Keith's NO EMPIRE Blog

It's the Money

2011-11-16T10:09:00.000-08:00

We have entered a period of rapid change as the corporate/financial elite pursue global economic and financial domination. Spearheaded by a rogue financial system, wealth is rapidly flowing upwards as the rich get richer and the rest are forced into a future of debt servitude. The problem is systemic, intrinsically tied to our debt-based, privately controlled monetary system. Modern capitalism is based upon financial control not ownership. This appears poorly understood by the intellectual forces of resistance whose analyses are often hobbled by the influence of Marxist ideology. As such, realistic assessments of current problems and real world solutions give way to talk about ownership of the means of production and other diversions. It is long past time to cast aside Marxian ideological misrepresentations which continue to influence and hobble progressive thought, stymieing any hope for change in this critically important time of neoliberal globalization.

Let us begin by noting that 19th century political economy was radically different from our current reality. At the beginning of the 19th century, many people only worked for wages on a temporary basis. They were primarily somewhat self-sufficient farmers who produced for themselves, requiring only temporary wages to acquire those few things which they did not produce for themselves. Or perhaps they were independent craftsmen or small merchants who operated their own businesses, earning a living in the market rather than work for wages. Most made a modest living which, nonetheless, was preferable to factory work as it existed back then. As a consequence, laws were passed enclosing the commons thereby eliminating the traditional means of livelihood for many. The result was to effectively force large numbers of people to work long hours for subsistence wages merely to survive. In effect, wage slavery in the literal sense of the term. From about the mid-19th century on, more and more people were sucked into the market economy and impoverished as a consequence. This wasn’t the consequence of industrialization per se, rather it was the consequence of exploitation of the workers by the industrialists, and by the system they created. It is this system Marx wrote about, a system which has undergone massive change in the last 150 years.

Nowadays, very few are able to supply their needs outside the market which has expanded enormously. The vast majority of people in First World countries obtain their needs and wants by purchasing them, hence, the need to acquire money to survive. Additionally, technological innovation and increases in productivity have dramatically reduced the number of First World people engaged in either farming or manufacturing. Most now earn their livelihood from employment in larger, more complex organizations, in a more diverse economy with a dramatic increase in specialization and the number of different jobs. Two points are critically important. The first is that to a significant degree the very concept of ownership of the means of production has been rendered anachronistic. What is a teacher’s means of production? A salesman’s? A clerk’s? A postal worker’s? A waiter’s? A scientist’s? Etc? The concept of ownership of the means of production was developed to organize factory workers to seize control of the political economy, which would then be run by Marxist elites. Out with the oligarchs, in with the commissars.

The second critically important point is that the proliferation of specialization and different job types isn’t necessarily bad. There currently exists a large and diverse number of job choices not available in Marx’ time. The point being that nowadays those of us in the First World need money to survive which means that most need to obtain employment in some organization, or become a small businessman, or self-employed craftsman, or artist, etc. As to worker control over the work environment, this is an important consideration which is sidetracked by discussions of ownership. The very notion that employees need to own the business to not be “wage slaves” is nuts. Perhaps that is why so few employees have aggressively acquired their organization’s stock. Furthermore, the number of organizations where this is even remotely feasible isn’t very great. Own the post office? The police force? NASA? MIT? What can’t be emphasized enough is the extent to which real world solutions to real world problems are ignored in favor of unrealistic and unworkable goals. Ownership of the means of production is an elite formulated myth, a revolutionary slogan, an ideological justification for the Marxists to seize power, nothing more.

Once one puts aside Marxist ideological blinders and focuses instead on what was the intended consequence of “ownership,” what do we have? Better pay? Better working conditions? Job security? Input into workplace decisions? Input into business strategizing and decision making? Input into the US political economy? Input into US geo-strategy and political decision making? If I was to speculate, I would guess that most workers, regardless of occupation, are concerned over their pay and benefits, working conditions, and job security. Fewer would be interested in direct involvement in running the business. It is difficult to even guess how many would be concerned about impacting the political economy or foreign affairs, except insofar as these areas negatively impact them. In any event, both areas are beyond the scope of business ownership, falling instead within the political system. Now my guess is that many people have become aware of the negative aspects of US wars of aggression and militarism, neoliberal globalization and structural adjustment, and of potential environmental catastrophes, and they would dearly love to have some political empowerment. Empowerment, I might add, that would not come by virtue of collective ownership of the means of production.

