The predatory policies of the world's de facto government
By Stephen Gowans
You don't have to look much further to see that Washington intends to
act as a de facto world government than Bush administration lawyers
arguing the president isn't bound by US or international laws that
prohibit the use of torture. In this, and in other ways, it is
understood that the president is free to act according to his own
laws, defined by reference to national security interests, and senior
to all others, including the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Laws, the
Geneva Conventions and numerous other international treaties and
protocols.
There is much US public sympathy for the view that the president
should do what is necessary to defend national security interests,
even if what is necessary is harsh, and even illegal. But there is
precious little understanding of what the term national security
means. It seems to suggest security of the person against unprovoked
aggression from abroad, but if so, one could be forgiven for
scratching his head over how it is that the US has vital security
interests in so many places, from Southeast Asia, to Africa, to
Central Asia, to Latin America, to Europe, to...well, to everywhere.
Are there really people in all these places plotting harm to US
citizens out of malice?
What national security interests are at stake in Iraq? It might have
been possible to formulate a semi-plausible argument that Iraq was a
genuine threat, once, when Saddam Hussein's government was said to
possess weapons of mass destruction, (though hardly as destructive as
those possessed in infinitely greater quantities by the US itself.)
According to the mythology, Iraq, or more specifically, the bogeyman
of the moment, Saddam Hussein, could become the keeper of an armory
for terrorist organizations, one of which, al Qaeda, had already shown
itself capable of attacking the United States, causing the deaths of
thousands of US citizens.
To be sure, there must have been some Iraqi hostility toward the US
(though far less than there is now) owing to a US-led sanctions regime
(which eventually led to the deaths of over one million), no-fly zones
(which were illegal), and multiple US-UK bombing campaigns (also
illegal, and responsible for a good deal of death and misery.) But
that hostility was a reaction, a response to US provocation.
Washington could have readily defused Iraqi hostility simply by
abandoning its policy of provocation, which is to say, it could have
lifted the sanctions and stopped the bombing campaigns. But this was
not to be. There were too many economic interests at stake in Iraq –
from furnishing a justification for the massive military spending that
buoys the economy to the promise of control over Mesopotamian oil – to
refrain from making an enemy. In any event, once the deception over
banned weapons became apparent (now attributed to bad intelligence and
the perfidy of Ahmad Chalabi) the claim that Iraq represented a
material threat to the personal security of US citizens dissolved. In
light of this, it might be asked why a deception was created in the
first place, why US forces remain in Iraq, and why John Kerry, the
most likely alternative to Bush (if indeed the word "alternative" is
appropriate in connection with Kerry), would maintain the US
occupation?
There is a long history of the professed raison d'etre of various US
military actions melting away, and the actions carrying on anyway.
More than 100,000 US troops remain stationed throughout Western
Europe. During the Cold War, a significant US military presence was
said to be necessary to deter "Soviet expansionism." Yet, more than a
decade after the Soviet Union's demise, the US continues to maintain a
huge military presence on the continent, and has expanded in small
ways, and has plans to expand in much larger ways, into Eastern
Europe. Moreover, the US-led NATO alliance has greatly expanded. If
the threat of Soviet aggression had been the alliance's real reason
for being, its operations would have wrapped up long ago. That they
haven't – indeed, that they've grown immensely -- suggests the
alliance, and the continued US troop presence in Western Europe, has
unacknowledged benefits.
Indeed, a case can be made that NATO's continued existence has at
least three benefits for the US, all of which in some way involve
enlarging the interests of US businesses. Reagan cabinet member
Alexander Haig, once the NATO Supreme Commander, said a US military
presence in Europe guarantees US access to European markets (1).
There's NATO's interoperability requirements, a fancy way of saying
NATO countries must line up with the US on equipment purchases so that
everyone's equipment works together. In practice, that means Poland,
the Czech Republic and other NATO countries place orders for fighter
jets and other martial equipment with the US armaments industry, with
happy bottom-line consequences for an important sector of the US
economy. And involving NATO countries in US-led military operations
holds out the alluring promise for Washington of being able to slough
off some of the burden of bombing, invading and occupying other
countries, whose state-owned enterprises can be sold off for the
benefit of US investors, whose markets can be pried open to US
exports, and whose raw materials can be placed at the disposal of US
corporations. Indeed, John Kerry wants to do exactly this in Iraq
(i.e., internationalize the costs), under the banner of "repairing
relations with our allies." There can be little doubt that corporate
America would be the immediate loser of a policy to withdraw US forces
from Europe and disband NATO, just as there can be little doubt that
political decision-making in the US is dominated by corporate America.
