[A coherent U.S. policy would be based on a more cooperative
posture towards the Russians not militarist expansionism which
empowers militarists in both Russia and the U.S. While Putin’s
militarism is quite dangerous, it is no more crazy than keeping a war
going that kills thousands, risks nuclear accidents, and wastes
precious resources. ]
[[link removed]]

AN AMERICAN DILEMMA: MICHAEL KAZIN AND THE RECYCLING OF COLD WAR
LIBERALISM  
[[link removed]]


 

Jonathan Feldman
April 11, 2023
CounterPunch [[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ A coherent U.S. policy would be based on a more cooperative posture
towards the Russians not militarist expansionism which empowers
militarists in both Russia and the U.S. While Putin’s militarism is
quite dangerous, it is no more crazy than keeping a war going that
kills thousands, risks nuclear accidents, and wastes precious
resources. _

June 4, 2022: U.S.S. Kearsarge enters the heart of Stockholm, part of
the Social Democratic domestic campaign for militarized
“democratic” Sweden Photo: Author., (Photo: Author).

 

“We must release the human imagination, in order to open up a new
exploration of the alternatives now possible for the human community;
we must set forth general and detailed plans, ideas, visions; in
brief, programs. We must transcend the mere exhortation of general
principle and opportunist reactions. What are needed are commanding
views of the future, and it is our opportunity and task to provide
them. We must develop and debate among ourselves—and then among
larger publics—genuine programs; we must make of these
programs _divisive_ and _partisan_ political issues within the
U.S.A.”

C. Wright Mills, _The Causes of World War III_, New York: Ballantine
Books, 1960, page 159.

THE U.S. LEFT’S LEVERAGING RUSSIAN MILITARISM TO SUPPORT A DOMESTIC
EQUIVALENT

Michael Kazin has written critically acclaimed books about left
history. Yet, an unfortunate problem for us is that being an expert in
left history does not turn one into an expert in anti-militarism.
Militarism can be defined as the surplus projection of violence for
power accumulation purposes, a surplus seen in the displacement of
diplomacy and more peaceful resolution of conflicts. This surplus is
defined by self-fulfilling prophecies like the “security dilemma”
in which one state’s arming itself provokes another, which sets an
arms spiral into motion. Parts of the left itself have been very weak
in opposing militarism, extending to both the Bolshevik left (as
Simone Weil noted
[[link removed]]) and
anti-Communist opponents who sided with forces championing the arms
race, CIA coups, nuclear overkill and military adventurism in Vietnam,
Latin America and the Middle East. Kazin’s essay
[[link removed]] in _Dissent
Magazine _(March 23, 2023), “Reject the Left-Right Alliance Against
Ukraine,” falls into this larger pattern.

During the Cold War, the left faced an apparent dilemma. On the one
hand, some wanted to oppose McCarthyism and the excesses of
anti-Communism associated with military expansionism and domestic
repression. On the other hand, some actively opposed the Communist
Party or the Soviet Union. How could one oppose Soviet expansionism
without strengthening domestic militarism? A test case can be seen in
the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) which opposed both the
Soviet Union and U.S. Communists. In April 1948, the New York State
convention of ADA opposed Henry Wallace for President and
instead backed Dwight D. Eisenhower for President as a Democrat
[[link removed]].
Wallace decried militarism in both the Democratic and Republican
parties and backed diplomacy, disarmament and even conversion of the
defense industry. In its resolution, ADA “assailed” Wallace’s
candidacy partially because of “his demands for appeasement of the
Soviet Union despite the lessons to be learned from the fall of
Czechoslovakia” and because of “his dependence on a hard core of
Communist support.” While many saw Wallace’s alliance with
Communists as mistake, others might see opposition to Wallace’s
anti-militarism as the _bigger mistake_.

The ADA’s embrace of Eisenhower was an endorsement of militarism. In
his January 17, 1961 farewell address Eisenhower spoke out against the
military industrial complex, he had earlier authored what Seymour
Melman in _Pentagon Capitalism_ called “the birth certificate”
of the military industrial complex. This certificate was issued by
then General Eisenhower in 1946 is his capacity as Chief of Staff of
the United States Army. It was formally called the “Memorandum for
Directors and Chiefs of War Department General and Special Staff
Divisions and Bureaus and the Commanding Generals of the Major
Commands.” Melman explains that this document formulated “the idea
of a close, continuing relationship between the Army and civilian
scientists, industry, technologists and the universities.” The
ADA’s support for Eisenhower two years after the Memorandum
illustrates how part of the left engaged in the Faustian bargain of
embracing U.S. militarism in the attempt to oppose the Russian
(Soviet) variant.