Let us begin by noting that to make changes, we need to deal with the world as it is, not how we imagine it to be based upon wishful thinking. In this regard, it would be helpful to eliminate most Marxist phraseology from our vocabulary. For example, what is the proletariat? It is a fictitious entity created by Marx to advance his agenda. Using the term proletariat to describe workers, primarily factory workers, creates the illusion of some sort of organizational affinity between individuals who may have nothing in common except socioeconomic grouping. I assume that it was Marxism’s goal to create some sense of class solidarity across organizational boundaries, thereby facilitating the organization of factory workers into the equivalent of one huge international union, which would seize power in the name of militant laborers. And when power is seized, then what? Why the elites consolidate their control. Happens every time. It happened in Russia, in China, in Korea, and in Viet Nam. It also happened in the US labor movement, popularly elected officials eventually yielding to a highly bureaucratized international federation where labor elites pursue their personal agendas at the expense of the membership. This is what happens in the real world. The “proletariat” inevitably turned into cadres for the benefit of elites who purport to speak for them.

Once we rid ourselves of ideological blinders, we can begin to analyze the situation intelligently. Using clear language, we can discuss hierarchy and power, and what can realistically be done to maximize life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the population as a whole. Let us begin by noting that while hierarchy and power are correlated, they are not the same thing. Virtually all successful groups/organizations have a hierarchy. Hierarchy appears to be a natural phenomenon occurring where animals band together for survival. Wolf packs, chimpanzee troops, and human tribes, for example. Hierarchy is the difference between a mob and an army, the army surviving at the expense of the mob. Hierarchy facilitates group goal attainment, and permits specialization of functions. Hierarchy, in and of itself, is not a problem. The problem is that without organizational constraints, hierarchy tends to lead to concentrated power and to arbitrary power. Also, there is a tendency to limit mobility within the power structure, and to overemphasize top down decision making.

The essence of our capitalist system is the rule of capital, that is to say the rule of money. In other words, the rule of those who control and direct the flow of significant amounts of money. Currently, our financial system is in private hands for private profit. The ramifications of this are enormous, including the effective control of the political system by concentrated money power, so that while the government is the single largest spender of money, its priorities are so attuned to the wants of business and finance that it effectively supports business goals and objectives. If the political system were to gain control of the financial system, and if taxation were to break up concentrated wealth, capitalism as defined would no longer exist. I differentiate between the government and the larger political system. The Bill of Rights, for example, is part of the political system designed to restrain government abuse of the citizenry. That the Bill of Rights has been continually abused, and recently contemptuously so, indicates that excessive government power is as bad as excessive private power. There is little point in exchanging private tyranny for public tyranny, and vice versa.

I think that most progressives would agree that our current system isn’t working well. Part of the problem, however, is that there doesn’t seem to be a clear understanding of what our system is, how it functions, and how to realistically change it. Too often people fall back on ideological suppositions which don’t make sense in our modern world, and which are unlikely to be implemented in any event. The first thing which needs to be understood is that the financial system more or less controls society at the macro level, and that concentrated wealth is concentrated social power, and that meaningful change is not possible without breaking up concentrated wealth and gaining control of the financial system.

Let’s get fundamental. We have a debt-based money system. That is, banks create money by loaning it into the system as bank credit. Virtually all of the money in the system exists as a consequence of bank loans which must be repaid with interest. If all of the loans were repaid, there would be no money left in the system. In fact, there would be no money to pay the interest due on the loans. Where does the money come from to pay the interest? It is borrowed. In the system as a whole, total debt needs to grow at a sufficient rate to keep money in the system and to pay the interest now due on past loans. This means that the economy needs to grow at a rate sufficient to service the debt required to provide the money needed to run the system. In other words, compounding growth of debt is built in to our dysfunctional financial system. This means that a steady-state sustainable economy is not possible with our current system, and that lack of economic growth leads to economic collapse, unless forestalled by inflation or recessions/depressions accompanied by debt write down. A debt-based money system is a disaster and needs to be replaced by sovereign money, that is, money created by the government rather than money created by the private banking system.

In addition to being a debt-based monetary system, our financial system is privately owned and operated for profit. The consequence of this is that our financial system primarily serves the profit seeking goals of the financiers at the expense of the real economy, and is unaccountable to the democratic will of the people. Attempts have been made to control the avarice of the financiers with financial rules and regulations. These seem to work for a while, but are eventually circumvented resulting in negative consequences for the real economy and the citizenry. This is the situation we are now in as unstable exotic financial instruments combine with financial speculation to cause the financial system to implode. Our private financial system is a social disaster which needs to be replaced with a public banking system which serves the real economy.

Our financial system is a disjointed system in which monetary policy is separate from fiscal policy. This is the equivalent of treating the two sides of the same coin as separate entities. Public control of the financial system, however, would favor the joining of fiscal policy with monetary policy to achieve social objectives. Money creation and taxes need to work together to control and direct the flow of money. Progressive taxation of income and wealth for both individuals and organizations, along with income redistribution, is absolutely essential to correct the current dysfunctional concentration of money power.

Several things are critically important. The first is that public control of the financial system is a precondition for meaningful change. As long as the financiers control our money, the financiers will set policy. The second is that the majority are under attack by the financial oligarchs. Neoliberal globalization inevitably leads to structural adjustment, which is basically the impoverishment of the majority leading to a form of debt servitude. Modern society runs on money, and the people who currently control money are using their money power as a weapon. There is a real possibility of a collapse of the global financial system, hence, a pressing need for alternatives to global finance. Local money, local banks, local script, even barter may be required if “official” money disappears.

Ritual Voting and the Illusion of Democracy

2011-09-29T09:23:00.000-07:00

“It is axiomatic that political power aligns with economic power” (David C. Korten)

One of the great myths of our time is that elections and voting constitute the essence of democracy. To the degree that democracy constitutes self-rule, even in the limited sense of citizen control of the political system, democracy is an oxymoron in a capitalist political economy. The very essence of capitalism is the rule of capital, that is the rule of money, that is the rule of those who control and direct the flow of money. To anyone not blinded by mythology, it is obvious that we live in a capitalist oligarchy, not a democracy.

Elections are rituals, pure and simple. As such they serve multiple functions. The simplest function is that of a political circus, full of color and noise, diverting attention away from the underlying systems of power and control. The next is the distraction of organized ritualistic behavior - phone banking, sign building, rallies, etc. - which keep activists busy while imparting the illusion of meaningful participation in the political process. Next is the symbolic legitimatization of government and its actions by associating voting with citizen approval of subsequent policy and actions. Finally, the whole process tends to misrepresent the role of government in our political economy while simultaneously bringing the market to bear on the political system. That is, to hide the fact that our government is subservient to business interests and elite pressure.

Currently, our economic system has totally overwhelmed our political system and is the decisive locus of power in our political economy. It is businessmen in large corporations and financial institutions who make the decisions which most effect our lives. They are the ones who decide whether to invest in solar power or oil exploration, whether to build a factory in the US or overseas, whether to build affordable housing or luxury homes, whether to support fuel efficiency and mass transit or to develop tar sands oil, whether to support living wages or to slash benefits, whether to invest in the real economy or engage in financial speculation. These are the things which fall under the domain of business decision making. Additionally, the economic elites exert strong influence on governmental decision making and infrastructure development.

The American economic elites exercise de facto control of the political system through several means. The first is the most obvious: those who control significant wealth fund political candidates who demonstrate a commitment to elite objectives and have the ability to get results. This is particularly important at the start of a campaign when candidates need to obtain significant initial funding to be viable. Thereafter, the ongoing need for future campaign financing biases elected officials in favor of “business friendly” legislation and executive actions. In this way, the market is brought to bear on elected officials. Another aspect of elite control is through the doctrinal system whereby the funding of think tanks and the control of commercial media, the elites construct the ideological framework within which political decision making occurs. It is important to note that the average person has negligible impact upon the creation of social mythology which informs our perceptions and guides our decisions, and which has been created by the elites to facilitate the attainment of elite objectives. Finally, our privately controlled financial system is debt based which creates a systemic need for growth. Additionally, the private banks, bondholders and Federal Reserve have the power to stimulate or depress the economy through monetary means to achieve their objectives.

The point is that the US and other Western “democracies” present themselves as democratic, and are viewed by their citizenry as essentially democratic when, in fact, they are not. In this regard, voting and elections constitute an elaborate charade to create the illusion of democracy. The best one can say is that the US has democratic forms which are totally ineffective in achieving the stated goal. Money is the big corruptor of representative democracy, however, to simply state that concentrated money power corrupts the system and leave it at that is inadequate. The implications of why expensive political advertising is as effective as it is has profound implications for the very concept of democracy.

