Add new comment

Is Boles seriously saying that the ruling class and its state would have ended legal segregation (in a third or so of the country) without the massive struggles of the African-American population? That, if Black people had been passive during this period, the "liberal" national capitalists and their politicians would have done ANYTHING about legal Jim Crow? Or that anti-discrimination laws and "affirmative action" would have happened without the urban rebellions ("riots")?

And,, yes, the US state continued to act as an aggressive imperialist power after its defeat in Vietnam. (That's what it is.) But its spokespeople and theorists continually complained about the "Vietnam Syndrome" of the US people. This hampered the state's actions, limited its freedom to act in foreign countries, made it cover up its actions, all to an extent which the rulers found unacceptable.

To Anon ("The protest...."): The need to oppose the Vietnamese-US war was not as obvious and simple as Anon supposes. The heavy ideological blinders of US patriotism and anticommunism were not easy to see through for millions of people. Even when most people came to oppose the war, the antiwar movement as such was unpopular with many. Believe me, building an effective antiwar movement was hard work involving people from many political viewpoints, including, especially, various radicals.