Materialism in Imperialist Policy (was Re: Replying to Alan
Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestor at SPAMsisurb.filo.uba.ar
Mon Sep 13 17:53:57 MDT 1999
Oh, Yoshie, why is the day so short that I do not have the
time to answer your excellent posting?
But I will just point out one thing:
What Jared has shown, and I have warmly endorsed, is _not_
the trend to Balkanization (which, as you correctly point
out, is far from a Copernican discovery --even though such
midget Copernicuses as us are rare nowadays). What
he has shown is that in the new conditions, fully free
and at the same time propelled by looming crises,
imperialism is beginning to carve morsels out of the former
Indonesia is such a former ally.
I am not thinking of a Balkan fatalism of any sorts. In
fact, I still believe that while the Germans were champions
of the break up of Yugoslavia, the USA were not. What I
_yes_ contest is your somehow narrow view of the
"materialism" of imperialists. They do also think in
general, "geopolitical" terms, where the riches to be
extracted are but one element. Many small, invalid states
are better than a _single_ powerful state if you want to
colonize an area. The latter may be a grim reality to be
subdued under certain circumstances, but the best of
possible worlds will be (a) no state but the Imperial
state, or (b) states so weak that they cannot live unless
they become beggars.
This is my fear. And, I repeat, there is a mounting mass of
geographic evidence that the micro-statelet tactics is one
of the most beloved ones by the imperialists. If supported
by just claims (which, in that very moment, begin to become
questionable, at least in part), the better then.
I suppose this sounds to harsh. Sorry. It is too late
today, English is not my mother language, and -basically-
reality is becoming harsher by the minutes.
More information about the Marxism