Kazin, a former editor of _Dissent_, reprises the ADA’s position
which is somewhat ironic for an historian of the U.S. left. Like the
ADA he combines opposition to Russian expansionism by allying himself
with U.S. militarism. One interesting curiosity in this regard is how
the publication with which he is most associated provided a platform
for various writings by Seymour Melman and C. Wright Mills, authors
who like Wallace tried to expose U.S. militarism. _Dissent _did
this, but sometimes had misgivings. In Winter
1963, _Dissent _published a retrospective by Harvey Swados, “C.
Wright Mills: A Personal Memoir.” There Swados wrote: “I do not
think I am overstating when I say that Mills was never deeply affected
by what totalitarianism did to great masses of people. To particular
intellectuals, yes; but not to masses.” He argued that for Mills
“Stalinism…was contemptible not for what it was doing to national
minorities, to workers and peasants, to millions languishing in
Siberia, but for its political vulgarity and intellectual
emptiness.” In this fashion, Mills in _Dissent_ met the same fate
as Wallace, i.e. anti-militarism de-legitimated by an association with
being soft on the Russians.

In _Taking It Big: C. Wright Mills and the Making of Political
Intellectuals_
[[link removed]], Stanley
Aronowitz tells another story. Mills criticized Irving Howe, one
of _Dissent_’s key figures, as being “stuck in the camp for which
the ‘Russian question’ blinded them to the realities of a world in
which democrats and socialists had no place to go but stand against
both countries’ hurtling toward a war from which there was no
return.” Mills believed that adherence to this path, “inevitably
drove the anticommunist Left into the power elite’s orbit, just as
the communists were ensconced in Stalinist assumptions.” Mills
“supported a putative third camp,” which became one of his
“guiding principles” for “his hoped-for new Left.”
Nevertheless, Mills’s “call for a realistic approach to world
politics and away from the drift to militarism in both major powers
ran against the grain of mainstream liberal opinion.”

THE MILITARIST ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN THE WEST

After decrying Putin’s blatant militarism in Ukraine, Kazin claims
that “a sizeable number of American leftists have embraced an
alternate reality.” Kazin says that for these leftists “the
culprit is NATO’s post–Cold War expansion, fueled by the drive of
the U.S. state and capital to bend the world to their desires.” He
continues, by saying that “the critics ignore or dismiss the fact
that every nation that joined NATO did so willingly, knowing that
Russia was capable of launching the kind of attack now underway in
Ukraine.” While acknowledging that NATO’s expansion “may well
have been too hasty,” none of “its newer members has done anything
to threaten Putin’s regime” with all its members enjoying “a
democratically elected government.” These are contrasted with other,
non-democratic states backing Putin’s position on Ukraine. Kazin’s
internationalism is opposed to isolationism, so anti-militarist
alliances with the right are reduced to dumb reactionaries. He says
leftists “are making common cause with some of the most atrocious
and prominent stalwarts of the Trumpian right” like Tucker Carlson
and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene argued that the war in Ukraine was
being driven by the United States.

Kazin’s deconstruction of right-wingers and praise for NATO’s
“democratic” allies is totally unappealing. His critique of
Carlson and Greene involves _knowledge resistance_
[[link removed]] because
Kazin is basically saying that if these two embraced a round earth
theory, the world must be flat. Kazin himself has made common cause
with anti-democratic forces. His understanding of the democracy of
NATO allied states is superficial to misleading. Pro-NATO champions in
“democratic” states like Sweden railroaded their position in a
thoroughly undemocratic fashion in a government and military-led
charade, propelled by the media’s showcasing of war academics and
phony one-sided panel debates about the war. Voices against the war in
the peace movement and universities were harassed by threats and hate
speech or more subtle forms of intimidation. In Sweden, the war
campaign has been associated with rightwing forces in the government
(or its allies) who have championed significant military budget
increases, derailed ecological targets, threatened public
broadcasting, and supported anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate speech.
The Swedish government recently announced that a reduction in support
for Swedish civil society opinion and public education work by 87%
from 155 to 20 million Swedish crowns (according to Maja Landin in the
Swedish peace newspaper _Pax_ (No. 1, 2023). During one phase of the
Swedish war campaign (June 2023), the then Social Democratic Prime
Minister embraced a visit by a U.S. aircraft carrier in the heart of
Stockholm
[[link removed]]—an
advertisement for both defunding the U.S. welfare state and Swedish
public panic over Russian aggressions. Military leaders also have made
speeches circulated in the media suggesting a potential Russian
invasion, without blinking an eye. And rarely—if ever—was anyone
invited to debunk their self-serving nonsense and self-fulfilling
paranoia
[[link removed]].
Under the guise of giving notice to the Russians, Swedish politicians
have helped to de-democratize discourse. Kazin’s blank check for
U.S. militarism is part of this transnational militarist euphoria.

