News Uncovering the Hidden Motives Behind the Iraq War

[Smurf]

I know that I am one of the guilty parties here.

I'm not, and quite proud of it.

Pengwuino sucks more

 

[SOS2008]

http://hnn.us/articles/3015.html

Review of Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire
By Stanley Kutler

Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and professor emeritus at UC San Diego, is a formidable writer whose many books have garnered considerable acclaim. His work on the Japanese postwar political economy is unrivaled.

Blowback, his study of the unintended consequences of U.S. overseas military and political adventures, published before Sept. 11, 2001, proved prescient. It forms the backdrop for this new and eagerly awaited work.

…Today's leaders bristle at being characterized as imperialists yet curiously wax nostalgic about the good old days of the British Empire. …Why did the British retreat from their empire in the 1950s, and why did the Soviets leave Afghanistan in the 1980s?

…Although Iraq is not Vietnam, our experience in Indochina should have taught us the limits of our ability to be the world's policeman. We could not impose our will and force people to surrender their aspirations for independence and freedom (by their lights) only to become our client. Alas, those lessons now seem lost, even overwhelmed as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) confidently asserts that we would have won the Vietnam War had George W. Bush been president. [ <-- added]

…Now a determined group of policymakers has induced amnesia on the subject. It doesn't acknowledge limits to U.S. power. In fact, Johnson describes how its members have launched a new era, with President Bush instituting preemptive war as the foundation of our international role and insisting that the United States offers the "single sustainable model for national success," one that is "right and true for every person in every society."

…Johnson seeks to hoist the "neo-conservatives" with their own petard. They love, he writes, to breathe the air of "originalism" in the Constitution, yet they openly reject the framers' wisdom. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in 1793: "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive... The trust and the temptation would be too great for anyone man."

Yet President Bush unilaterally declared a long war against terrorism. Johnson notes that a White House spokesman at the time remarked that the president "considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." Treason? In his campaign, Bush joked in October 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." After Sept. 11, he told a reporter: "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." So much for James Madison.

Johnson has given us a polemic, but one soundly grounded in an impressive array of facts and data. The costs of empire are our sorrow, he contends.
He anticipates a state of perpetual war, involving more military expenditures and overseas expansion, and presidents who will continue to eclipse or ignore Congress. He documents a growing system of propaganda, disinformation and glorification of war and military power. Finally, he fears economic bankruptcy as the president underwrites these adventures with a congressional blank check while neglecting growing problems of education, health care and a decaying physical infrastructure.

 

[alexandra]

This is the major difference between our ideologies (marxism vs. anarchism). You view the people as victims of society, I view the people as being a part of society and having social responsibility, especially to direct democracy. It is not enough to simply say "I voted". That's not democracy, (rule by people) that's choosing your dictator. The American people, as a nation and general populous, are weak. This is not to say that because Joe Blog is an american, and therefor he is weak; but the American people, as a people, have utterly failed at defending their own country from tyranny (so far).

I think I've given the wrong impression re-Marxism. Voting in western two party 'democracies', as you say, gives only a choice between dictators (and it is, in any case, no real choice since both major parties are clearly representatives of capital - I think I've mentioned before that I see no real difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican or, in Australia, between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party). The key difference between you and I may be more that I see no other option for a revolutionary change than the working class becoming aware of itself as a class and acting in its class interest (ie. not voting in either of the parties representing capital but organising their own political party). I agree with you, Smurf - people are responsible for shaping their society. They have failed (so far). I just put it down to the failure of the working class to figure out what is in its own interests (so I agree they have failed, but I also say why I think they have failed). It's more the 'liberal' in me (which I try to fight, but not always successfully) that sees people as 'victims'; this view is certainly not marxist! And it's good that you remind me when I give into my more middle class 'liberal' leanings; Marxists should be a lot more plain-speaking than I sometimes am. So here - I'll state my agreement with you more clearly: as you say, people in 'western democracies' (not only the US, but also in the UK and in Australia) have failed to defend themselves from tyranny. Unless they challenge and change the very structure of the entire economic and political system, they will continue to fail.

 

[Smurf]

Then we agree
Really though, I don't see how North America especially is capable of this change. There is a century of precedence of things like red scare in mass propoganda preventing them from accepting any of these ideas into their culture. Look at what townsend said in another thread:

It's the same thing with nearly all democrats!

I would love nothing more than to be able to vote for a dem for next election but they need to represent my views before I will vote for them.

Too many people cannot stand the idea of anti-gun, anti-hunting, progressive tax, bigger government,... the list goes on. On a whole tonne of issues I go the way of the dems... I want funding for stem cells, I want to give women the right to choose if they want to have an abortion,... and the list goes on.

I really don't like the idea of having a religious president in office. I want a president that can actually give a decent speech without making an a$$ out of himself most of the time. I also know that Kerry or Gore would have been those things...

Alas I could not vote for either...why? Government is downward inflexible. It is a lot easier to make laws than it is to repeal laws. I have always been fearful of some ultra left wing president taking away too many of my personal liberties. Increasing taxes on income, sales, and investments, making more government programs...more bureaucrats, less private industries...and the list goes on.

Frankly that scares the crap of me!


You might not understand that but I hope it answers your question to at least some degree.

That's not a personal belief, that's the result of a culture who's been told that communists eat their babies right up until the 70s, just a few years before I was born AND I WASN'T OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE JUST A MONTH AGO. North America is doomed, Canada only slightly less than the USA. (hey, at least we don't patent higher life forms you capitalistic bastards!)
(this is my cynical-depressive side, not my anarchist side)

 

[Art]

Alex - the closest to working class members getting together to gain a greater voice in the class war against the owners of capital is the trade union movement.

Now I don't know if you have ever been a member of a trade union but I have and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of people who claw their way to the top of these organisations are the most corrupt, bullying, self-serving, pigheaded, greedy and undemocratic people you will ever meet in your life.

IMO they are people who probably had management ambitions but were considered too extreme rightwing to be considered for promotion in their companies and so seek other alternative career paths to gain power and to vent their spite against the employers who failed to recognise their talents.

In conclusion I cannot think of a single example in modern times where 'workers' have united and actually benefitted from the experience. It's nice in theory but in practice human nature always gets in the way.

 

[alexandra]

Then we agree
Really though, I don't see how North America especially is capable of this change. There is a century of precedence of things like red scare in mass propoganda preventing them from accepting any of these ideas into their culture. Look at what townsend said in another thread:
That's not a personal belief, that's the result of a culture who's been told that communists eat their babies right up until the 70s, just a few years before I was born AND I WASN'T OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE JUST A MONTH AGO. North America is doomed, Canada only slightly less than the USA. (hey, at least we don't patent higher life forms you capitalistic bastards!)
(this is my cynical-depressive side, not my anarchist side)

Uh-oh, Smurf. I recently went through a very debilitating cynical-depressive mood (those are even worse than my 'liberal' tendencies - but at least more based on reality). Get back to the anarchism asap!