I have come to several conclusions about human nature and political economy which are at odds with just about everything I have ever heard or read. The core concept undergirding these conclusions concerns what I refer to as the logic of irrationality. I define reasoning as logical if it is consistent with relevant assumptions, whereas, thinking is rational if consistent with empirical reality. They are not the same thing. For most people, the logic of ideology and bias tend to overwhelm rational thought. That is, when individual/group bias and ideology conflict with rational interpretation, rationality is usually ignored in favor of an ideologically consistent interpretation. This is true for most people and is probably an inevitable consequence of human evolution. For all or most of human history, being a member of a supportive group/tribe was an essential component of survival, hence, the majority of people willingly adapted their individual biases and simplifying paradigms to be consistent with the group ideology/mythology so as to fit in and promote harmony and solidarity.

The tendency for individuals in a group to evaluate situations from the perspective of a shared ideology creates a de facto internalized behavioral guidance system consistent with group objectives. The subordination of individual bias to group ideology is essential for group cohesion and direction, and a key to group success. It should be noted that group ideology and group objectives do not reflect the input of the various members of the group, rather, they reflect the biases and objectives of the group elites who basically control the overall thrust of group activity. Most groups of any significant size tend to form a hierarchy, with the majority following the direction of the group leaders. Most subconsciously align with power. Those who don’t tend to suffer consequences. Dissent which threatens to undermine group solidarity and effectiveness is considered treasonous.

The implications of all of this is that the elites basically control the actions of the majority through the control of information and social mythology. This appears to be changing somewhat as elite implementation of structural adjustment produces the inevitable (and anticipated) civil disobedience which, in turn, is dealt with by a return to the more traditional modes of coercive force to augment the psychological manipulation of the population.

Be that as it may, social control in the US still relies primarily upon information manipulation. While in theory there is nothing to prevent the electorate from voting for Third Party candidates and throwing the Republicans and Democrats out of office, this is not likely to happen. The electorate is not rational, the notion of a “rational” political man (or “rational” economic man) is a myth. The vast majority of the people are faithful followers who can’t seem to help being seduced by the logic of elite propaganda. Reality is misrepresented in such a way as to produce an anticipated response in the polity. As a consequence, people will satisfy themselves with the illusion of choice within the framework of established power, or opt out completely, rather than stage a rebellion at the polls.

Taking all of this a step further, the notion of the US spreading democracy or opposing tyranny or being concerned by dictators is ludicrous. We live in what has been described as the dictatorship of capital, the tyranny of money. This reality is camouflaged by elections and voting which give the illusion of popular participation in political decision making. A sham which tends to ameliorate popular discontent without significantly impacting elite goal seeking. Also, nowadays, how many nations don’t have elections? Most do, with the outcomes frequently manipulated. The elections of allies will be lauded as free and fair, those of regimes we wish to destabilize will be presented as illegitimate. In almost all case, voting is symbolic only, a means of manufacturing consent.

What does the future hold? I am not going to even attempt to discuss democracy in the broadest sense of the term. Rather, what, if anything, could be done to create a situation whereby elections and voting are more than a money driven charade? I am pessimistic about the extent to which the majority of citizens can become rational voters, at least in the short run. The human need for most to subsume themselves to group mythology and to align with power appears resistant to change. Realistically, the best hope would appear to be to seek to reduce the concentration of economic power as much as possible. While people would still be susceptible to the logic of propaganda, hopefully, having many more potential message senders would result in some ideological competition rather than our current consistent bias and propaganda.

Manichean Madness

2011-09-26T11:52:00.000-07:00

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” (Voltaire)

There is no more absurd or destructive mythology than the notion of a giant struggle between the forces of good versus the forces of evil. In reality, the subjective labels of “good” and “bad” are moral and situational judgments properly attached to actions. Actions are subjectively evaluated as “good” or “bad.” People, in turn, should be evaluated based upon their behavior, their actions. A “good” person is someone whose behavior is generally “good.” A “bad” person is someone whose behavior is generally “bad.” A “good” person is nonetheless capable of committing “bad” acts. A “bad” person is nonetheless capable of “good” behavior. It is the subjective evaluation of behavior which determines whether or not a person is, on the balance, “good” or “bad.” There is no such thing as an intrinsically “good” or intrinsically “bad” person. The term “evil” is used to denote something monstrously bad.

