Re: [Marxism] The two souls of socialism (was:RE:JohnHolloway-AlexCallinicos debate)

["Ian Pace" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Mark Lause" <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Ian Pace wrote, "Cuba still isn't of great strategic or economic
> importance to the USA any longer, now that it's no longer aligned with
> the USSR. That's why I believe the antagonism from the USA is largely
> symbolic."
>
> You couldn't more misunderstand the psyche of the American ruling class.
> One of the Reagan cabinet members actually said that the US would take
> the same position towards Cuba whether or not the USSR existed.
> Absolutely so.
>
> The Southern slaveocracy (and therefore the Democratic Party) embraced a
> position that Cuba belonged, by right, to the United States.  There were
> several quasi-official filibustering expeditions against Cuba before the
> Civil War and the seizure of Cuba before the cornerstone of the often
> de-emphasized Democratic foreign policy of the late 19th century.  The
> US invaded and "liberated" the country at the start of the 20th century
> and have insisted upon a virtual veto over anything that's happened
> there before 1959.
>
> The current US stance towards Cuba is rooted in a tradition of imperial
> arrogance that long predated the Cold War.  Not controlling Cuba is
> viewed as being as inherently unnatural by the US ruling class as Al
> Bundy's neighbors setting up a BBQ pit in his backyard.
Without denying anything of this, that doesn't in essence contradict my
suggestion that the antagonism is symbolic rather than being rooted in the
geopolitical interests of global capital.

Solidarity,
Ian



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism