[OPE-L:8600] Re: France fried by U.S. Congress

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@buffalo.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 10:54:57 EST

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, gerald_a_levy wrote:

> Being critical, I think, means that we need to do *more than* consider
> material motives.  We also need to consider the social mechanisms through 
> which consent is manufactured in contemporary bourgeois societies.

Of course.  But, as Rep. Kucinich asks, even in his opposition to Bush,
"For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies
receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein?".  And it requires more
than just touching base with French and Russian capitalists' profits and
quickly moving on to celebrate their opposition to Bush (as much as we
agree with opposing Bush).

> While "freedom fries" might sound unbelievable,  it is part of a process 
> whereby state policy is rationalized and popular  perception is created 
> and modified.  "Freedom fries", after all, were intended for domestic 
> consumption.  

Yes.  But it is also indicative of the extremely low level to which the
discussion is being brought domestically.  And it is particularly amazing
that the attack is upon the country which gave us the Statute of Liberty,
perhaps THE symbol of the United States of America behind its flag.  The
logic for the perpetrators of 'freedom fries' is to blow up that Statute,
given the source of the gift.

> Marxists, I think, have been OK at describing material 
> motives but not so good at considering this process which has been
> described better by others -- especially the anarchist Naom Chomsky.   

Is this to indicate to us that no Marxist could be cited who is better and
deeper in understanding than the anarchist Chomsky, or is it to indicate
that we need to learn from all sources?  If the latter, I agree.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 00:00:01 EST