KAZIN VERSUS _THE NEW YORK TIMES_

By suggesting that opposition to war puts one in league with Putin,
Kazin avoids the essence of the anti-militarist perspective, i.e. the
idea that pressure on the U.S. government might speed a settlement.
Instead, Kazin seems to believe in the myth of military power
propelling a solution for Ukraine, where diplomacy is never
considered. This position is dangerous. As war critic DIMITRI
LASCARIS recently explained
[[link removed]] “much
of the weaponry being sent to Ukraine will be diverted to criminal
organizations, as the head of Interpol  warned
[[link removed]] in
June 2022.” Kerstin Bergeå, in a Swedish radio interview broadcast
April 8th, warned about these weapons potentially ending up in the
hands of Swedish criminal gangs. A review of a series of articles
in _The New York Times_, reveals that Kazin’s position is far more
militarist than this leading voice of the liberal establishment. These
articles suggest that the U.S. position has been to combine arms
transfers as a means of pressuring Russia rather than leveraging
diplomatic solutions and speeding an end to the conflict.

On February 10, 2022, Andrew E. Kramer wrote an article
[[link removed]] for
the _Times_ entitled, “Armed Nationalists in Ukraine Pose a Threat
Not Just to Russia.” The story noted that these nationalists
“could…destabilize” the Ukrainian government if it were to agree
“to a peace deal they reject.” In contrast, Kazin never considers
that military shipments may be strengthening the hand of militarists
in Ukraine and derailing forces supporting peace and diplomacy.

On April 25, 2022 (updated May 2, 2022), David E. Sanger wrote an
article
[[link removed]] entitled,
“Beyond Austin’s Call for a ‘Weakened’ Russia, Hints of a
Shift.” There Sanger explained that the U.S. was moving towards “a
dynamic that pits Washington more directly against Moscow, and one
that U.S. officials see as likely to play out for years.” Kazin
passes over the various risks associated with Sanger’s article, e.g.
saying not one word about the dangers of nuclear war or even
escalation.

On May 19, 2022, the editorial board raised points
[[link removed]] which
Kazin also summarily ignored. The _Times_ asked whether the United
States was “trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a
settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of
relationship between the United States and Russia” or if the United
States was “now trying to weaken Russia permanently.”
The _Times_ went on to ask if “the administration’s goal shifted
to destabilizing Vladimir Putin or having him removed.” They asked
whether the goal was “to hold Mr. Putin accountable as a war
criminal” or “to try to avoid a wider war.” The _Times_ warned
that “the White House not only risks losing Americans’ interest in
supporting Ukrainians — who continue to suffer the loss of lives and
livelihoods— but also jeopardizes long-term peace and security on
the European continent.”

On May 31, 2022, Christopher Caldwell, wrote an editorial
[[link removed]] for
the _Times_ entitled “The War in Ukraine May Be Impossible to
Stop. And the U.S. Deserves Much of the Blame.” There he wrote,
“the United States is making no concessions” and to do so “would
be to lose face.” With the upcoming election, the administration was
“closing off avenues of negotiation and working to intensify the
war.” While Caldwell has written for the neoconservative press, he
freely quoted Noam Chomsky’s warning about the dangers of escalation
and blank checks for militarism. Caldwell continued to warn of
escalation’s dangers in an essay
[[link removed]] for
the _Times_ on February 7th of this year, “Russia and Ukraine
Have Incentives to Negotiate. The U.S. Has Other Plans.” In
contrast, Kazin sees the U.S. as aiding Ukraine’s defense and not
its destruction.

THE PRO-MILITARISM OF FOOLS

Kazin does not apparently understand stated U.S. policy to expand its
hegemony at Russia’s expense, to provoke Russia and its militarism,
thereby creating economic and political markets for its own
militarism. Instead he writes: “It may have the mightiest war
machine, but Biden is not shipping arms to Ukraine in an attempt to
subjugate Russia to his will.” He claims that leftists opposed to
“helping Ukraine” represent “an anti-imperialism of fools.”
Like many others, Kazin argues Ukraine war is simply triggered by
Putin’s choices and has little to do with U.S. actions. The
oft-repeated formula, the Timothy Snyder precept if you will, is
simple. If we don’t arm Ukraine, they’ll be swallowed up by Russia
and it’s the duty of the left to support Ukrainian independence. The
assumption is that Putin won’t negotiate, which begs the question of
why Russia would negotiate if the U.S. (which sustains Ukraine and
organizes that state’s “autonomy”) won’t even support
meaningful negotiations. Russia won’t quit (or won’t do so before
even more of Ukraine is destroyed).