 

[alexandra]

Alex - the closest to working class members getting together to gain a greater voice in the class war against the owners of capital is the trade union movement.

Now I don't know if you have ever been a member of a trade union but I have and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of people who claw their way to the top of these organisations are the most corrupt, bullying, self-serving, pigheaded, greedy and undemocratic people you will ever meet in your life.

IMO they are people who probably had management ambitions but were considered too extreme rightwing to be considered for promotion in their companies and so seek other alternative career paths to gain power and to vent their spite against the employers who failed to recognise their talents.

In conclusion I cannot think of a single example in modern times where 'workers' have united and actually benefitted from the experience. It's nice in theory but in practice human nature always gets in the way.

Hey, Art - I couldn't agree with you more about trade union leaderships and organisations. Trade unions are by their very nature flawed organisations - they accept the premises of the exploitation of labour without question: they never challenge the capitalist system of slave labour Marx, for instance, never saw trade unions as having the slightest potential to secure the long-term interests of the working class. At best, he saw trade unions as organisations in which workers could learn organisational skills that they could then use to organise their own political party. Trade unions have always (always) been used by capital to control the labour force.

Human nature is what we make it - it's not biological. I know this statement is going to open a can of worms (we've argued about this before, people - remember? So don't start... )

alex

 

[Art]

Hey, Art - I couldn't agree with you more about trade union leaderships and organisations. Trade unions are by their very nature flawed organisations - they accept the premises of the exploitation of labour without question: they never challenge the capitalist system of slave labour Marx, for instance, never saw trade unions as having the slightest potential to secure the long-term interests of the working class. At best, he saw trade unions as organisations in which workers could learn organisational skills that they could then use to organise their own political party. Trade unions have always (always) been used by capital to control the labour force.

Human nature is what we make it - it's not biological. I know this statement is going to open a can of worms (we've argued about this before, people - remember? So don't start... )

alex

Don't you think this 'political party' is going to be controlled by the same individuals who currently hold sway in the trade union movement?

Personally I think capitalism is the best of a bad bunch if it is properly regulated and controlled. All socialist systems lead to the flight of capital and stagnation and I don't mean the former leading to the latter. The stagnation is due to the lack of motivation. Very, very few people truly get their highs from unselfishly helping others particularly if it is at a tangible cost to themselves.

I know you think it is all about early conditioning but I disagree. Competition and the desire to climb to the top of the heap is in our genes. Probably because it is necessary for the survival of our species.

[Edit]Apart from ignoring human nature the other catastrophic flaw in socialist ideolgy is the self evident mistaken belief that 'all men are created equal'. Some are born stronger, some faster, some cleverer and some even better looking. These inate differences will manifest themselves in inequalities throughout a person's life no matter what political doctrine is followed.

 

[alexandra]

Don't you think this 'political party' is going to be controlled by the same individuals who currently hold sway in the trade union movement?

This happened in the Soviet Union. Stalin managed to oust the Left Opposition and to gain totalitarian control. It is a danger that must always be guarded against. The 'soviets' obviously did not do their jobs - but people would have to be active participants in their local communities and also in the wider society (truly democratic structures would have to be set up at a 'grassroots' level). I think one of the other keys may be in education (well, that's also what the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union thought): people must be highly educated and intelligent enough to see through the plays for power. They must be ready and willing to protect their society against tyranny And they must never forget that their strength lies in unity. Because of these and a complexity of additional reasons (eg. economic), the first worker's revolution (the Russian one, I mean) failed.

Personally I think capitalism is the best of a bad bunch if it is properly regulated and controlled. All socialist systems lead to the flight of capital and stagnation and I don't mean the former leading to the latter. The stagnation is due to the lack of motivation. Very, very few people truly get their highs from unselfishly helping others particularly if it is at a tangible cost to themselves.

I believe that socialism cannot be achieved at a 'national' level. This is precisely what Trotsky was arguing, and why he started the international workers' movement. You are right that in a capitalist world, islands of socialism cannot survive. But I disagree with you that stagnation would occur due to lack of motivation. I think we are conditioned to be motivated by money and for individualistic gain; I don't believe this is natural. It just seems to be so because that is the sort of society we have been born into, these are the only ideas that have ever been granted legitimacy, this is the propaganda that permeates all our social institutions, etc. If capitalism truly is the only option, I'm afraid the human species is doomed - there is no such thing as a benevolent capitalism, and since political power is so intricately connected to economic power in this system, there is no way that capitalists will ever allow their activities to be regulated and controlled. That would eat into their profits!

I know you think it is all about early conditioning but I disagree. Competition and the desire to climb to the top of the heap is in our genes. Probably because it is necessary for the survival of our species.

Sometimes the survival of a species depends on cooperation (eg. colonies of bees and ants have to cooperate, I believe). Even if the survival of humanity did not, in the past, depend on cooperation, I really believe it does now. Environmental and social problems are now global in this 'globalised' world. You can't get away with polluting someone else's air - it's going to come back to bite you. If it is true that our genetic material makes us be competitive and greedy, and if we do not overcome these 'natural drives' (just assuming you are correct), we will not overcome the pressing problems facing us and so will not survive. These are my beliefs/opinions.

 

[alexandra]

[Edit]Apart from ignoring human nature the other catastrophic flaw in socialist ideolgy is the self evident mistaken belief that 'all men are created equal'. Some are born stronger, some faster, some cleverer and some even better looking. These inate differences will manifest themselves in inequalities throughout a person's life no matter what political doctrine is followed.

But a socialist does not believe that all are born equal - just that everyone should be given an environment and opportunities with which to realize whatever potential they have. I think there is a misperception that socialism/communism does not value individuals. This is not true - I would argue it is the only ideology that values individuals: and that it is the only one that could provide the social conditions that will allow one's individual potential to become realized. Ideology followed by capitalists purports to value the individual - but how many individuals to you see around you, Art? Isn't everyone doing the same thing (making money to buy the latest fashion goods, to buy the latest model car, to buy a house, etc, etc - 'to buy')? How much creativity do you see in our societies? How much knowledge (or even desire for knowledge)? Hmm, I wonder if I've stated this clearly...?

 

[Art]

Alex, I think you will find the vast silent majority are not silent because they are down-trodden and bullied by their capitalist masters but because they are actually pretty happy with the way things are. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs they are pretty content once they are well fed, housed and safe. Once these needs are met most folk spend far more time planning their next night out than they ever will cursing someone else because they have a zillion $. As a simple case in point why should it matter one iota to a guy working a machine in a factory whether the land and bulidings are owned by a peoples' cooperative or a corporation?

