[Marxism] It depends, largely, on you

["Nestor Gorojovsky" <nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Flewers:


Iraq will be a poisoned chalice for the next US administration, 
whatever stripe it may be. Now that Saddam Hussein is a back-number, 
and that democracy in Iraq is highly unlikely -- I think we're in an 
unstable interregnum between one authoritarian regime and another -- 
how can US official spokesmen justify the occupation? Will they be 
actually forced to say: 'We're in Iraq for vital strategic purposes: 
we're there to control Middle East oil, to contain China, to keep out 
potential rivals.' In short, will they have to justify their 
occupation of Iraq in purely imperialist terms, or will they still be 
able to justify it in terms of the 'war against terror'?


Me:

The answer to the last question is simple:  it depends, basically, on 
what _you_ cdes. in the USA can manage to accomplish.  "War against 
terror" has never been anything else than a scarecrow and a carrot in 
front of the American populace.  I use the word "populace" 
intentionally. It depends on active politics that they become a 
"population", and, once on the move, a "people".

In that active politics, cdes. on this list should be at the pole 
position.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism