[Marxism] The social meaning of the "plague on both houses" thesis [was Re: Good imperialists vs. evil governments of the oppressed, round 199]

[Nestor Gorojovsky]

Perhaps what follows is not worthless. Of course, the person in question
is now irrelevant to the argument, so that please at most take this by
me as a piece of socio-political enthomology.

Lou Paulsen wrote that those like Mr. Cloke, who "apparently believes in
the very popular theory that if an imperialist power suffers a military
defeat at the hands of an oppressed country with a 
non-socialist/undemocratic government, this is bad for the oppressed
workers because it strengthens that government.  Logically, it must
follow that he also believes that when an imperialist power inflicts a
military defeat on an oppressed country with a
non-socialist/undemocratic government, this is good for the workers in
the oppressed country.  It does them a favor.  It weakens the rule of
the bourgeois nationalist leaders, generals, dictators, mullahs, etc."

There is a third possibility, however, and this possibility is that 
since both situations are undesirable, what best fits this kind of 
progressivism is a permanent draw. No winners. No losers.

Simply business as usual. A 1984 kind of situation, where war operations 
are endemic in the global quadrangle of the "people of humble color" (as 
José Luis Borges, one of the literary heroes of this kind of 
"progressives" once said). Add Keynesian economy to the global image and 
you have it.

Which is probably the social meaning of the "plague on both houses" 
thesis: let nothing chage in this world. It is horrible and you can´t 
but hate it. But since I find it comfortable, let it never change.