In spite of the absurdity of the Manichean concept of the forces of light (good) in constant struggle with the forces of darkness (evil), this ideological duality is part of Western mythology, and is constantly reinforced by the media, particularly the entertainment media. For example, Luke Skywalker and Harry Potter are depicted as “good guys,” their intentions and actions noble by definition. Darth Vader and Lord Voldemort are depicted as intrinsically evil in nature, their intentions and actions wicked by definition. The duality is sharply drawn. It is difficult to imagine Harry Potter doing something “bad,” and Voldemort’s evil nature is absolute. It is a one dimensional caricature whereby the label defines reality. Good guys do good, bad guys do bad. Actions are assumed to correspond to the label.

All of this is no accident. In a militaristic empire such as ours, there is a constant need to pre-condition the public mind to accept the righteousness and need for the inevitable wars of aggression and other despicable acts that empire inevitably engages in. As such, it is advantageous for the elites to have the populace believe that we are intrinsically good, and future enemies intrinsically evil. People and nations are judged based upon the Manichean label which has been attached to them. Propaganda is used to provide the details to support this mythological depiction. Information is evaluated based upon this ideological pre-conditioning. When we bomb and destroy, kill and maim, this is depicted as necessary, even desirable, to enable the “good guys” (us) to defeat the forces of evil. On such absurdities do empires and wars and atrocities flourish.

Private Financial Control, Debt Money and Compound Interest: Inevitable System Collapse

2011-09-01T12:54:00.000-07:00

“The study of money, above all other fields . . .is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it . . .The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.” (John Kenneth Galbraith)

“(Money is) the fundamental principle of social organization in capitalism.” (Doug Henwood)

I have been reading a lot of radical critiques of our political economy lately and I am struck by the extent to which even radical critiques rely upon a certain conceptual orthodoxy which inhibits understanding. What is occurring is really rather simple, so much so that simply stating the facts sounds simplistic, particularly to those accustomed to technical economic jargon intended more to obfuscate than illuminate.
The three key features of our current system which are absolutely crucial to understand are that the financial system is privately controlled for private profit, it is a debt based money system in which new money is loaned into the system at interest, and there is no formal means for dealing with the long term unsustainability of compound interest accumulation.

The fact that our financial system is privately controlled for private profit means that the financial system will inevitably be gamed to serve the profit seeking motives of the financiers at the expense of the real economy. We live in a highly complex, highly monetized society absolutely dependent upon money and the financial system to function. Controlling the creation and distribution of money/credit-- who/what gets funded and who/what doesn’t -- provides the financiers with immense social power, currently close to de facto control of the global political economy. Much of the system consists of rules, regulations and procedures designed to impose a uniformity of behavior upon the various private individuals and organizations which make up the financial system, thereby promoting confidence in system soundness by constraining the financiers from blatantly pursuing private profit seeking by abusing their power to create money. However, these rules, regulations and procedures have been circumvented by the creation and use of exotic financial instruments and other machinations justified by economic sophistry to the detriment of the real economy and financial stability. Private control of the financial system is inherently dysfunctional and needs to be ended. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely to occur, at least in the short run.

Few people seem aware that our financial system creates new money by loaning it into existence at interest. Two important consequences of debt money are that it creates a de facto lean on future earnings since it must be paid back with interest, and that the paying back with interest requires that new money be loaned into the system to enable the interest to be paid. This, in effect, is an internal compounding dynamic which requires compounding growth of the financial system to avoid default and system collapse. In other words, the real economy runs on debt owed to the private financial institutions which created the money. Without this debt, there would be no money in our current system. This debt based money works to the advantage of the financiers and to the disadvantage of the political economy as a whole, and needs to be replaced by debt-free government created sovereign money. This would not eliminate either interest payments on borrowed money, nor interest income on saved money, rather, it would eliminate systemic indebtedness to private finance.

