Dumb gets dumber
Gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar
Sat Sep 15 14:14:51 MDT 2001
En relación a Re: Dumb gets dumber,
el 15 Sep 01, a las 10:58, Louis Proyect dijo:
> Now, all they need is a powerful anti-capitalist enemy to direct
> their crusade against. What is missing in Nestor and Jared's analysis
> is exactly this enemy
I agree that there is no "visible enemy", and that this is a hard point with my
assumption (not an _analysis_, please: I have already commented that from my
own standing this is not the central point). But I still can't assume that the
US are such an easy prey. Nor will I, ever.
We could turn the argument back on Lou's side of the field: precisely because
there is no visible enemy, precisely because there is a need to prepare America
the fortress for a war against _the planet_, precisely because there will be
_many_ enemies, then the hit had to be so extreme and unbelievably enormous.
But, honestly, I'd rather debate something else than whether the US
establishment did it, allowed it, helped it to pass, or suffered it. I insist
that it is not my own concern. In my own country, where I do my politics day
after day, most people I have met agreed with me in that what matters is not
"who did it" but whether "they got for an hour what we in the Third World get
on a daily basis, shall they realize it or on the contrary they will become
more beastly". That is, the question is posed towards the immediate tasks.
And, as Louis has already told us himself, we are not Hercule Poirot. We aren't
even Lew Archer.
Lou further said:
> The US ruling class will do everything it can to turn a disaster to
> its advantage. But to assume that it needed to orchestrate this
> disaster is utter folly.
Just to clarify my position: there are too many holes in the fabric to assume
that all this could be done without at least a murderous and ill-inspired
neglect from the ruling class agents in the American state. I am not speaking
of a wholly orchestrated provocation (although some day we may be amazed to
discovered that something like that took place, only they did not count on the
plastic features of steel under heat). I am just saying that, even in the
unlikely case that there had been no active collaboration, the way the American
bourgeois state kept the core of American population safe displayed a ruinous
disparagement for eventual strikes from abroad. They felt invulnerable, and
thus put the whole population in danger. Or shall we think that the Soviet
authorities who allowed Mathias Rust to land on the Red Square were
unaccountable and -in a sense- not responsible for what happened?
Please, let us move on to something more productive. At least yours truly will
close down on this particular issue.
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message
More information about the Marxism