From where have most of the members of the Bush cabinet – from any
cabinet in recent memory – come? And the US Senate is so tightly
interwoven with corporate America – its key members connected to large
US corporations through significant investments, or past (and future)
appointments to key executive offices – that it's a veritable
organizing committee for the common affairs of US business. That NATO
continues to exist – and that tens of thousands of US troops will
continue to do tours of duty in Germany, the UK, Italy and other
European countries for decades to come -- is as elementary as 2 + 2 =
4.
That the US operates outside the law, as a de facto world ruler, has
been amply evident for some time, and is hardly specific to the Bush
presidency. No man-made law binds the US military machine and the
country's intelligence apparatus. Yugoslavia was bombed by a US-led
NATO coalition for 78-days under another president (for whom the label
"hawk" was curiously never applied), despite the strictures of
international law, the UN Charter, and even NATO's own charter. Bill
Clinton was following a hoary presidential tradition of armed
intervention, one that stretches back to the Indian wars, carrying
forward to the conquests of Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico,
the domination of Latin America, through to the devastation of Korea
and Indochina. No pattern as recurrent as this could simply reflect
the hawkishness of a group of people in power, and yet, in this, an
election year, the drive to war is said, with astonishing historical
myopia, to be owned by Bush.
Equally recurrent as a pattern is the commission of war crimes, not
only by US forces, but by all military forces of every country. The
very fact that war crimes are repeatedly committed in conflict after
conflict is unlikely to reflect ineptitude in filtering bad apples
from the military. It suggests instead that there are instrumental
benefits of certain activities in war, which, though decried as
crimes, and articulated as such in law, nevertheless prove effective
in attaining military goals. There are benefits, or at the very least
presumed benefits, to destroying civilian infrastructure, to killing
rather than sheltering prisoners, and so on.
Morality, it's evident, is not a part of the logic of war, and nor
does it intrude on decisions made within the context of war, except
from time to time by leaders, whose deference to scruple over military
objectives leads to their immediate replacement as unsuitable for
command. And this too is so in the corporate world, where scruples
over the welfare of people adversely affected by corporate decisions
has no place, and where all activity must be directed toward the
single goal of profit making. This is not a decision managers of
corporations are free to choose. They must subordinate all other
consideration to the ne plus ultra of profit making, or be eliminated.
Were morality a part of the logic of war, war crimes would not be
committed, and the entire body of law which seeks to define which
actions in war are criminal and which not would, therefore, be
superfluous. We can expect then that armed forces are driven to behave
in ways called criminal, the very reason a restraining body of war
crime law exists. But the existence of this body of law does not in
any way mean that the actions of those under its nominal jurisdiction
will be, or have been, restrained. There must, in the end, be coercion
or the threat of coercion to compel obedience, otherwise why should
anyone obey, when there are benefits to disobedience? And who or what
is in the position to coerce the United States, the most armipotent
country in the world, to act in conformance with the rules of war, the
Geneva Convention, the UN Charter, and so on? The answer, of course,
is no one is, which is one reason among others that anyone who has a
reasonable chance of negotiating a path to the presidency must be
committed to the view, as John Kerry as much as George W. Bush is,
that the US must always have the world's strongest military. Control
over the world's strongest military is an inestimable asset. It means
no body is in the position to compel US obedience, and therefore, the
US can reap the rewards of disobedience. At the same time, it puts the
US in a position of being able to compel the obedience of others, and
so monopolize the rewards.
There are also other benefits to having a large military, most
economic, and related to the need to provide profitable outlets for
the investment of capital and to absorb excess industrial capacity.
This can be put another way: An aggressive foreign policy, manifest
recently in the armed domination of Iraq, is a necessity of the way in
which the US economy is organized and operates. The implication is
that change in US foreign policy, from an aggressive one to a peaceful
one, requires a fundamental change in the economy's organizing
principles.