The people are not as daft as you think they are. When the environment becomes something that begins to threaten their safety they will demand their politicians do something about it. In fact it has started already. When corporations overstep the mark, again the people demand that their representatives fix it. (eg new SEC controls following Enron scandal). When safety is threatened by faulty electrical goods the people demand regulations to fix it. And ultimately because we live in a democracy politicians do not last very long in their jobs if they ignore the will of the people.

In conclusion this idea that people are slaves just waiting to rise up against their masters couldn't be further from reality. The same with the idea that the world is doomed if we don't all repent and embrace Marxism.

It aint going to happen and the world will survive. Just wait and see

 

[alexandra]

It aint going to happen and the world will survive. Just wait and see

Well, I really want to the world to survive I have no option but to wait and see... oh, except that it's useful to talk about these ideas and get people to think. That's about as much as I can do. I enjoy these discussions/exchanges - even if ultimately they don't achieve much

 

[cronxeh]

I think the time for diplomacy is over. The Iraq has natural resources the United States wants, as well as the rest of the civilized world wants. It has nothing to do with civics, philosophy, our appreciation of life or any morality or religion.

Its a simple fact of life - they had their chance, and now we taking over. There is no sympathy for terrorists or their supporters. Why not? Because we need resources they sit on so that we could continue living on lavish rich fertilized lands, have enough resources for Chemical Engineers to convert into products, have a stable food, textile, gasoline supply that we so much enjoy.

Sounds crazy? Outlandish? What are you going to do about it

 

[Art]

I enjoy these discussions/exchanges - even if ultimately they don't achieve much

You mean I haven't been able to convince you of the error of your ways . See I told you, you socialists were pig-headed

 

[alexandra]

You mean I haven't been able to convince you of the error of your ways . See I told you, you socialists were pig-headed

Don't be disappointed, Art - many people have tried to make me see the error of my ways (and failed). But you are one of my more worthy 'opponents' (it's always fun to chat). I'm thinking of adding a signature: 'proudly pig-headed'

 

[alexandra]

I think the time for diplomacy is over. The Iraq has natural resources the United States wants, as well as the rest of the civilized world wants. It has nothing to do with civics, philosophy, our appreciation of life or any morality or religion.

Its a simple fact of life - they had their chance, and now we taking over. There is no sympathy for terrorists or their supporters. Why not? Because we need resources they sit on so that we could continue living on lavish rich fertilized lands, have enough resources for Chemical Engineers to convert into products, have a stable food, textile, gasoline supply that we so much enjoy.

Sounds crazy? Outlandish? What are you going to do about it

I like this, cronxeh. Such honesty is truly refreshing. I wonder why the politicians don't just come right out and say it as well?

 

[Art]

I like this, cronxeh. Such honesty is truly refreshing. I wonder why the politicians don't just come right out and say it as well?

Personally I think Cronxeh's message is so important he should rush down now to sign up so he can deliver it to the Iraqi's personally. To gain the biggest audience he should try one of their local mosques during Friday prayers. I imagine he will very quickly get an answer to his final question.

 

[cronxeh]

Well you'd be surprised but I had a muslim upbringing and if you think I'm afraid of delivering that message you'd be wrong twice over

I fear noone.

 

[Art]

Well you'd be surprised but I had a muslim upbringing and if you think I'm afraid of delivering that message you'd be wrong twice over

I fear noone.

Rather you than me, but then again I don't have a death wish If we don't hear from you again we'll know why

 

[Lisa!]

Don't worry about cronxeh. We're not lucky enough to ...! But well just imagine if politicians talked like him...

 

[Smurf]

Alex, I think you will find the vast silent majority are not silent because they are down-trodden and bullied by their capitalist masters but because they are actually pretty happy with the way things are. Following Maslow's hierarchy of needs they are pretty content once they are well fed, housed and safe. Once these needs are met most folk spend far more time planning their next night out than they ever will cursing someone else because they have a zillion $.

Agreed. That's why we actually want to make sure everyone is fed, housed and safe. This is more willfull blindness, you don't recognize the extreme state of poverty a sizable portion of the population is in, not to mention how you are forcibly preventing the populations of other nations from achieving such status. Using your own logic the people should not be happy. What reason do you have to believe they are and that everything is so peachy?

As a simple case in point why should it matter one iota to a guy working a machine in a factory whether the land and bulidings are owned by a peoples' cooperative or a corporation?

Power. If it's owned by a guy on the 100th floor, the worker get's no say in how it's used. Because everything is owned by guys in 100th floor the worker does not have the option of going somewhere else where he does get a say. Therefor his labour is not being put to the uses he wants to support, and he can do nothing about it... except form trade unions. Which, as you say, are corrupt. We advocate a different system.

The people are not as daft as you think they are. When the environment becomes something that begins to threaten their safety they will demand their politicians do something about it. In fact it has started already.

Has it? 1 in 3 people have had or will have Cancer in their life time. A third of the population, that's 2 billion people have or will experience cancer first hand. What are the people doing about it? Nothing, we're letting the corporations continue to pollute the atomsphere and deplete the ozone layer, and fill our houses with toxic chemicals and cancer just becomes more and more common. This isn't a slight setback to capitalism, this is an epidemic.

When corporations overstep the mark, again the people demand that their representatives fix it. (eg new SEC controls following Enron scandal). When safety is threatened by faulty electrical goods the people demand regulations to fix it. And ultimately because we live in a democracy politicians do not last very long in their jobs if they ignore the will of the people.

This is blind faith. You believe that because we are in a democracy now that has examples of being accountable to the people in the past that we can do no wrong. Clearly we are doing wrong and we show no signs of stopping. What possible reason can you have for being so believing in this system?

In conclusion this idea that people are slaves just waiting to rise up against their masters couldn't be further from reality. The same with the idea that the world is doomed if we don't all repent and embrace Marxism.

I don't think anyone is saying the world is dommed if the world doesn't embrace Marxism. Marxism is not the only solution, it's just the one that Alex (and somewhat, myself) find most applicable and most appealing. I am not opposed to social democracy, or naturalism, or any of the others. We only recognize a problem that you do not, that's the only difference in belief.

It aint going to happen and the world will survive. Just wait and see

Of course the world will survive, It's humanity I'm worried about.

But I have to go now, I'm writing this from the University Library and want to get a bite to eat before my next class (my philosophy professor is AWSOME!)

 

[BobG]

It aint going to happen and the world will survive. Just wait and see

Of course the world will survive, It's humanity I'm worried about.

Well, technically, the Sun will expand in size when it gets old enough and the world will be roasted, but perhaps I'm just being depressing.

The key to any system working is to acknowlege and account for the fact that real humans will implement whatever system you design. I think capitalism has some inherent advantages in that people are more willing to take risks if the personal rewards are better. Other than that, it just comes down to discussing how well a particular government has implemented capitalism or socialism or communism or even a dictatorship.

