From: utzoo!watmath!watarts!tony
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: another topic - (nf)
Article-I.D.: watarts.1787
Posted: Tue Apr 26 02:30:06 1983
Received: Tue Apr 26 04:45:40 1983
Reply-To: tony@watarts.uucp (A. J. Waterman)
References: hp-pcd.936 inuxd.283 rlgvax.321

re: Balance of Power?
My apologies for article 330, but it came out garbled.

In response to Tom Craver's article (no. 305), which brought to light
seven points indicative of a lack of political understanding.

     1) To assert that there "is no such thing as economic coercion"
is a statement lacking in political sophistication.  Such a statement
is representative of the calling cards of small independent commodity
producers and nineteenth century economic thinkers.  The notion of 
economic coercion does not just exist as an idea; indeed, Max Weber
clearly illustrated that economic coercion is a subtle reality,
operating through the elements of 'domination and legitimacy' (see
M. Weber, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY, Vols. 1 & 3, chapters 3 & 10 respectively;
Frank Parkin, MAX WEBER, chapter 5).

     2) Neither the U.S., nor for that matter any other nation, has the
right to decide which nations are worthy of support based on uni-
-dimensional criteria.  To keep the world 'safe for democracy' seems an
outdated phrase, especally so since the U.S. continually supports 
military dictatorships.  Far from maintaining the status quo on the 
principles of 'high ideals', which, incidently, are fiscally very
expensive, the U.S. aids these so-called 'democracies' based on
economic and/or military rationale                                  .  The 'high ideal' (safe for 
democray) is touted around like some cheap prostitute, but it is plain
to anyone, especially in the Third World, that the U.S. is a hypocritical
expansionist power (via multi-nationals).

     3) There is no difference between U.S. interest in the Phillipines,
Vietnam, Korea, or even Cambodia, and Soviet Union interests in Poland
and Afghanistan.  The U.S., incidently, claimed (or gained the right to
claim) the Phillipines via their victory in the Spanish-American War
during the last decade of the nineteenth century (remember San Juan 
Hill?).  Sorry, but it appears a lack of historical awareness has 
created a lacuna in your logic.  After all, what was MacArthur doing at
Corrigador in 1942?

     4) To believe that Phillipines President Ferdinand Marcos, and his
wife, rule democratically is a gross error of judgement.  Do you read
newspapers?

     5) Concerning Chile: it is common knowledge that Allende was over-
thrown not by a spontaneous military coup, but by a CIA-ITT plot in 
collusion with the military.  Again, it was for U.S. economic interests.

     6) The U.S., since becoming a world power (post-1945), has shown no
inclination towards the respecting of the rights of peoples, especially 
the Third World peoples.  Indeed, they have shown no respect for their 
own people on the domestic plain.

     7) As for your logical construct towards the concept of the balance
of power.  You contended that there is a fault in the 'concept' itself.
However, had there been a fault in the balance of power, then no-one 
would be here since this planet would merely be a charred body floating
in space.

                                      A.J. Waterman