The economy is always tending toward imbalances between capacity and
effective demand, either because technological advances allow
production to be organized more efficiently, because demand is
approaching its asymptotic level, or because opportunities for the
investment of profits are diminishing. That establishes enormous
pressure to more thoroughly exploit existing markets, and importantly,
to conquer foreign markets, otherwise, firms shut down and the economy
falls into stagnation. To avoid this fate, closed markets, as Iraq's
was, are pried open, and foreign rivals are muscled out, expanding
opportunities for US-based corporations at the expense of their
foreign competitors. The US, not surprisingly, intends to restructure
the Iraqi economy to accord privileged access to US exports and
investment.
The nature of contemporary capitalist economies is also to concentrate
wealth and income, large parts of which are re-invested, where and
when opportunities for profitable returns exist. Where those
opportunities do not exist or are few, stagnation inevitably sets in.
It is of considerable importance then to those entrusted with managing
the economy to see to it that there are outlets for the investment of
capital. Iraq provides promising opportunities in two areas: oil and
reconstruction. US firms will be accorded preferential access to
opportunities for investment in Iraq's oil industry, while foreign
rivals, particularly German, French, and Chinese companies, that had
the inside track prior to the US invasion, will be squeezed out; and
it's a matter of record that most of the lucrative reconstruction
contracts to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure (destroyed by US missiles
and bombs) will be awarded to US firms, providing corporate America
with yet more opportunities for profitable investment. What's more,
Brobdignagian military expenditures also prop up demand and soak up
surplus capital.
The nature of the US economy was no more thoroughly exposed than in a
June 19, 2004 New York Times paean to US corporation Bechtel's
rebuilding sewage treatment facilities in Iraq. This was lauded as an
example of US munificence and leadership, but the Times failed to
explain that the facilities Bechtel rebuilt had been deliberately
destroyed by US bombs over a decade earlier (2). Former Secretary of
State George Shultz, a Bechtel board member, had lobbied furiously for
a US invasion of Iraq (3). Two days later, the Times reported that the
US was quietly using proceeds from Iraqi oil sales to fund
reconstruction efforts (4). The US armaments industry, including firms
like Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and others, profited from the sale of
missiles, bombs, and aircraft used to destroy Iraqi civilian
infrastructure that Bechtel and other US engineering firms are being
paid to rebuild, using, in part, revenue from the sale of Iraqi oil.
In other words, Iraqis are robbed by the US to pay US companies to
rebuild facilities other US companies were paid to furnish the means
to destroy. Meanwhile, the New York Times rhapsodizes over US
generosity in helping Iraqis back on their feet. The details have
changed, but this has been going on ever since capitalism arose as a
global system five centuries ago. The wealth of the West is predicated
on the plunder of the Third World.
Despite economic forces compelling the US to expand militarily and
pursue an aggressive, predatory foreign policy, there are some who
concede that while the world's de facto government cannot be compelled
to act morally, or at least in accordance with international rules and
conventions, it can nevertheless be embarrassed, or pressured through
the activism of the public, into doing so. World opinion, it was
argued not too long ago, is a second superpower. There are few reasons
to believe this is any more than wishful thinking, for it is difficult
to think of any confirming instance of world opinion standing in the
way of imperialist plunder. World opinion being massively against the
invasion of Iraq, or against the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, made
not one jot of a difference to the foreign policy of the US and its
NATO allies; it simply presented spin-doctors with bigger, and in the
end, easily overcome, challenges. Military operations went ahead, and
the PR offensive was hiked up a notch or two.
Action, on the other hand, in the form of pressure brought to bear on
governments, seems to have a greater potential to make a difference,
but what pressure has been exerted on governments in connection with
aggressive military intervention abroad has made little or no
difference, except maybe in a few cases here and there, of minor
importance. This may be because the pressure was of insufficient
magnitude to make a difference, but if so, is it reasonable to expect
that pressure of sufficient magnitude will ever be brought to bear to
offset the powerful economic forces that impel the US toward
domination of countries not yet under its control? The recent history
of activism in opposition to the US conquest of Iraq leaves little
room for optimism, for while the conquest was blatantly imperialist,
its pretext conspicuously constructed by deception, and its effect
thoroughly barbarous – in other words, though being infamous enough to
provoke a strong reaction – the reaction in the imperialist countries
was fairly mild (though it cannot be denied that protests were
unquestionably of impressive size.) At any rate, the effect as far as
the US government is concerned, however large or frequent the protests
were, was nil.