 

[Smurf]

The key to any system working is to acknowlege and account for the fact that real humans will implement whatever system you design. I think capitalism has some inherent advantages in that people are more willing to take risks if the personal rewards are better. Other than that, it just comes down to discussing how well a particular government has implemented capitalism or socialism or communism or even a dictatorship.

That's true bob. There's no inherent flaw in Capitalism, it's corporatism that's the problem.

(my next class doesn't start for half an hour)

 

[BobG]

That's true bob. There's no inherent flaw in Capitalism, it's corporatism that's the problem.

(my next class doesn't start for half an hour)

It hasn't expanded ownership of the companies producing the goods and reaping the profits to 100% of the population (okay, not even close to 100%), but hasn't it spread ownership to more people than ever before?

It has a lot of problems, namely that it's completely amoral. Corporations exist to make money and little else is considered. However, more sophisticated and informed investors could allow other concerns to influence their investing and their buying.

With today's technology, you should be able to download a list of merchandise from companies that behave in a manner consistent with your own political views. Equipped with a small hand held scanner, you roam the aisles buying only 'politically correct' merchandise. You can do the same with investments, but I don't think it's been a very popular service, so far.

Most people's feelings about ecology, war, and so on are secondary to their concern about their own personal living standard, so money tends to be the overriding motivation.

 

[vanesch]

Now I don't know if you have ever been a member of a trade union but I have and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of people who claw their way to the top of these organisations are the most corrupt, bullying, self-serving, pigheaded, greedy and undemocratic people you will ever meet in your life.

Sad but very true! Seen that also over here!

 

[vanesch]

Of course the world will survive, It's humanity I'm worried about.

LONG LIVE THE ANTS

 

[vanesch]

What are you going to do about it

While the rest of the world will then devellop technology independent on oil, you'll take a bath in a barrel of crude every day... until there ain't anymore, and then you'll be begging for all that stuff that you didn't devellop yourself...

 

[Smurf]

LONG LIVE THE ANTS

Ants will die with us (unless we use conventional arms, but that's not likely in my books) it's cockroaches that will survive. Do you really want cockroachs?

 

[Smurf]

It hasn't expanded ownership of the companies producing the goods and reaping the profits to 100% of the population (okay, not even close to 100%), but hasn't it spread ownership to more people than ever before?

I don't know, depends how you define ownership. Besides, does that really matter? Is having a document that gives you legal rights over a piece of property that special, or necessary, or even a good thing at all? Making ownership an inert part of our society makes it impossible for someone to live comfortably without ownership of a certain degree of property, immediately creating a poverty line where non existed before as people were capable of taking care of themselves without needing that level of capital. What, can you tell me, has ownership fixed in this world?

Take feudalism for example. Back in the middle ages all the land was publicly owned by the state. Now, feudalism wasn't too nice a system, but that wasn't because the state owned the property, it was becuse the state abused it. Make the state more benevolent, even make it democratic, or anarchist if you want and it's instantly better than any system we have now. Everyone can privately operate their own land but ultimately they can't claim private ownership over it so if they're causing harm the public or, if you want, the state can make them stop.

It has a lot of problems, namely that it's completely amoral.

Duh. which is almost the sole objection.

Corporations exist to make money and little else is considered. However, more sophisticated and informed investors could allow other concerns to influence their investing and their buying.

Yes, but those people who don't invest like that get more money, and so get to invest even more, and so there really isn't any way for any benevolent group of people to offset that through the capitalist system because as they try to help they just get weaker and weaker by comparison. Therefor it becomes clear that corporatism/capitalism/whatever inherently favors the rich because it's not equal representation (the "democratic economy" analogy you were useing implied such). And it will stay that way until we change it.

With today's technology, you should be able to download a list of merchandise from companies that behave in a manner consistent with your own political views. Equipped with a small hand held scanner, you roam the aisles buying only 'politically correct' merchandise. You can do the same with investments, but I don't think it's been a very popular service, so far.

I do it. I don't buy from any companies I don't approve of. If I'm not sure of any paticular chain I tend to not buy from them at all or limit my purchases.

Most people's feelings about ecology, war, and so on are secondary to their concern about their own personal living standard, so money tends to be the overriding motivation.

I agree, unfortunately they're "standard of living" is being advertised by destructive groups and we need to educate people on how to live healthily without destroying the world while we're at it. It's not incredibly hard, I do it and I'm only 18 and only just moved out of my parent's house. I'm sure most of the western world can do it too.

 

[cronxeh]

While the rest of the world will then devellop technology independent on oil, you'll take a bath in a barrel of crude every day... until there ain't anymore, and then you'll be begging for all that stuff that you didn't devellop yourself...

and who is going to develop this fusion technology? the French?

oh maybe you'll also develop a way to bombard together a lot of atoms to make Carbon and heck maybe while you are at it as well make some Nitrogen and Oxygen for various industrial uses

 

[Smurf]

and who is going to develop this fusion technology?

Probably Japan or China

the French?

Then again, why not, they've made huge leaps in science before.

oh maybe you'll also develop a way to bombard together a lot of atoms to make Carbon and heck maybe while you are at it as well make some Nitrogen and Oxygen for various industrial uses

Cronxeh, you realize you're a bigot right? I mean, I don't care if you think you're justified, you obviously do, but you do realize you are a bigot, don't you?

(unless you've been kidding this whole time, in which case I take it all back - you never can tell on the net)

 

[TRCSF]

and who is going to develop this fusion technology? the French?

Well, since you're posting on a physics website I'm sure you're aware that France is the nation building the ITER.

Can't do that here in the U.S. We're to busy replacing science texts with the Book of Genesis.

 

[Art]

and who is going to develop this fusion technology? the French?

Uh Yes. The next generation fusion reactor is going to be built in France as was the last one though funded by several countries. Why the laughs?

 

[Art]

Take feudalism for example. Back in the middle ages all the land was publicly owned by the state. Now, feudalism wasn't too nice a system, but that wasn't because the state owned the property, it was becuse the state abused it. Make the state more benevolent, even make it democratic, or anarchist if you want and it's instantly better than any system we have now. Everyone can privately operate their own land but ultimately they can't claim private ownership over it so if they're causing harm the public or, if you want, the state can make them stop.

Funnily enough this has been the position in the states since the gold standard was abandoned. Since then US currency is underwritten by all properties in the US and the 'owners' have only the use of the properties.

 

[Art]

Agreed. That's why we actually want to make sure everyone is fed, housed and safe. This is more willfull blindness, you don't recognize the extreme state of poverty a sizable portion of the population is in, not to mention how you are forcibly preventing the populations of other nations from achieving such status. Using your own logic the people should not be happy. What reason do you have to believe they are and that everything is so peachy?

