American Politics: Coven or Coven

OpenSentence Type Foundry typefoundry at
Fri Nov 21 14:36:50 MST 2003

> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:00:13 -0500
> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at>
> Subject: Re: Wesley Clark: Friend or Foe?
>>Frankly, military fatigues probably give you cancer; war is about death,
>>and death on the cheap in all kinds of ways.  I'm not sure depleted
>>uranium's the greatest environmental-exposure risk you can face, because I
>>doubt it very much.
> Jeff, it is urgent that certain kinds of weapons be permanently banned:
> cluster bombs, DU shells, nuclear weapons, chemical and bacterial agents
> are at the top of the list. To even entertain the possibility of a
> Democratic Party candidate with not only DU shells on his record, but
> attacks on civilian infrastructure including water plants, is a sign of how
> much this party has shifted to the right. That the Nation Magazine, which
> hires a number of people with Marxish pretensions, can shill for this war
> criminal is a sign of how corrupt the soft left has become.

It may be urgent, but then again there are all kinds of bad things you can
ingest or be exposed to (AHEM) which are not covered by international
*military* treaties; calling Clark a war criminal *for that* is tendentious
to the point of being genuinely defamatory, which should trouble you if
you're *not* getting in trouble for it.  In terms of the Nation: I would
never dream in a million years of getting hired by this year's model, but
I'll shill for Clark if he'll have me as a "sidelines supporter" (I'm not a
registered Democrat).  He's the only person who will beat W.  The only one;
Dean and company were sent from powers above to torture *us*.

>>I'm pointing out that such distinctions are a little arbitrary (everything
>>he got, he had to pay for it on time -- "free" West Point, "free" Rhodes,
>>etc.)  And furthermore "enemy" is a term with non-Marxist political
>>valences (which see: Carl Schmitt).
> These distinctions are not arbitrary at all. Society is divided into two
> classes. Although Clark himself is not a member of the big bourgeoisie, he
> aspires to manage their affairs. It does not matter that he arrived to this
> position like a character in a Horatio Alger story.

Andrew Sullivan is absolute horseshit; I bet he was far more like the Oxford
characters Adorno describes in the "Tough Baby" *Minima Moralia* entry.  I'm
not going to be charged for the problems homophobes (including ones of his
"invention") attribute to that fool.  Secondly, I really do recommend that
you read Schmitt's *Concept of the Political* (a very slim volume, and I'll
even mail you my copy if you don't want to go on down to the library) to
understand just how *unbalanced* that term is in *exactly* the way you
deplore.  (It's from Schmitt's anti-Nazi period, if that matters to you).

>>Yes, but Mr. Project the North==the US.  It's the same organization; maybe
>>it took a wrong turn at Albuquerque, but it was defending the US
>>government's fundamental interests back then too.  That's the point, you
>>don't have to be too pleased with the NATO intervention (the Yugoslavs,
>>and that's right, that I've known weren't *too* displeased with it but
>>like you they were very concerned about depleted uranium).  You've got to
>>pick *your* battles.
> Well, fighting to abolish slavery seemed like a battle worth joining.
> Turning Yugoslavia into a maquiladora zone does not.

Uhh, it *didn't used to* work like that (even in your day, the old Fogerty
tells me) and that's the Army Clark remembers.  He's my boy as far as I can

Jeff Rubard

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list