re: Social Imperialism [DMS]

["M. Junaid Alam" <junaidalam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am confounded that DMS has once again brought the question back to square
zero: in three separate posts I raise specific points and questions
concerning the history of colonial expropriation, imperialist interference,
the safety valve of mass emigrations, and you refuse to confront any of
this. Even when I answered the specifics of real wages, women's labor, and
urged you to take the broader view, you relapse into restating the question,
and scramble away again into economic
reductionism.

It strikes me as very bizarre that any Marxist would believe that no section
of workers in the West benefit in any tangible social or economic sense from
the actions enforced by and the systems of domination created by
imperialism.

[Addendum: DMS, there is no need to insert melodramatics into the situation.
The fact that I don't think locked fire exit doors disprove the material
priviliges of Western workers does not make me "Pol Pot". Obviously if I was
aware you had been personally affected by the fire incident- you never
mentioned it in your post - I would extend my sympathies for your personal
loss at the outset.]

Returning to the debate, here is one example of what I mean:

[Interview with Jeff Halper, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions]

So this is the missing piece. If you read the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) website, the main pro-Israel lobby in the US, there's one
piece called 'Strategic Cooperation.' The United States and Israel have a
formal treaty, a formal alliance, which gives Israel access to almost all of
American military technology.

When AIPAC sells Israel to Congress, it doesn't go to Congressmen and ask
them to support Israel because it is Judea Christian, or because it is the
"only democracy in the Middle East," which it also does. It sells it on this
basis: "you are a member of Congress and it is your responsibility to
support Israel, because this is how many industries in your state have
business links to Israel, this is how many military research people are
sitting in universities in your district, this is
how many jobs in your district are dependent on the military and the defence
industry" and they translate it down to the extent to which  your district
is dependent on Israel. Therefore, if you are voting against Israel, you are
voting against the goose that lays the golden egg.

In most of the districts in the United States, members of Congress have a
great dependence on the military. More than half of industrial employment in
California is in one way or another connected to defence. Israel is right
there, right in the middle of it all. And that is part of its strength.

And then we (the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, for example)
come to a member of Congress, we talk about human rights, about occupation,
about Palestinians, and he says: "look I know, I read the papers, I'm not
dumb, but that is not the basis on which I vote. The basis on which I vote
is what is good for my constituents."




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.