You misunderstand me. I am very conscious of the fact that many people in the world do not have these basics but my point was that the vast majority of people living in western capitalist democratic societies do. Trade barriers which continue to suppress poor nations are in fact a socialist mechanism, true capitalism believes in a totally free market.

Power. If it's owned by a guy on the 100th floor, the worker get's no say in how it's used. Because everything is owned by guys in 100th floor the worker does not have the option of going somewhere else where he does get a say. Therefor his labour is not being put to the uses he wants to support, and he can do nothing about it... except form trade unions. Which, as you say, are corrupt. We advocate a different system.

If people don't like the company they work for they can vote with their feet and leave. Unless everybody gets crammed into the office on the 100th floor then there is always going to be some with more power than others.

This is blind faith. You believe that because we are in a democracy now that has examples of being accountable to the people in the past that we can do no wrong. Clearly we are doing wrong and we show no signs of stopping. What possible reason can you have for being so believing in this system?

Far from doing no wrong I believe capitalism needs to be constantly reviewed, checked and balanced as per the examples I gave in my response to Alex's post I just happen to believe that the system in the medium to long term is self correcting.

I don't think anyone is saying the world is dommed if the world doesn't embrace Marxism. Marxism is not the only solution, it's just the one that Alex (and somewhat, myself) find most applicable and most appealing. I am not opposed to social democracy, or naturalism, or any of the others. We only recognize a problem that you do not, that's the only difference in belief.

I have yet to see anybody suggest a better viable system. If they do then I'm sure most people including me would embrace it.

 

[Smurf]

You misunderstand me. I am very conscious of the fact that many people in the world do not have these basics but my point was that the vast majority of people living in western capitalist democratic societies do. Trade barriers which continue to suppress poor nations are in fact a socialist mechanism, true capitalism believes in a totally free market.

Those so-called "trade barriers" are the only thing between those people and total exploitation beyond repair. A totally free market will only better allow these exploitations to happen. Tell me Art, why is it, do you think, that when El Salvador was in such a dire strait of poverty they had a socialist revolution and the first thing they did was to put up trade barriers and kick out western corporations that were exploiting them? Why is it, do you think, that as soon as this happened the quality of life, hell the chance of surviving the week, rose dramatically. And why is it, do you think, that these people were so happy about it and cheering in the street. (No, it's not propoganda, these people couldn't afford food, what medium do you really think they'd have to be barraged with the level of propoganda required to do that?

What do you think, Art?

If people don't like the company they work for they can vote with their feet and leave. Unless everybody gets crammed into the office on the 100th floor then there is always going to be some with more power than others.

I quote myself:

Because everything is owned by guys in 100th floor the worker does not have the option of going somewhere else where he does get a say.

The reason I put that in there is because I knew that line would be said by someone. It's the most common response to any unfairness pointed out in the system. The point is there is no where else to go. We're trapped here.

I wanted to be an anarchist. A true anarchist. But I've been reduced to being a political anarchist because I CAN'T AFFORD TO BE AN ANARCHIST IN THIS SOCIETY. There are people, off the coast of BC, living on islands in the middle of no where who raise their own sheep, make their own clothes, grow their own food. Totally self-sustainable. They've been there since the 50s-60s when that kind of thing was possible because that land didn't cost millions of dollars per sq meter. Now-a-days it's all owned by richies and celebrities who bring their big yachts and motorboats up there for summer vacations, cause huge noise pollution, causes enviromental problems, scares fish, ect. They disrupt their lives, make it incredibly hard to live like that. These people don't have any money to prosecute with, they don't want to, they just want to be left alone. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T ALLOW IT any more than the system allows a worker to choose it's employer. Employers don't go around looking for workers, if you need a job you run around town asking people, filtering through ads, blah blah blah. No one comes to you wanting to hire you, you go to them. No one competes for workers, that's bull****.

I would love nothing more than to live on my own island and be totally cut off from the capitalist world. The capitalist world doesn't allow it. You have to be a millionaires to be able to do that, and only people who play the game, and play it well, get to be millionaires.

The system is expansive, no one is allowed to live outside it without being harmed unless the people on which the system relies fight back.

There is no record in history of a socialist country ever coming to power and existing for any amount of time what so ever, without violent, aggressive intervention from capitalist countries. Russian expedition, Cuban Embargo, Brazilian Death Squads, Guatemalan bombing. None, ever. Socialism has forever been under attack since it's first conception from the dominant powers. And yet we criticize them for taking away individual rights. What democracy or capitalist country has not also taken away rights at times of war and distress? By comparison these socialist countries have allowed amazing amounts of rights to remain considering many in the past had spent their entire lives at war or under aggression be it economic, diplomatic or militaristic. How dare we critisize them, let alone from a North American continent that it it's self has never even been bombed let alone invaded or embargoed from anywhere, how dare we, from our positions of huge countries with limitless resources and who have always been banks of the world, How dare we critisize them who have done nothing more than try to make a better world for their citizens to earn our aggression under the guise of a "Communist Threat".

What did guatemala, the socialist republic of some thousands of people who's main export was banana's pose as a "threat" to us. Us, especially those americans who have had among the largest navy and air force in the world to protect them for centuries and hardly ever lost a war let alone been attacked them selves.

Furthermore, why is it that socialist dictatorships have and have alone been targeted by foreign intervention. Why has Burma, the most oppressive regime in the world and the only (i think) country in the world where the internet is illegal to the majority. (Who here has ever met a burmian on the net?), Why? BECAUSE THEY ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO EXPLOIT THEIR POOR. Socialist countries don't recognize private ownership, let alone allow them to be owned by the imaginary entity that has so much power in our own world.

There's nothing wrong with someone having more power than another, but why do we have to make it easier for the powerfull to remain powerfull and the unpowerfull to remain unpowerfull? There's a word for that, it's called a caste system. I'm thuroughly digusted by the "trickle down" theory that the poor get scrapes from the rich, so the best way to help them is to give the rich bigger plates. It's stupid, and descriminatory.

Art, not all of this is directed at you, I'm just letting it all out.

Far from doing no wrong I believe capitalism needs to be constantly reviewed, checked and balanced as per the examples I gave in my response to Alex's post I just happen to believe that the system in the medium to long term is self correcting.

I have yet to see anybody suggest a better viable system. If they do then I'm sure most people including me would embrace it.

There have been many other systems suggested, and tried in parts of the world, the problem is that people brand them all "Socialist" because ignorant westerners think that Capitalism is on one end of a scale and Communism on the other and anything that is similar with Marxism must be the same thing. Or at the least, still worse. Because there is this 'blind faith' that Capitalism will work always and that no changes need to be made (Real changes, not addressing minor problems in a few regulations)

Tell me art, what is wrong with Anarcho-syndicalism, or Green Anarchism (that's me)? What is so wrong about it that's preventing people from jumping all over it?

