I think there are *two* messages being put forward by the media and the state in the US: One message is repeatedly made by Bush: the "War on Terrorism" is to be a war against terrorists and states that assist terrorists. It is not to be a war against Arabs, Islam, or Muslims. These messages have often been made by the White House in recent days and have been echoed by the media. Yet, there is also *another* message. The other message is made by both official state sources and the media (mostly with imagery but also with language). We can see the other message when the US government talks about a "Crusade" (see Alfredo's 5930). More significantly, we can *observe* the effects of the other message in the rise in racially and ethnically motivated attacks. Indeed, there has even been an open call by some (including a 'talk radio' host) for racial profiling. Ironically, some of the early victims of these attacks are Sikh men who wear turbans (Islamic women who wear cover have also been subject to harassment in recent days). The recent talk about 'sleeper' terrorists is intended to heighten this fear of neighbors (this was also something done in the McCarthy period when the public was told that 'the enemy' could be living next door). The language being used by the media (e.g. Dan Rather on CBS) also plays the important role of helping to demonize 'the enemy' (one might add, btw, that the media has arguably through its sensational reporting played a larger role than the terrorists themselves in _actually_ terrorizing the public!). Both of these messages have a purpose. On the one hand, the first message is necessary for diplomatic reasons primarily. I.e. in order to win support from other nations, state policy has to be put forward in this way. Thus, if the second message were the only message being put forward, there could be expected to be mass resistance to the upcoming US war in many parts of the world and opposition by many bourgeois governments that the US state wants support from for its military efforts. On the other hand, the second message is part and parcel of the effort to whip up a nationalist hysteria for the war effort. From the standpoint of gaining domestic support and 'preparing' the troops, demonization is a necessary prelude to war. A recent example of such imagery being intentionally put forward by the US state was Bush's "Wanted Dead or Alive" speech. This scared a lot of the US's "allies" because of its suggestion of cowboy politics and Ramboism. On the other hand, that same message played well in the US (in NYC, the right-wing [Rupert Murdoch-owned] _New York Post_ then had a front cover with bin Laden's photo made to look just like a "Wanted Dead or Alive" poster from the Old West. What I found more interesting, though, was that this was then photocopied and appeared in the front windows of small businesses throughout the City). None of this is accidental -- as Nicky suggested in making the argument that 'the news' is made (Noam Chomsky's works, including _Manufacturing Consent_ have this as a theme). Indeed, 'the news' in bourgeois society also takes the *commodity-form*, doesn't it? Accordingly, it must be produced and then sold and have a use-value, a value, and an exchange-value. On the other hand, I don't think that wars in the epoch of imperialism can necessarily be understood only in terms of the logic of capital. E.g. it should be evident that there have been recent wars where at least one side has been motivated by something other than attempts to break the resistance of the working class (see the recent exchange that I had with Paul B). Perhaps we need to recognize that while class struggle is part of this dynamic, struggles over race, gender, and religion can be *relatively autonomous*. Thus, it seems quite obvious to me that bin Laden (who is a capitalist, btw) and his supporters are not anti-imperialists -- they are motivated by other concerns. Similarly, the current Afghani government is neither motivated by the desire to fight imperialism nor to smash the Afghani working class. Yet, it is often difficult to identify the real aims of state policy -- including US state policy. This is in part because we don't know whether the official reasons given by the state for its policies and actions are the actual reasons. In due course, the actual reasons often become known (sometimes years after the wars are concluded). Yet, at the time we don't *know* what the motivation for state policy is -- nor can we trust what they say since we have countless examples of how they lied to us. Perhaps what is needed in part is for 'Marxist economists' (or whatever you want to call Marxists who have jobs as economists) to engage more of the literature by other Marxists on media and cultural studies. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT