Re: [A-List] US imperialism: Henry Liu's analysis

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2003-04-01 14:42 +0300, you quoted Henry


>The real enemy is neo-liberalism. The War on Iraq is part of a push to
>make the world safe for neo-liberalism.


I think that is globally and strategically correct.

One problem as Henry Liu's reflective and correct post implies, is how to 
take a stand in a complicated situation when the hegemonic bloc has been 
carrying out relentless and subtle propaganda for a year about the 
inevitability of their victory.  And when the democratic picture may be 
mixed. I consider that as far as outsiders are concerned regimes like 
Mahathir's, Saddam's and even Mugabe's are progressive vis a vis 
neo-liberalism and US hegemonism  despite weaknesses in their internal 
democratic record. [Besides the whole idealised nature of bourgeois 
democracy is being exposed in this global battle.]

There are problem about how the peace movement should articulate a tactical 
demand, but the call on the hegemonic forces for an immediate cease fire, 
to "Stop the War" remains progressive and urgent. I continue to think that 
a wider strategy for the peace movement of support "for peace and justice" 
in the whole of the middle east and indeed the world, is probably the best. 
(However I really do not know any details about a church based campaign in 
the US that uses these terms and am not implying anything about that 
organisation)

One of the gritty implications is that I would not see the need for the 
peace movement immediately to prioritise a demand that the US forces get 
out of the Kurdish areas if, for entirely hegemonic reasons, the US is 
objectively at present deterring an attack by Turkey on the Iraqi Kurds, 
especially if Saddam makes a strategic retreat from Kirkuk and Mosul.

One progressive goal is to minimise fighting between the ordinary working 
people of the world, workers, or peasants, or soldiers.

There is a difference between taking a stand of principle and prioritising 
every aspect of that in a situation in which as individuals or even as mass 
movements our leverage on the situation is limited.

However if the US colludes in a bloody attack on the Kurds, then the 
priority of the urgent tactical demands changes. (IMO despite the 
reactionary nature of the Kurdish regime, one more than the other.)

A demand to stop the war now, and for an immediate ceasefire remains 
entirely reasonable, urgent, and in conformity of the wishes of the vast 
proportion of people in the world, even the capitalists and large sections 
of the imperialist bourgeosie. (Indeed the British forces are virtually 
settling down with a semi-cease fire next to Basra, emphasising this 
morning there is nothing to report militarily overnight. I do not imply 
this is not an imperialist policy. It is. I point out that it is far from 
impossible to demand  a cease fire and expect them to deliver it.)

A cease fire remains an urgent and entirely reasonable demand. Even if the 
US forces take Baghdad with the slaughter with which Berlin finally fell, 
the call for a cease fire and stopping the war will be proved to be even 
more relevant. It is also cheaper. On the lives of the working people of 
the world, and the profits of finance capitalism as a whole.

Chris Burford
London