 

[Lisa!]

LONG LIVE THE ANTS

Here's something for you!

 

[vanesch]

Ants will die with us (unless we use conventional arms, but that's not likely in my books) it's cockroaches that will survive. Do you really want cockroachs?

Ok, maybe it is the cockroaches, but I think that the ants have a higher IQ, at least collectively. I'm repeating myself, but those jokes were quite common amongst Tyrannosaures about those little furry animals they had for desert after a great BBQ of triceratops in their garden parties.
Hey, after the trilobites (cambrian http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html and http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/cammass.html), the fish (silurian http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/silurian/silurian.html), the amphibians (devonian http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/devonian/devonian.html), the reptiles (permian http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/permian/permian.html), and of course the dinosaurs (triassic, jurassic and cretaceous), and finally the mammals (cenozoic http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cenozoic/cenozoic.html), another order of animal will take over, and I would bet on the insects (they have a high resistance to radioactivity and are much less affected by climate change than any other).

 

[vanesch]

and who is going to develop this fusion technology? the French?

Well, considering civil nuclear technology (not bombs !) France is indeed one of the leading nations in the world. It has now ITER on its soil, but it also sells nuclear reactors to China, and just started implementing a more advanced kind of nuclear reactor. This was politically a hard sell, but with rising oil prices, nobody finally objected. About 70% of the electricity supply in France is from nuclear origin.
The French just sold hurricane-proof eolians to the Fidji islands - they are the only ones in the world who can make hurricane-proof eolians and that's why they got the contract. (Katrina helped in getting the deal, I think).
Germany and Spain have quite some experience with solar and wind energy.
I think we'll find a way to live first with less, and finally without oil. If the US hasn't blown the world to pieces by then just to get the last drop of it.

oh maybe you'll also develop a way to bombard together a lot of atoms to make Carbon and heck maybe while you are at it as well make some Nitrogen and Oxygen for various industrial uses

The carbon is easily extracted from the CO2 you guys are pumping in the atmosphere and give us all a lush warm feeling. The machines that capture it are called plants.

 

[vanesch]

Here's something for you!

Ha, I wanted to see if you were going to react, Lisa!
Great, you are my personal ant-alert

 

[Art]

I'll try to address your major points

Those so-called "trade barriers" are the only thing between those people and total exploitation beyond repair. A totally free market will only better allow these exploitations to happen. Tell me Art, why is it, do you think, that when El Salvador was in such a dire strait of poverty they had a socialist revolution and the first thing they did was to put up trade barriers and kick out western corporations that were exploiting them? Why is it, do you think, that as soon as this happened the quality of life, hell the chance of surviving the week, rose dramatically. And why is it, do you think, that these people were so happy about it and cheering in the street. (No, it's not propoganda, these people couldn't afford food, what medium do you really think they'd have to be barraged with the level of propoganda required to do that?

What do you think, Art?

I think you completely misunderstand what trade barriers are used for and by whom. It is the 1st world countries who use trade barriers to protect segments of their economy from cheap imports from low cost suppliers. An example being Africa. The EU exports it's surplus food to Africa by subsidising it (a socialist policy not a capitalist one) thus undermining the farming sector in Africa and prevents Africa shipping food to it by imposing tariffs (again a socialist policy known as protectionism). IMO national trade barriers are only justified when an exporter is selling his product to another country at an artificially low price.

I quote myself:
The reason I put that in there is because I knew that line would be said by someone. It's the most common response to any unfairness pointed out in the system. The point is there is no where else to go. We're trapped here.

I wanted to be an anarchist. A true anarchist. But I've been reduced to being a political anarchist because I CAN'T AFFORD TO BE AN ANARCHIST IN THIS SOCIETY. There are people, off the coast of BC, living on islands in the middle of no where who raise their own sheep, make their own clothes, grow their own food. Totally self-sustainable. They've been there since the 50s-60s when that kind of thing was possible because that land didn't cost millions of dollars per sq meter. Now-a-days it's all owned by richies and celebrities who bring their big yachts and motorboats up there for summer vacations, cause huge noise pollution, causes enviromental problems, scares fish, ect. They disrupt their lives, make it incredibly hard to live like that. These people don't have any money to prosecute with, they don't want to, they just want to be left alone. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T ALLOW IT any more than the system allows a worker to choose it's employer. Employers don't go around looking for workers, if you need a job you run around town asking people, filtering through ads, blah blah blah. No one comes to you wanting to hire you, you go to them. No one competes for workers, that's bull****.

I would love nothing more than to live on my own island and be totally cut off from the capitalist world. The capitalist world doesn't allow it. You have to be a millionaires to be able to do that, and only people who play the game, and play it well, get to be millionaires.

The system is expansive, no one is allowed to live outside it without being harmed unless the people on which the system relies fight back.

Unless we have WW3 or something equally cataclysmic and the human race is reduced to a few thousand people there aren't enough islands to go around to make this a viable option for most folk. However there is still a hippy island off the coast of Ireland, purchased by John Lennon for the purpose you ascribe. It initially had a population of a few hundred but the last I heard a few years back all but 2 had decided to return to civilization. Perhaps that would suit you.

Personally I have no envy of the super rich whatsoever. I think often they are more to be pitied. There is a film where Danny DeVito plays a rich grasping businessman where somebody asks him why he is so ruthless when he's already rich. He replies "You don't get it, it's a game and whoever dies with the most wins" I think this epitomises the waste of a life spent chasing material gain.

There is no record in history of a socialist country ever coming to power and existing for any amount of time what so ever, without violent, aggressive intervention from capitalist countries. Russian expedition, Cuban Embargo, Brazilian Death Squads, Guatemalan bombing. None, ever. Socialism has forever been under attack since it's first conception from the dominant powers. And yet we criticize them for taking away individual rights. What democracy or capitalist country has not also taken away rights at times of war and distress? By comparison these socialist countries have allowed amazing amounts of rights to remain considering many in the past had spent their entire lives at war or under aggression be it economic, diplomatic or militaristic. How dare we critisize them, let alone from a North American continent that it it's self has never even been bombed let alone invaded or embargoed from anywhere, how dare we, from our positions of huge countries with limitless resources and who have always been banks of the world, How dare we critisize them who have done nothing more than try to make a better world for their citizens to earn our aggression under the guise of a "Communist Threat".

Personally I don't criticize any of them. I'm all in favour of folk trying different models and if they come across a better sustainable model than the one the west currently subscribes to, as I've already said I'd be amongst those to embrace it.

What did guatemala, the socialist republic of some thousands of people who's main export was banana's pose as a "threat" to us. Us, especially those americans who have had among the largest navy and air force in the world to protect them for centuries and hardly ever lost a war let alone been attacked them selves.