Still, it may be said that governments that have supported the US
conquest of Iraq have suffered at the polls. If protests and public
activism haven't deterred Washington, maybe public activism of the
ballot booth will. But this is a very optimistic formulation, for it
assumes that the alternatives to governments in power that support the
US occupation are not equally committed to the occupation of Iraq.
This is certainly not true in the US, where the Democrats are as
unremittingly committed to the domination of Iraq as the Republicans
are. Indeed, the US political establishment, but for a few minor
differences here and there over tactics, speak as one on Iraq, as on
so many other issues where the interests of corporate America are at
stake; and this must be so, for the election of a Democrat as
president does not mean that the anonymous economic forces that shape
US policy suddenly melt away.
As regards US allies, there's little to suggest that a change in
government, from one that supports the US occupation, to one that
doesn't, is going to make much difference. Is Washington any less
committed to the continued occupation of Iraq for Spain having
withdrawn its troops? To be sure, the high-profile defection of a
number of coalition members would make the PR requirements of the US
engagement in Iraq all the more difficult, but it wouldn't change the
underlying logic that drives Washington to war in the first place. It
would simply be an impediment to be steered around, and one Washington
would be perfectly capable of navigating, if not immediately, then in
time.
Indeed, a lot, if not all of the organized opposition to imperialism
in the imperialist countries themselves, has the character of throwing
a few obstacles in the way of governments pursuing aggressive foreign
policies, obstacles that prove easy to circumnavigate. Demonstrations
to "pressure elites," are a case in point. The effort to defeat Bush
in November is another. US foreign policy would, were Bush defeated,
continue as always, but for a few flourishes here and there that a
different group of people would engrave, as their own personal
signature, on the edges of foreign policy. It can be said that the
election of a Democrat president could give the anti-war movement a
ledge, however small, to stand on, but that too is wishful thinking,
this all the more evident in the reality that whatever ledge is
provided by Kerry is never specified. Kerry is assumed to be better
than Bush, if only slightly, simply because he isn't Bush. This is
silly.
De facto world governments do as they please, and can hardly be caught
up in the laws and the bodies that enforce the laws they themselves
dominate. There will, accordingly, be no international criminal
tribunal to bring war crimes charges against the US and its NATO
coalition for its multiple crimes in Yugoslavia, nor will the crime of
initiating wars of aggression ever be answered in a tribunal
established, controlled and funded by the de facto world government.
There is a painful naivety at work in efforts to present the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with
evidence of NATO war crimes, as if there's even the remotest
possibility the evidence will be acted on. The ICTY, and to come, the
war crimes tribunal against Saddam Hussein, are simply instruments of
the de facto world government's foreign policy. They are not impartial
bodies, interested in the blind and docile pursuit of justice. That
anyone should think otherwise is truly astonishing.
There are many who claim to be above the clashes of the de facto world
government and the targets of its aggression, professing an equal
disdain for both. They acknowledge, at times, that the actions of the
de facto world government cannot be countenanced, but on other
occasions, become partisans of its aggressive actions, uncritically
pointing to the professed humanitarian or necessary character of the
actions. They are, however, invariable in their denunciation of the
target, which is always personalized, and the person in question,
always demonized. Accordingly, while corporate America may have an
enormous interest in the plundering, subjugating and exploiting of
Iraq, the target becomes, not Iraq, but its leader, Saddam Hussein,
and so an extension of US economic policy is transformed into a moral
crusade against a villain. Whether the crimes and defects attributed
to the personalized target are real, exaggerated or entirely
contrived, is never clear, for Washington is nothing if not committed
to spinning tall tales to justify its wars of aggression, and the
media are nothing if not committed to uncritically accepting and
amplifying their governments' foreign policy lies, up to the moment
the truth becomes academic, at which point the media's skepticism is
renewed. Little should need to be said on this, the failure of WMDs to
turn up in Iraq, despite assurances from the US and UK and much of the
media that Iraq was doubtlessly in possession of banned weapons,
justifying the point. The justification for the NATO intervention in
Kosovo turned out to be contrived as well; no genocide happened, the
alleged crime bitterly dismissed by forensic pathologists dispatched
to disinter bodies, as NATO war propaganda. With the WMD deception
coming so close on the heels of the Kosovo genocide deception, one
would have thought the media, and the public, would have been keenly
skeptical.
