this interest in the face of ones' "rival"
>
> No sensible Euro bourgeois could today contemplate a policy that might lead
> to
> confrontation with the New World Order.  That is the purpose of
> full-spectrum dominance.
> I think the elites of Europe understand this very well, and the most
> powerful have opted for Imperial citizenship.
> What choice have they?
> The basis for international law is now (explicitly) the carrier group.
> The parliamentary politics of Europe require that there be some gnashing of
> teeth, and beating of breasts about loss of sovereignty and cultural
> integrity.And few Euro politicians will match the evident enthusiasm of
> Blair for this sobering new order.
> But in the end, lacking the military power to sustain "rivalry", sensible,
> canny European elites will continue to accommodate themselves to the only
> full-spectrum state apparatus in town.
>
> Bob