What indeed, I agree

Furthermore, why is it that socialist dictatorships have and have alone been targeted by foreign intervention. Why has Burma, the most oppressive regime in the world and the only (i think) country in the world where the internet is illegal to the majority. (Who here has ever met a burmian on the net?), Why? BECAUSE THEY ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO EXPLOIT THEIR POOR. Socialist countries don't recognize private ownership, let alone allow them to be owned by the imaginary entity that has so much power in our own world.

I don't think it is only socialists who have been attacked. Many countries in the world even today are fundamentally militaristic and will attack others whether they are left, right or centre. The reasons why are diverse. It may as in the case of Iraq be resource driven but it may also be for religion, to settle old scores or even simple racism.

There's nothing wrong with someone having more power than another, but why do we have to make it easier for the powerfull to remain powerfull and the unpowerfull to remain unpowerfull? There's a word for that, it's called a caste system. I'm thuroughly digusted by the "trickle down" theory that the poor get scrapes from the rich, so the best way to help them is to give the rich bigger plates. It's stupid, and descriminatory.

I agree, the trickle down theory is a weak justification for allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor but again this is a fault of ideology not capitalism per se. If people elect themselves a government that actually cares about people such imbalances can be corrected through fiscal policy. The fact people often don't, I have already likened on another thread to 'turkeys voting for christmas'

There have been many other systems suggested, and tried in parts of the world, the problem is that people brand them all "Socialist" because ignorant westerners think that Capitalism is on one end of a scale and Communism on the other and anything that is similar with Marxism must be the same thing. Or at the least, still worse.

The republican and some democratic administrations in the US may view the world in such black and white terms but the vast majority of countries in the EU for example do not.

Because there is this 'blind faith' that Capitalism will work always and that no changes need to be made (Real changes, not addressing minor problems in a few regulations)

Capitalism as I've already said is a still evolving model. In fact that is one of it's key attributes. It will continue to change as the needs of the population change whereas many of the socialist models tried to date have been very inflexible.

Tell me art, what is wrong with Anarcho-syndicalism, or Green Anarchism (that's me)? What is so wrong about it that's preventing people from jumping all over it?

There are just so many problems when dealing with high density populations I wouldn't know where to begin.
However to point out one obvious inconsistency if you are an adherent of Green Anarchism what are you doing on the internet. You are supposed to shun all technology.

 

[Smurf]

Must resist urge to respond... late for class...

(you're right it's not just socialist countries, it's countries that try to develope economies independant from the US - and I meant American foreign intervention... and to a lesser extent other western nations - Hey I'd been typing fast all night, give me some slack)

 

[Smurf]

Wow short class. (I was 5 minutes late!). Okay, now 45 minutes till my next class.

I'll try to address your major pointsI think you completely misunderstand what trade barriers are used for and by whom. It is the 1st world countries who use trade barriers to protect segments of their economy from cheap imports from low cost suppliers.

Which is perfectly fine. Everyone has the right to refuse to buy from someone.

An example being Africa. The EU exports it's surplus food to Africa by subsidising it (a socialist policy not a capitalist one) thus undermining the farming sector in Africa and prevents Africa shipping food to it by imposing tariffs (again a socialist policy known as protectionism). IMO national trade barriers are only justified when an exporter is selling his product to another country at an artificially low price.

Exactly. Why arn't these african nations raisnig trade tariffs of their own then? A few reasons really, firstly because they're afraid that the US is going to bomb them. Or the leaders are afraid that the US is going to create political instability and oust them from office as they've done so many times in the past - my example being Ghana, where I lived for 3 years and saw it recovering from the last coup by brits and yanks.

This is the nature of the current system, let's call it capitalism, in the west. It's imperialist and bullying and will continue to try to keep the poor (3rd world) poorer. It's a system that helps the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor and has no ethical barriers at all, intranational and international.

Unless we have WW3 or something equally cataclysmic and the human race is reduced to a few thousand people there aren't enough islands to go around to make this a viable option for most folk.

The island is optional.

However there is still a hippy island off the coast of Ireland, purchased by John Lennon for the purpose you ascribe. It initially had a population of a few hundred but the last I heard a few years back all but 2 had decided to return to civilization. Perhaps that would suit you.

Havn't heard anything about it. Maybe they left because an irish company dropped a bunch of toxics in the area and killed all the wildlife. You really should research it before jumping to conclusions.

Personally I have no envy of the super rich whatsoever.

You're alone in that capacity then. "I want what he has" is a dominant theme in our society today.

I think often they are more to be pitied. There is a film where Danny DeVito plays a rich grasping businessman where somebody asks him why he is so ruthless when he's already rich. He replies "You don't get it, it's a game and whoever dies with the most wins" I think this epitomises the waste of a life spent chasing material gain.

Havn't seen it. Okay then, but I can think of lots of examples I like better than a hollywood chick flick.

Personally I don't criticize any of them. I'm all in favour of folk trying different models and if they come across a better sustainable model than the one the west currently subscribes to, as I've already said I'd be amongst those to embrace it.

And then you say:

What indeed, I agree

If you agree why arn't you willing to criticize them? Is killing millions of innocents for a few extra bucks justified in your mind? (that's not agreeing)

I don't think it is only socialists who have been attacked.

You're right. It's any economy that's tried to develop and independant economy from American corporatism.

Many countries in the world even today are fundamentally militaristic and will attack others whether they are left, right or centre. The reasons why are diverse. It may as in the case of Iraq be resource driven but it may also be for religion, to settle old scores or even simple racism.

I meant American foreign intervention. Sorry I was typing fast and forgot the extra gloss. Everything since WW2 has been for economic reasons.

I agree, the trickle down theory is a weak justification for allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor but again this is a fault of ideology not capitalism per se.

It is capitalist ideology. Why are you trying to separate all the weak points of capitalism from capitalism it's self? I think you're just attached to the idea of free trade because it's 'free' and you've been indoctrinated (not your fault) to believe everything connected with 'freedom' is good and just. What is this ideology, if not capitalism?

If people elect themselves a government that actually cares about people such imbalances can be corrected through fiscal policy.

Unfortunately because the system we have controls the media, and people end up not caring about that because they get distracted by the new sale at the brick or london drugs of whatever.

Capitalism as I've already said is a still evolving model. In fact that is one of it's key attributes. It will continue to change as the needs of the population change whereas many of the socialist models tried to date have been very inflexible.

Yeah.. because they're cut off from the rest of the world. If you're just a small country in south america and america bombs everyone you try to trade will you don't have a whole lot of options do you. Besides, how can you state that they've "shown" to be inflexible. What socialist economy has actually existed for a fraction of the time the one we have know has?

There are just so many problems when dealing with high density populations I wouldn't know where to begin.

Begin somewhere because so far you've just said "I believe!" "I believe!"

