From: Damien Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 19:51:42 MST
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:12:02PM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
> The point needs to be made over and over that the pre-1989
> world was a LOT DIFFERENT than now. The West was fighting
> for its life against the Soviet play for world domination.
No, the West thought it was fighting for its life. After 1991 it became clear
the Soviet Union was a paper tiger. Okay, a paper tiger with nukes, but its
economic power had been vastly overestimated.
And there wasn't that much fighting, more jockeying for status and influence.
> The choice, as Max Plumm has eloquently explained, was never
> between "democracy" and "tyranny" in a developing country,
> but between "pro-U.S. authoritarianism" and "pro-Soviet
> totalitarianism" in those places. It's still an open
I consider that unproven. Greece wandered between democracy and
authoritarianism. Costa Rica has been democratic for a long long time. The
rest of Latin America was having trouble with democracy since long before
Communism; it's not clear what the latter had to do with anything. Apart from
us helping to overthrow democratically elected left-leaning governments such
as Allende.
Oh, India's another counterexample. Definitely still developing, but
democratic since independence, and leading the Nonaligned Bloc. Or Iran,
which after 1979 was neither pro-US authoritarian nor pro-Soviet totalitarian.
Maybe getting some aid from the USSR, but mostly going its own theocratic way.
Lebanon was roughly democratic until the Syrians moved in, and possibly
Israel's interference didn't help either.
I now consider the dichtomy not just unproven but rather dubious.
> Let's suppose that the neo-cons get their way in the next
> few U.S. elections, and that after Iraq, other anti-Western
> tyrannical regimes are also subjugated. Moreover, along
> with the worst fears of many, let's suppose that American
> hegemony in the world continues to grow. What is the
> probability in this case that the corruption of which you
> speak will develop?
>
> Will it be different from 1945? It is not thought that
> the U.S., in most areas of the world the single superpower,
> really got out of control then. Frankly, unless there is a
The US then didn't talk about empire, and probably didn't believe in it. The
neocons talk about Pax Americana and making sure US supremacy is unchallenged
and unchallengeable. Which, given the wealth of the EU and the size and
growing wealth of China, might take some maintenance. There's a difference
between hegemony which falls into our lap and hegemony pursued as a goal in
itself.
What if a democratic country in the middle east, alarmed by repeated US
invasions of countries it doesn't like, decides to not sell oil to us? Would
you consider a re-invasion to get the oil flowing corrupt?
And you talk about regimes being subjugated, a bit after you said it was an
open question whether Iraq could support democracy. Suppose it and other
countries can't, so the US gets associated with setting up a whole bunch of
authoritarian regimes. We may say "look, it's not as bad as what you had."
The natives will just see that they now have someone outside to blame for
their misery.
> big change in the nature of the American people, I can't see
> how the United States will become aggressive or imperial any
If the neocons get their way for the next few elections I think you'll see a
much more imperial US; that's the way they want. A solid presence in the
Middle East, ability to intimidate other countries there, bases everywhere.
And what of democracy at home while this is going on? Eroding civil
liberties, eroding abortion rights, increasing governmental religiosity and
secrecy... I'm just describing trends of the past two years, here.
Paranoid would be worrying about further expansion of the idea of declaring US
citizens "enemy combatants" to be held without due process.
> challenge: in what ways has U.S. economic and military
> hegemony during the last *fifteen* years resulted in anti-
> extropian tendencies?
Interference with family planning. Secret WTO tribunals overturning local
laws. Trying to prevent the International Criminal Court from taking shape.
Supporting Israel's military occupation of a few million people. Either
trading with China or failing to trade with Cuba; one of those has to be
wrong, although I don't know which. Pushing the war on drugs.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 19:59:03 MST