The final critically important point to understand is the consequence of having a financial system in which the driving force of private accumulation is unsustainable compound interest. In the real world, nothing increases geometrically for very long. Consequently, the geometric increase in debt obligations has historically been resolved in one of several ways. First, the economy needs to continually grow to provide a real physical base to support the growing financial system. This entails both a growth in population and growth in the formal monetary transaction economy at the expense of the informal economy, that is, social interactions need to be increasingly monetized. Secondly, price inflation has tended to ameliorate the interest burden by effectively lowering the real rate of interest. The final way of dealing with unsustainable compound interest in our private system is through debt default and the writing down of bad debts. This write down is usually accompanied by a seizure of real assets (foreclosure) which are usually liquidated. This has been the historical consequence of recessions and depressions, in which the breakdown in the financial system causes a crash in the cash starved real economy which, in turn, forces a bad debt write down to repair the financial system. Massive foreclosures during recessions/depressions represent a cannibalization of the real economy by the financial system. While it should be possible to deal with compound interest at the systemic level through progressive income and wealth taxation to interrupt the accumulation process and redistribute the money, this has not been done because our capitalist political economy is designed to facilitate the accumulation and concentration of wealth, and any procedures which interfere with this are resisted regardless of the systemic implications.

Our current situation is both dire and unprecedented. For starters, our population and real economy have more or less reached the physical limits of growth. Consequently, the real physical base which has historically supported the growth of the financial system needed to meet interest payments on the debt are no longer able to do so. One consequence is the de-linking of the financial system from the real economy in what is usually referred to as financialization. Secondly, the current financial policy is to restrict inflation as much as possible thereby eliminating the de facto lowering of the nominal interest rate. The consequences of this are currently being masked by very low nominal interest rates, a consequence of Federal Reserve policy. One consequence of this is to cause investors to make riskier investments and engage in financial gamesmanship to obtain higher yields. A truly unprecedented situation is the massive bailout of the financial sector by transferring bad debts from the financiers onto the public. As a consequence, bad debts are not eliminated from the system, only from the financiers’ books. In other words, the financiers profit from good investments and profit even more from bad investments insofar as they create the money to loan the government to purchase their bad debts from them. The consequence of all of this is to starve the real economy while providing the financial sector with vast money power, hence, social control. The final result may be a massive privatization of public wealth as the financial system devours the real economy and the polity as a whole.

Taken as a whole, our private financial system has miserably failed the real economy and the polity while simultaneously increasing its control over both. Financial warfare seems an appropriate description. It is difficult to predict the final outcome or even the game plan of the financial elites. It appears to be a sort of slash and burn philosophy whereby capital will milk an area for all it is worth, then move on to greener pastures in a globalized world. A world of interdependencies linked by the global financial system where the areas will compete against each other to obtain financing. Apparently, the accounting rules will be modified to accommodate world-wide debt servitude. It is difficult to imagine this scenario actually working, total system-wide financial collapse seems more likely. It is also difficult to imagine the consequences of a system-wide financial collapse, however, it appears that is precisely where we are headed.

A critically important point is that our current private financial system is inherently unstable. It is held together by self-serving rules, regulations and procedures, some designed to reassure the financiers that they won’t be cheated by their fellow financiers, others designed to ensure that the fruits of the real economy flow into the financial system. These rules, regulations and procedures (and their organizational manifestations) can, of course, be changed. The extent to which they can be changed is contingent upon the extent to which the more powerful global financial centers can agree upon new rules, regulations and procedures which serve to inhibit individual and organizational profit seeking in order to achieve systemic equilibrium and stability. Implementing rules, regulations and procedures to deal with the systemic implications of unsustainable compound interest has never been attempted, much less implemented. While progressive taxation on income and wealth could achieve the desired outcome, it is practically inconceivable that the rich and powerful capitalists would go along with this, much less initiate it. It is difficult to imagine private capital solving this problem in such a way as to maintain the current hierarchy of power and equally difficult to imagine private capital agreeing to any significant alteration of the current hierarchy in our capitalist society, therefore, systemic collapse seems likely. In other words, the inherent bias and self-interest of private financiers will likely preclude solving our current financial problems as long as the financial system is run by private capital for private profit.

Escaping Marxist Myopia

2011-05-19T10:23:00.000-07:00

A spectre haunts the left. It is the ghost of Karl Marx and the suffocating presence of the archaic ideology which bears his name. The essence of Marxism is the seizure of political power based upon the committed solidarity of the factory workers (proletariat). Supposedly, everyone (except the bourgeois) would benefit by having the international order run by the equivalent of a huge international labor union. Commissars apparently more benign than oligarchs. It was a reworking of classical economics by Marx to highlight the failures of capitalism in order to justify a revolution which would replace the capitalists with the Marxists. It was promulgated at a time when factories were the very symbol of rising Western economic might, the control of which would provide the Marxists with considerable social power. Since Marxism is based upon a reworking of classical capitalist economics, and since capitalist economics is mostly an ideological rationalization of capitalist economic power-seeking, Marxism is, in effect, a different way of organizing the political economy to the benefit of a different set of elites.

