Re: Wallerstein on the Future

The "knee jerk" Vietnam protestors, as you call them, were trying to disrupt
the mass murder of millions of people. (Including "collateral" deaths of
millions more in Cambodia and Laos). Those of use trying to stop the war
against Iraq are trying to disrupt the mass murder of hundreds of thousands
more in Iraq, as well as the tens of millions more oppressed by imperialism.
Some can say that it is a "choice of bullies" -- Bush versus Saddam---
conveniently leaving out the oppression of the millions of "ordinary
people." Others can stare at a mirror indecisively while their heads fill up
with subjective complex theories and "anti-theories" about the Nature of the
Universe, but, you know, there is a lot of bleeding going on out there. And
besides, it is in looking at the hard realities that the best theories are
developed.

Alan Spector

=================================================
:
----- Original Message -----
From: <Nemonemini@aol.com>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Wallerstein on the Future


> Your post is most interesting in light of the previous remarks on
predictive
> models.
> What is the basis of prediction here? I, for one, would have a hard time
> predicting anything. What I would do is to always be wary when great
powers
> go to war. That's always a moment to pause and be wary. That said, the
> current reflex to 'demonstrate against the war' is a hand-me-down sixties
> gesture. I walked in those marches, and I remember the lesson in
unlearning
> the lesson of the second world war, i.e. the generational 'we must stop
> aggression' from Hitler, that made so many do a kneejerk Vietnam syndrome.
> This is not the same situation. What lesson are we learning now?
>  Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't protest. But all the tired groups
> hoping to jumpstart their flagging membership drives find themselves in a
new
> situation here, and one that will skewer most analyses.
> Even thought I could not easily support this war, I could not easily
> demonstrate in the streets to save Saddam given the great memories I have
of
> the Vietnma protest generation.
>
> I don't know what to think, but as to Iraq, who cares?  Why would anyone
> defend this Saddam idiot? IF, and it would be a dangerous IF, the American
> centurions of Empire could  quickly topple this Asshole of first
magnitude, I
> would take a vacation on protesting Empire for the duration. I know that's
> unacceptable, yet I note that this is being collated with the Palestinian
> confusion, and that is unfair to the genuine injustice there. It is a
> hopeless tangel.
>  The Bush regime is exceptionally clever here. They have a stack of pyscho
> studies I am sure of the 'Protest' phenom, and they can see the protest
> movement is going very well here. Because it is not the same situation.
> What is the left's posture here? The Communist system saw fit to intervene
> everywhere and at all points, in the most violent fashion. How is the Bush
> War any worse?
> And they have their 'legitimate' excuses in the harsh facts of atomic and
bio
> weaponry.
> By the rule of thugs and bullies, the American bullies are more benign.
>
> A man who uses bio weapons on Kurds loses his rights to bully to the
bigger
> Bully, Uncle Sam, those rights being the Empire sweepstakes, no doubt. But
> grieving over Iraq, to me, is a waste of effort.
>
> I do agree on the question of the 'clash of civilizations'. This is a
genuine
> ideological fix, resurrected to serve its purpose. The West versus Islam
as a
> clash of civilizations is a non-starter.
>
> I should note the reality is not the West as a civilization, but the
'modern'
> as a phase of transformation, and it's all there in Marx, now thought
> Eurocentric. But his point remains.
>
> What do we mean by this 'modern phase'. That should be the real concern of
> the Islamic world.
>
> I am often puzzled why it is that a 'milieu' (I won't say civilization,
then)
> as rich as the Islamic, with a millennium of Sufis who could make western
> psychologists look primitive are unable to deal with this modern phase,
which
> is an idea. Why is it that this rich heritage is stuck with such atrocious
> gangsters as Saddam Hussein, whom we are supposed to grieve over.
>
> I take no hard position here, and am open to challenge on these points.
But
> this isn't the Vietnam war all over again. The Bush gang is too clever for
> that. And the realm of Islam is that of an Empire, not of a civilization.
So
> it's a choice of bullies.
>
> Sorry, feel free to disagree with this. I take no hard stance on a Bush
war.
> Merely I sense the frustration of those thinking they are protesting
another
> Vietnam war. I won't work that way.
> What unforeseen mess could occur if the Bushies got their war, I hardly
dare
> think. It could be over in a week, or turn into a quagmire. Who can
predict.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Landon
> Website on the eonic effect
> http://eonix.8m.com
> nemonemini@eonix.8m.com
>