If the Republicans gain the power to cut off funds for Ukraine, the
“Russia won’t negotiate” position will blow up in the faces of
Biden, Kazin, and others believing in the “pro-militarism of
fools.” This foolishness is based on the belief that an endless pool
of money can be wasted on military solutions to conflicts. Kazan
declares that the U.S. military commitment of $46.6 billion on lethal
aid to Ukraine (by the end of January 2023), was “little more than a
rounding error” when compared to “our bloated military” budget.
In wars pulverizing Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (collectively
costing trillions [[link removed]])
we learned that eventually, the U.S. pulls out and turns off the arms
spending faucet. Kazin the historian, and would-be accountant, does
not appreciate the precedents. The _stupidity interval_ (before the
faucet is turned off) is what liberal militarists thrive on, i.e. a
time of superficially appearing realist propositions which later turn
out to be voluntarist nonsense. The liberal militarists forever
baiting anti-militarists as useful idiots for Putin, themselves are
useful idiots for U.S. and NATO militarism.

Kazin, like other left militarists, does not understand the _limits
to military power_ [[link removed]]. This brings
us back to the third way, beyond embrace of Russia and militarism,
which even _Dissent_ provided space for at the height of the Cold
War. In the Spring of 1961, Seymour Melman published an essay
[[link removed]] there,
“Arms Control: The New Defeatism.” Here Melman explained the
limits to military power as a vehicle for constraining Russian
expansionism: “Lacking a competent political theory and a will to
challenge the Soviet system by political and economic methods, many
American strategists have fallen into a sense of political futility.
Conservative political and military analysts have no coherent view on
how to cope with the burgeoning Soviet political campaigns in Asia,
Africa, and now in South America. If acceptable political methods are
not available to these men, then the extension of the Soviet system
must in their view be contained by military methods.” The Soviet
expansion of power was “sustained” despite the United States
having “nuclear military monopoly, superiority, and parallel
capability.”

Melman’s observations extend now to the Russia-China alliance. For
several decades, the U.S. policy in Asia, African and South America
has been failing. An emphasis on the war on terror and other aid,
allowed China to fill the void
[[link removed]] by
investing in and rapidly expanding trade with these regions. The war
in Iraq, accelerated both Iranian and Chinese power at the U.S.’s
expense. The war in Ukraine, preceded by NATO’s eastward expansion,
accelerates militarists’ power at the expense of the U.S.
ecological/welfare state, left and Europe’s expense. A coherent U.S.
policy would be based on a more cooperative posture towards the
Russians, as Wallace and Mills argued after the war, not militarist
expansionism which empowers both the militarists in both Russia and
the U.S. While Putin’s militarism is quite dangerous, it is no more
crazy than keeping a war going that kills thousands, risks nuclear
accidents, and wastes precious resources.

Left cheerleading for militarism is a luxury we cannot afford. The
left should use its energies to push the Biden administration (and
NATO allies) towards a settlement for Ukraine. Some wonder about the
precedent of letting Russian seize Ukrainian territory which makes
Europe less secure. I’m far more worried about the precedent of
NATO-baiting Russia which allows the U.S. to destabilize Europe, trade
and democracy making the globe less secure.

_Jonathan Michael Feldman specializes in research related to political
economy, disarmament, green economics and studies related to
democracy. He writes periodically for Counterpunch and xxxxxx. He is
an associate professor at The Department of Economic History and
International Relations at Stockholm University._

_CounterPunch is reader supported! Please help keep us alive
[[link removed]]._

_The CounterPunch website is offered at no charge to the general
public over the world wide web. New articles, from an independent
left-leaning perspective, are posted every weekday. A batch of several
articles, including the Poet’s Basement, and Roaming Charges by
Jeffrey St. Clair, are posted in the Weekend Edition. After the
initial posting, these articles are available in the archives which
can be searched by using any of the search boxes on the website.
 CounterPunch also publishes books, and published a newsletter and
magazine from 1993 to 2020.  The COUNTERPUNCH+ Subscriber area of
our website features subscriber content and access._

* Militarism
[[link removed]]
* Russia
[[link removed]]
* Ukraine
[[link removed]]
* NATO
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]