If US interventions are a drama that invariably features a demon,
there are also invariably angels. For the US government the angel is,
of course, itself. For those who deplore both the US government for
its aggression, and the personalized target of the aggression for the
crimes of which he is accused, it is they themselves who are angels.
They are the equivalent of the well-meaning teacher who preaches
non-violence, even to the victims of bullies, who are expected to take
their beating without striking back, allowing the authorities to mete
out justice later in the form of a penalty. This, as every school-aged
child knows, is the kind of high-sounding nonsense no one, for good
reason, takes too seriously. The problem is the authorities are almost
always never there when you need them to exercise their protective
role; if you extend the analogy to the Palestinians being bullied by
Israelis, or the Iraqis or North Koreans or Cubans being bullied by
the US, they're never there, period. And that is because in world
affairs, the authority is the de facto world government, and the de
facto world government is hardly a disinterested party.
For Palestinians there are few choices. International law avails
naught, for the US ensures international law has no effective
jurisdiction where Palestinians, and their oppressors, the Israelis,
are concerned. In the last few months, the Bush cabinet has blessed a
de facto policy of uniquely denying Palestinians the right to return
to homes they fled or were driven from, while granting Israel two
freedoms prohibited under international law: the freedom to establish
settlements on occupied territory, and the freedom of territorial
expansion through military means. John Kerry echoes his support.
Palestinian campaigns of violence are denounced and deplored in the
imperialist countries, often by the same people who romanticize the
French resistance and the partisans who fought against the Nazis. The
denunciations are self-righteous and shallow. Many of those who
acknowledge that demands that Palestinians "end the violence" amount
to an ultimatum to willingly accept subjugation, entertain naïve
fantasies about campaigns of non-violence, a course that is to be
uniquely pursued by Palestinians, as so much else. But it is doubtful
that non-violence would accomplish much in the case of the
Palestinians, except make it easier for Israel to gobble up even more
Palestinian land and drive more Palestinians into refugee camps.
Angels, however, cannot condone violence, so they refuse to take sides
and effectively leave the Palestinians to their fate.
The claim must be addressed that while the war crimes tribunals
organized by the de facto world government may represent victor's
justice, they still do represent a form of justice, even if only
partial and one-sided. This is the half a loaf is better than no loaf
point of view. The view's proponents have even gone so far as to say
that since no chance exists of US leaders ever being prosecuted in
connection with, let alone being convicted of, crimes of war or
against humanity, though deserved, one might as well concentrate on
securing convictions of those whose prosecution would not be thwarted,
and indeed may even be ardently invited, by the US. In other words,
any leader on Washington's hit list will do. Cops in police dramas
usually ignore the small time crook for a chance to snare the bigger
criminal. This approach would ignore the bigger criminal to nab the
small time crook or the victim who has been framed. Whoever pursues
this becomes an accomplice, witting or otherwise, in the hoary
practice of demonizing an enemy to make his conquest appear just. They
act, though they may not intend to, as part of the machinery of
imperialism.
There are instances in which the personalized target has committed
heinous crimes, and therefore his prosecution can be seen as something
noble. But the act cannot be separated from the function it serves in
justifying imperialist conquest, simply because the prosecution of the
targets can never be independent of the foreign policy goals of the de
facto world government. Saddam Hussein could not be dragged before an
international war crimes tribunal unless the US allowed it. If
Hussein's prosecution was at odds with US foreign policy objectives,
as, at one time it was, his being tried for crimes would be out of the
question. But it is only because the US will allow, and indeed seeks
Hussein's prosecution, that it is now possible. If, on the other hand,
the prosecution of those who carry out crimes of war or against
humanity could be done independent of Washington's foreign policy
interests, the charge that selective prosecutions contribute to
justifying imperialist conquest would be groundless. But there can be
no independent prosecution without an independent body that is not
subordinate to the world's de facto government. Since no such body
exists, bringing the personalized targets of US aggression to trial,
unavoidably acts to legitimize conquest. And what is the bigger crime:
that of which the accused is accused, or a war of aggression whose aim
is to plunder, subjugate and exploit? In seeking to pursue justice in
connection with the smaller crime or trumped up charge masquerading as
a smaller crime, the basis is established for justifying the larger
crime.