Because the success of Marxist power-seeking was based upon the recruitment of the proletariat (factory workers), Marxism verbally panders to the biases of the laborers, creating a glorifying imagery whereby all value is a consequence of labor, all other functions being essentially parasitic in nature. Profit is regarded as basically a theft from the producers (labor). The notion that the “rentier” does not really earn his money is analogous to the religious prohibition against charging interest. In short, Marxism is not so much a realistic description of political economy or organizational effectiveness, as it is an ideology with which to attract, organize and motivate factory workers. Likewise, the development of class analysis is a tool to imply some sort of organizational affinity among the proletariat which did not exist, but which the Marxists sought to develop. The use of class analysis may provide some benefit as a crude approximation of power relationships within society, however, it misrepresents the organizational reality and dynamics which existed at the time, and is so out of synch with our modern political economy as to be a joke. Also, it seeks to obscure the power relationship between the Marxist elite and the Marxist cadres. In similar fashion, modern international labor unions suffer from the fact that that the union leadership are effectively “bourgeois” whose “class interests” differ significantly from the workers they supposedly represent.

With factory labor an increasingly small segment of the modern political economy, one would think that an ideology based upon organizing the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois would have been abandoned long ago. Think again. Marxism is best understood as a form of secular religion. Marx was the Prophet, “scientific” historical determinism the surrogate Deity, and a classless utopia the promised land. Like all successful ideologies, Marxism has a demonstrated ability to unite the faithful in solidarity, something which purely rational analysis is incapable of doing. Unfortunately for the Marxists, the disconnect between the ideology and observable reality has widened to the point where it is obvious to all but the diehard faithful that Marxism significantly misrepresents reality. As such, it hinders essential progressive social analysis, hence, is counterproductive.

If one bases one’s analysis on observable reality rather than Marxist ideology, several things are apparent. The first is that factory labor (not to be confused with total employment in the manufacturing sector) has declined in importance and power. Folks, 1850 came and went a long time ago, consequently, the notion of organizing society around a glorified image of factory labor is ludicrous. Furthermore, the notion of a worker “class” (the proletariat) always was more of a hope than a reality, “class” being a convenient grouping of people based upon similar demographic factors, which does not imply any sort of organization relationship or organizational solidarity. The reality is that society is composed of many different types of workers performing many different types of functions, organized in many different discreet organizations, employing varying degrees of hierarchy, with loyalty and solidarity occurring in varying degrees internal to the organization. There is negligible solidarity to others outside the organization who happen to be part of the same statistical grouping known as class. This is one reason why the “middle class” police can be counted on to suppress the “middle class” protesters. Loyalty (to the degree that it exists) is to the organization, class solidarity being virtually non-existent except in the minds of Marxist ideologues. The one exception would be the upper-level ruling elites, who are at least somewhat united in their desire to maintain a society in which wealth and power accrue primarily to themselves.

Unlike the simplistic dichotomy of “bourgeois” and “proletariat”, modern capitalist societies are complex and are controlled primarily by directing the flow of money, buttressed by massive propaganda, backed by coercive force. Capitalism, in essence, is the rule of money, that is, all of those who control and direct the spending of significant sums of money. This is possible because of the expansion of the market to the point where virtually everyone is dependent upon market transactions and the financial system to obtain the necessities of life and, if lucky, the stuff of dreams and induced wants. Much of political economy is hidden from view by an economics profession which largely exists to misrepresent reality in service to power. Economists narrowly focus on markets as mechanisms of distribution, exaggerating their efficiency while ignoring externalities, all the while denying the existence of market power, where the strong devour the weak, and where the market is an extremely effective means of social control.

Marxism would be a joke in analyzing our globalized world if not for the fact that much of the left, or at least the influential left, relies upon the scripture according to Marx to the exclusion of more common sense interpretations of observable reality. The reality is that our large population requires a complex society which can only be organized around money. This form of social organization has been extended globally whereby local autonomy has been destroyed and trade oriented interdependencies established. Trade dependent nations are linked globally through the global financial system in order to obtain the trade acquired means for economic survival. Failure to play by the rules usually results in severe consequences. The global financial system is an integrated network of private banking institutions that profit from their effective control of the global system. In these circumstances, to talk about ownership of the means of production is to ignore reality in favor of ideology.