However to point out one obvious inconsistency if you are an adherent of Green Anarchism what are you doing on the internet. You are supposed to shun all technology.

That's not true... did you even read the links? How much research into anarchism have you done ape?

 

[Astronuc]

and who is going to develop this fusion technology? the French?

ITER is a multinational collaboration between all the countries involved in fusion research worldwide. It operates by consensus among the participants. The collaboration involves primarily scientists, who establish the requirements of the experiment and eventually will measure its success, and engineers, who find ways to produce these required conditions safely, reliably and as cheaply as possible, and who in its operation will also gain design information for future fusion power plants. The scientists and engineers are supported by a range of highly skilled staff, especially in the areas of information technology, computer-aided design, secretarial, clerical, and technical administration, and project and resource management.

http://www.iter.org/index.htm

http://www.iter.org/gifs2/atlas2.gif

 

[vanesch]

However to point out one obvious inconsistency if you are an adherent of Green Anarchism what are you doing on the internet. You are supposed to shun all technology.

(clubs are allowed for, I presume )

I've read up on Green Anarchism (and it makes me think of "Le noble sauvage" - Rousseau) ; however, clearly it isn't a stable system, as our current systems GREW OUT OF GREEN ANARCHISM. So how are green anarchists (living in small bands of hunters-gatherers) going to prevent others to get together, start doing agriculture, setting up civilisations, armies and empires and be reduced to a few drunk guys in a reserve, or being shot from a train ? Who's going to IMPOSE green anarchism ?

I agree that this was probably a great lifestyle (short but intense), but it's gone now.

 

[Smurf]

as our current systems GREW OUT OF GREEN ANARCHISM.

how did you arrive at that conclusion? (this coming from the guy who says we've always had capitalism!)

 

[Art]

Begin somewhere because so far you've just said "I believe!" "I believe!"

Smurf you are doing what you accuse the GOP supporters of doing, trying to paint everything either black or white. Personally I see shades of gray.

That's not true... did you even read the links? How much research into anarchism have you done ape?

Yes actually I did. The more pertinant question is did you? Here's a quote from a source you should approve of

All green anarchists question technology on some level. While there are those who still suggest the notion of "green" or "appropriate" technology and search for rationales to cling to forms of domestication, most reject technology completely. Technology is more than wires, silicon, plastic, and steel. It is a complex system involving division of labor, resource extraction, and exploitation for the benefit of those who implement its process. The interface with and result of technology is always an alienated, mediated, and distorted reality. Despite the claims of post-modern apologists and other technophiles, technology is not neutral.

http://www.greenanarchy.info/tech.php

It appears even in the green world there are shades of gray

 

[Astronuc]

Squandered Victory - by Larry Diamond - Missed Opportunity in Iraq

http://hnn.us/articles/3015.html

Review of Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire
By Stanley Kutler

Excellent point SOS.

And perhaps more poignant to this thread -

Amazon.com

In late 2003, Stanford University professor and democracy expert Larry Diamond was personally asked by his former colleague Condoleezza Rice to serve as an advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, a position he accepted with equal parts "hesitation and conviction." He opposed the initial invasion of Iraq, but "supported building the peace," and felt the U.S. had a moral imperative to reconstruct Iraq as a democratic and prosperous nation. Before going to Iraq he had serious doubts about whether the U.S. could actually do this--an opinion that was solidified after spending three months working with the CPA. Squandered Victory is his insider's examination of what went wrong in Iraq after the initial invasion. Diamond details a long list of preventable blunders and missed opportunities, from President Bush's decision to give the Pentagon the lead responsibility for the management of postwar Iraq to the CPA's inability to work with Iraqi leaders such as Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Diamond expresses admiration for CPA Administrator L. Paul Bremer, whom he believes was sincere about wanting to bring democracy to Iraq, yet points out that he was wholly unprepared and unrealistic about the task, resulting in "one of the major overseas blunders in U.S. history." In his descriptions of confrontations with Bremer, Diamond shows him as unwilling to diverge from paths that were obviously failing.

As an academic with an expertise in democracy building, Diamond sometimes seems more comfortable with theories than practical solutions, but he did experience the process in Iraq from the inside and provides a useful background on the various ethnic and religious groups vying for power there. He claims that he remains hopeful, but his optimism lies more with the abilities of the Iraqi people than with the U.S. government, since the difficult process of democratization will likely take much more time and effort than the U.S. can afford to spend.

--Shawn Carkonen

From Publishers Weekly

When Diamond got a call from his former Stanford colleague Condoleezza Rice asking if he would go to Baghdad to advise Iraqi authorities on drafting and implementing a democratic constitution, the political scientist, who had "opposed going to war but supported building the peace," was able to overcome his concerns about the region's instability. What he saw in Iraq during the first four months of 2004, however, left him extremely pessimistic about the prospects of success (although he admits all is not necessarily lost). Diamond sees a refusal to deal honestly with deteriorating conditions, particularly the rise of violent insurgency, and characterizes it as one of America's worst blunders ever; indeed, he calls that refusal "criminal negligence." Diamond's mounting personal frustration becomes apparent especially in direct confrontations with then Ambassador Paul Bremer. Though much of the story is given over to wonkish details of power brokering among Iraq's various political, ethnic and religious factions, there are also vibrant particulars of life inside the American compound, where even going out for pizza could be a life-threatening event. Such eye-witness experience bolsters this vivid critique of the current administration's foreign policy cornerstone.

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Lots of discussion on the net. And lots of criticsim from Bush/Rice supporters and neocons.

I had the opportunity to listen to Larry Diamond addressing the Commonwealth Club - Prospects for Democracy in Iraq - http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/05/05-06diamond-audio.html (Real Audio - ram format)

Diamond characterizes the US program to 'build' democracy in the US with "four damning words" - "arrogance, ignorance, isolation, and incompetence."

 

[Smurf]

Smurf you are doing what you accuse the GOP supporters of doing, trying to paint everything either black or white. Personally I see shades of gray.

I don't mean to. And I try to see in colors as well as shades of grey. (meaning, it's not a linear scale that everything is somewhere between two extremes)

Yes actually I did. The more pertinant question is did you? Here's a quote from a source you should approve of http://www.greenanarchy.info/tech.php

It appears even in the green world there are shades of gray

Okay. Interesting that a website called "Greenanarchy" would be saying that. Well I don't. And I still see no reason why I "should" either.

 

[vanesch]

how did you arrive at that conclusion? (this coming from the guy who says we've always had capitalism!)

From your own link on wiki:

Essentially, gatherer-hunters are perceived to be part of our anarchist ancestry since all humans practiced that mode of life for around two million years.

BTW, I didn't say that we ALWAYS had capitalism, we had a form of capitalism from the moment that we EXCHANGED stuff (without using clubs).