Human Rights Watch, the US foreign policy establishment-connected
rights watchdog, is an ardent exponent of holding human rights abusers
to account. The group argues that the prosecution of violators makes
clear to dictators, tyrants and despots, that there's nowhere to hide.
This is arrant nonsense. For one thing, leaders of the de facto world
government need not worry about hiding, since they have no fear of
ever being prosecuted; they control, or at the very least, have an
enormous influence over, prosecutions and the bodies that carry them
out. And since HRW's key members are drawn from the US foreign policy
establishment, it's a pretty safe bet that the organization's view of
the world closely resembles that of Washington. Would HRW call for the
prosecution of US leaders? Of course not. The mild slap on the wrist
the organization gave NATO leaders for the war of aggression on
Yugoslavia – which was an egregious assault on both the principles of
jus ad bellum and jus in bello – is proof enough. The rights group
mildly admonished NATO leaders for ignoring humanitarian law, when, in
fact, the US-led coalition committed the greatest crime of all
according to the Nuremberg laws – initiating a war of aggression. On
top of that, NATO forces deliberately destroyed civilian
infrastructure, a flagrant war crime. Vital allies of the US also have
no fear either, a point Israeli leaders -- who, in connection with the
Palestinians, oversee a human rights horror show and war crimes
extravaganza -- can readily attest to. Who really has nowhere to hide
are leaders of countries that are not allies, satellites or
dependencies of the US. This includes anyone who presides over a
closed or largely state-owned economy who refuses to bow to demands to
accept what's euphemistically called "democratic" or "economic
reforms" – elevating the profit making interests of corporate America
above the material and social security requirements of the domestic
population. Renitent leaders will eventually be indicted on some
charge, whether genuine, exaggerated or trumped up, to justify an
inevitable predatory US war to pry open markets and elevate US
corporate interests. To be sure, there is nowhere for these leaders to
hide, but that hardly has anything to do with human rights abuses or
war crimes, and everything to do with the world's de facto government
concealing the pursuit of corporate America's interests behind the
pursuit of justice. In this, Human Rights Watch is also an instrument
of the de facto world government's imperialism.
It is inevitable that the world's strongest power will seek to act as
a world government in fact; it need not accept limitations on the
exercise of its power, for there is no body capable of constraining
it. Public opinion does not limit the exercise of US power abroad and
neither does the UN Charter, the Nuremberg laws, the Geneva
Conventions, or any other component of international law. The US
accepts international law where there are no penalties to the pursuit
of its economic interests in doing so, and brazenly ignores it
otherwise. This occasionally becomes a PR nuisance, but PR problems
are usually managed successfully, helped along by the reality that the
US public is willing to allow the country's executive considerable
latitude in the pursuit of national security, which it misconstrues as
having something to do with its personal security, but which in fact,
is often inversely related to personal security. (US foreign policy,
for example, is more a cause of, than a deterrent to, terrorism, and
therefore is, itself, a threat to the US public.) Even if its
association with an aggressive policy fatally harms one administration
the next to take its place will pursue the same policy, but will make
the necessary cosmetic changes to make the policy palatable.
US foreign policy, and the foreign policy establishment's pursuit of
de facto world government status, is shaped by anonymous economic
forces driven by accumulation and profit-making. The US government
needs to maintain a massive military and to pursue a predatory foreign
policy to bolster aggregate demand and provide outlets for the
profitable investment of capital. If it doesn't, the economy will
stagnate and foreign rivals will profit at the expense of US firms. No
cabinet, whether made up of Republicans or Democrats, or even
reformers, is going to allow this to happen; any cabinet that seemed
to be going down this path would soon find itself replaced, either by
legal means, or if necessary, illegally. The end of this sorry state
of affairs cannot, therefore, be brought about simply by changing
personnel, anymore than a change in the profit-making orientation of a
business can be brought about by changing the CEO or the board of
directors; something far more fundamental is required. In the case of
US foreign policy, what is necessary is the replacement of
accumulation and profit making as the economy's central organizing
principle. This amounts to nothing short of replacing capitalism
itself. Nowadays it's considered bad form to talk of replacing
capitalism for fear of scaring off those who've been brainwashed into
believing that anyone who proposes to do so is, at best, out of date,
and at worst, detached from reality. Bad form or not, there is no hope
of building a decent society and a peaceful foreign policy if we avoid
talking about what stands in the way of its achievement
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
