Re: tipping point?

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

News junkies by myself can waste a great deal of time wondering
whether each next turn is a tipping point. There were reasons for
believing it last week, but there are always powerful forces trying to
rebalance. Indeed perhaps balance is what as individuals we all try to
maintain and that contributes to the relative stability of the system.

As Engels wrote in his profound letter to Bloch Setp 21 1890 "there
are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of
parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant - the
historical event. This may itself be viewed as the product of a power
which works as a whole, *unconsciously* and without volition. For what
each individual wills, is obstructed by everyone else, and what
emerges is something that no one willed."

So relative to the post below, Rumsfeld did not resign. But this
morning there is news suggesting major shifts precisely in an effort
to restabilize. They imply overall the ascendancy of the multi-lateral
imperialists over the uni-lateral imperialists.

1. The US military has gone ahead announcing that certain cooercive
interrogation techniques will no longer be permitted under any
conditions in Iraq. This puts distance between the military and
Rumsfeld. It suggests that people were unimpressed by Wolfowitz's weak
testimony last week.

2. Powell and Jack Shaw have announced in the context of the G8
meeting that the US, UK Italy and Japan will withdraw from Iraq if the
interim administration requests it. This gamble makes it much easier
for the UK government to keep troops in Iraq, and shifts the whole
power issue into one coerced not by armed military might but by armed
finance - is it in the interests of the Iraqi's to have a settlement
guided over them by the benign hand of international finance capital.
It suggests that militarily the hegemons will try to keep a low
profile if they can in places like Basra and Najaf, even at the risk
of ceding ground to local militias, and they will instead play off the
different Iraqi interest groups against one another realy with bribes,
(wrapped up as development and resonstruction initiatives). Whether
the intelligent Iraqi people want to bargain over this they might wish
to decide after they have inspected the results of such pax capitalis
in the Balkans and in Afghanistan.

3. The UK governments media coup over the Mirror suggests that British
troops have all along been more moderate than US troops in Iraq, and
will increase consent in the UK for continued voluntary peace keeping
activities if accepted by the provisional Iraqi government. This
strengthens the case for the UK rather than the US being at the core
of the good troops of multi-lateral imperialism.

4. No doubt partly with Blair's consent, the deputy PM, Prescott, has
spoken openly about the rift between Blair and Brown, early in the
history of the New Labour government and allegedly better now, and
discussion about who would take over from Blair. This could lance the
tension over the issue, and allow Blair to strengthen his position
while supporters of rival contenders eye each other guardedly. It is a
high risk stategy, but Blair is nimble about reframing questions, and
dancing over a new rebalancing of countervailing forces.

Conclusion: No really senior figures have yet fallen, but what is more
important is that the multi-lateralist imperialist camp has pulled
decisively ahead of the uni-lateralist neo-cons. That is what has
tipped this week.

"Unconsciously" and "objectively" the agenda is being shaped by the
contradiction between the long term intestests of finance capital and
the working people of the world. That is the slope of this stage of
world history on which each puny actor plays their part to the best of
their ability.

Chris Burford



----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Burford" <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 7:23 AM
Subject: [PEN-L] tipping point?


> Most political efforts try to maintain the status quo, to
re-balance,
> and continue. Even a change of personnel is not the same thing as a
> change of policy, still less a change of social system of
> exploitation.
>
> However the BBC reports this morning that the Army Times, widely
> available on the bases, is complaining that US soldiers are saying
why
> should they take the blame if people at the top do not resign? The
> Guardian reports that senior US military are expressing lack of
> confidence in Rumsfeld. And the BBC reports that George Bush has
said
> he will personally view the sadistic pornographic images. I doubt if
> he has the strength of personality and psychological insight to sit
> through all this without being profoundly disturbed. This may just
be
> the moment when if Rumsfeld loyally places his resignation on the
> table Bush runs out of reasons to persuade him not to.
>
> So why should Rumsfeld lay his resignation loyally on the table?
> Particularly perhaps if this crisis has set up reverberations among
> the neo-cons, and someone like Wolfowitz decides it is in their
> interests to go rather than to hang on for worse catastrophes eg
that
> ironically Colin Powell is the best guarantee against the *total*
> collapse of the neo-con project in the near and middle east.
>
> Chris Burford
>