PLF13 at student.canterbury.ac.nz
Sun Jul 13 23:51:14 MDT 2003
Mark Lause wrote:
> Now, the response of the Bushly geniuses is to begin doing more of the
> same. It took the focus off the disasterous results of the Afghanistan
> adventure by going into Iraq, so it's now talking about Liberia and
> other places. This is building an ever more complicated house of cards.
I think this is very important.
Oftentimes imperialist interventions lead the left to hunt for immediate
economic motives. Sometimes this leads to all kinds of conspiracy
nonsense and other far-fetched scenarios.
Particular imperialist interventions can be motivated by a range of
things - economic, strategic/geo-political, inter-imperialist rivalry,
inability to solve domestic problems so you go abroad where you can more
successfully wave the big stick, etc. And sometimes they can be just be
plain old stuff-ups.
I think Bush's toying with a Liberian intervention is mainly a stuff-up,
but one related to attempting an 'engagement' with Africa, which had
been missing in the new US administration worldview up to now.
I think there is also a strong element of what Mark mentions - a
disaster in one country leads these guys to move into another country
where they think they might score more successfully.
One thing about the Bush regime is that these people are not the
sharpest knives in the drawer. Rice and Powell appear relatively sharp,
but it is the old WASP thick-as-pigshit inbreds that seem to be making
Of course, none of this is to deny the fundamentally economic motor
force of imperialism - namely, the attempt to overcome problems of
capital accumulation at home by exporting capital abroad (along with, in
the case of the Third World, the military forces and rest of the
apparatus needed to maintain profitable conditions for exploitation and
More information about the Marxism