Re: [A-List] US/Saudi tensions

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Macdonald writes:

I don't know, but I am concerned that we not get too caught up in the
details of
this supposed "split". It wouldn't have happened AT ALL, i.e. it would not
have
become public discourse if it was not suitable to the US ruling juntas
interests. That's the way things work now, not much different than before
but
far far more refined. The details are not as important as the article being
on
page one. You seem bent on getting a cardboard cut-out Leninist dogmatic out
of
me, or insinuating one. I'm not a party, much less a sect, sorry.

-----

With all due respect, comrade, sometimes your rhetorical style does a much
better job of insinuating a cardboard cut-out Leninism than I could or
would. That is really what I was getting at in my "invective". Otherwise I
have no problem with who you are, what you are about, etc. I'm pleased you
want to contribute here, and hope others follow your example. As for getting
into the details on e.g. US-Saudi links, we can agree to differ about their
relative importance in the scheme of things. It's important to remember
that, as far as being here (i.e. on an e-list) is concerned, this is an
appropriate space for such discussions, complementary to whatever organising
and activism we may engage in elsewhere. It's worth remembering that the
ruling junta is not wholly unified, and that there are serious splits within
it, as well as across the US ruling class. To attribute the appearance of
any story to servicing the interests of the hegemonic bloc requires
justification -- evidence, theory, logic. In this case there is much more
than meets the eye, and while these stories are noteworthy for their
publication, so too is their content noteworthy for what it signals about
the precariousness of the ruling junta and the whole edifice upon which it
sits. The impeccably conservative Anatol Lieven gets it right when he
highlights just how "pragmatic" Bush has been, forming one ad hoc coalition
after another, in order to cement his position at the top of the greasy
pole. The flip side to such fleetness of foot is the lack of any strong
basis of support which makes such "pragmatism" necessary. The US-Saudi
relationship is a part of these shifting sands and represents a key element
of global US hegemony as it has existed from the 1970s until now. To
understand its unravelling (potential or actual) requires analysis of its
origins and development. And even if the junta has decided that the Saudis
are next (which I don't believe, assuming that the ruling family retains its
position, which is not a trivial assumption), an understanding of this
relationship tells us a lot about why people like James Baker, Brent
Scowcroft, George H. W. Bush, Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Eagleburger are
all extremely worried about the impact of an invasion of Iraq. They, after
all, were instrumental, in their positions within the Nixon and Ford
administrations, in setting up the "financial architecture" which Dubya et
al threaten to blow to smithereens should the warmongers prevail inside the
junta.

You continue:

Michael, your humilty will not protect you. We are living in the part of the
world that is targetting them. We are quite capable of saying that we know
how
to spot when imperialism is going after a country. Have I quoted Mugabe?
Have I
said the land reform was akin to the land reform of the Mexican or Chinese
revolutions? Nothing of the sort. However, I have said that it is very clear
that our governments are after them and now they have chosen to manipulate
the
national/tribal divide in Zimbabwe, in order to NATO it. I have every right,
in
fact, where I sit (a country that would no doubt be part of the expedition)
to
question this.

<snip>

"Mugabe is holding his
people hostage like Saddam Hussein". When American policy wonks say this,
you
better get down to understanding whose side you are on.

I'm not with the sanctions. Go sanction Britain. If that's dogma, then I'm
dogmatic. Proud of it, too.

-----

Yes, you are dogmatic. However I would be more selective about where I aim
my dogmatism. In this forum I can freely discuss the nuances, subtleties,
contradictions, etc., of imperialism or whatever with others similarly
opposed to it. Our united opposition makes such a discussion possible,
indeed desirable. Where I draw the line is where others like the Nation
magazine in the US and Herald columnist Alf Young in Scotland would cross
it -- affecting the appearance of "sensible left" whilst doing the work of
the right. Thus, for example, whatever my criticisms of Tommy Sheridan and
the Scottish Socialist Party, or (very hypothetically since I actually have
none) Lou Paulsen and the Workers' World Party, I know very well which side
I am on -- theirs; ours.

You continue:

Michael, you are the one who chose to make this personal, fine. I left
Proyect's
list for reasons I won't go into here, suffice to say I don't give a damn
about
the history of the SWP US, nor am I interested in a forum that is all about
spanking people into thinking the same way as the moderator (and his clique)
on
fundamental issues. I prefer this list because of the higher state of
contributions and because it isn't purely Marxist, or for that matter First
World Marxists. We *need* something new, something better, right? This list
has
a chance to do that, Marxmail is all about replicating the old. Rad Green is
attempting to do the same thing as this, but on a far more activist/younger
basis and less academic basis as well. It is a lot of news and some debate,
almost always about that which we can actually do.

Your invective is wholly surprising, but I'm guessing you don't believe that
Saudi is next.

-----

I have not made this personal -- or, if I have appeared to, I have attempted
to be constructive, something which may have been obscured by my irritation.
Again I refer you to the style of certain contributions and their blanket
character and suggest that you will be protected from misunderstanding or
aggravation if you exercise a bit of humility here and in like forums.
Dogmatism gets you only so far. And, by the way, mea culpa -- this applies
to me as much as anyone.

Your disagreements with Lou are a separate issue that I regret opening the
door to. Suffice to say I disagree on every criticism you make, and that in
my view the A-list and Marxmail complement each other very well, which is my
intention. If Rad Green can add further, along lines you mention above, so
much the better, and I am in complete agreement as regards your point re
needing something new. In this respect I think that what the people around
Jim O'Connor at CNS working on political ecology are doing is so necessary,
and certainly much more refreshing than old-style "correctives" of the kind
issued by John Bellamy Foster in a recent Monthly Review. [The manner of
that debate, however, has been very counterproductive, unnecessarily
dogmatic and needlessly personal IMO. It's like the old state theory debates
of the 70s -- everybody thinks he has "the answer" when in fact each often
has complementary parts of a significant but nevertheless unquantifiable
chunk of the "the answer". It's important stuff to be sure, but a circular
firing squad isn't going to resolve it.]

I'd like to see more green orientation represented here, because it needs a
redder hue in order to make sense of the world it wants to save, whilst red
efforts to incorporate (appropriate) green perspectives are to be encouraged
to avoid the sort of pitfalls you highlight. To that end, if you can think
of ways in which we can help each other on this then I'm open to
suggestions.

Michael Keaney