A significant flaw of Marxism is its depiction of industrialism as a liberating force and capitalism as a precondition for communism. One consequence is that the Marxists generally welcomed the globalization of production as a means of eliminating Third World backwardness and traditionalism, and creating a global proletariat to be organized by international communism. Marx was no friend of the “ignorant” peasants, and Marxists in general have favored industrialism as a solution to all problems, the manufacture of “things” and material abundance being central to Marxist ideology, environmental consequences largely ignored, and local autonomy and self-sufficiency opposed in favor of a centralized Marxist bureaucracy. The glue which binds the Marxist intelligentsia together is fealty to Marxist ideology, which, in turn, precludes any honest evaluation of current reality.

The essence of capitalism is the rule of money, more specifically, the rule of private capitalists and their agents who control the flow of money. Currently, the economic activities of our modern society, and much other dependent activity, is controlled by capitalist spending and investment. Of critical importance is our financial system, more or less controlled by our private banking system, with the huge investment banks of Wall Street guiding the course of events. It is a debt based monetary system whereby the wealthy have a legal claim on future earnings. A system driven by unsustainable compound interest. A system which, to perpetuate itself awhile longer, has created neo-liberal globalization, trade enabled interdependencies held together by a corrupt financial system which seeks to eliminate local autonomy, local self-sufficiency and, hence, local survivability. An unsustainable system headed for collapse which will take the whole world with it. The response of the Marxists? Ritual incantations about ownership of the means of production and eternal class conflict. This at a time when it is imperative to end empire and undo neo-liberal globalization, to significantly reduce imbalances in wealth and power, to stress local autonomy and sustainability, to work to replace our debt based money with sovereign money, to eliminate private control of the financial system, and to deal realistically with organizational hierarchy and power in a highly monetized society. The “left” will never again be a credible force for change as long as it is significantly influenced by Marxist ideology. Time to move on.

Money, Taxes and Political Economy: Taking Control

2011-02-01T13:50:00.000-08:00

“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.” (Mayer Rothschild, 1791)

“(Money is) the fundamental principle of social organization in capitalism.” (Doug Henwood)

“Money is power, economic power in fluid form, the primary instrument of social control.” (Me)

We live in interesting times. The United States is a nominal democracy wherein the people are supposed to exercise a modicum of control over the political economy. While most people are at least somewhat politically aware, the citizenry as a whole is relatively unconcerned over the financial system, and is relatively ignorant about how it functions. To a degree, this is understandable. The prevailing economic mythology has done an excellent job in obfuscating and misrepresenting economic and financial reality so that “experts” can manipulate the system for the benefit of their rich patrons with minimal scrutiny or political interference. What follows is my attempt to briefly and succinctly discuss our current system and its ramifications.

What continues to escape most folks is the extent to which our economy is a monetary economy, our society primarily controlled by directing the flows of money. I suppose that one could argue that our society is excessively monetary in character (probably true), or that money, profits and interest are the root of all evil (complete nonsense). The reality is that our large population requires a complex society which can only be organized around money. Also, it is the way things are currently, and this reality needs to be dealt with before other changes can be reasonably contemplated. In short, it is not possible to fully understand how our society functions without understanding the role of money in social organization and social control.

Money is created by the banking system. At one time it was associated with precious commodities such as gold. This was prior to the development of modern economies which create economic interdependencies which, in turn, make money integral to complex social organization, hence, inherently valuable insofar as it is essential for economic interaction. While gold may still perform a stabilizing function in international currency transactions, it functions as a speculative commodity, nothing more. This is as it should be. Any attempt to base modern money on a commodity is counterproductive. Money is, and should be, simply a legally established means of exchange, a small piece of economic power easily transferable, designed to facilitate exchanges, thereby directing the flow of economic and other activity. The amount of money in circulation is a political determination regarding the desired level of economic exchanges in relation to the size of the economy and economic policy. The store of value which supports the value of money is the real economy.

To say that our current financial system deviates from a desirable financial system is an understatement, to put it mildly. For starters, our financial system (money creation and banking, primarily) is in private hands for private profit. Nothing wrong with profit per se, however, having the financial system in private hands virtually guarantees that the financial flows will be manipulated to facilitate private profits at the expense of the political economy as a whole. This is the problem inherent in private control which government regulation seeks to moderate, with limited success at best. Eventually, the private financiers seek to redirect the flow of money into financial speculation and paper wealth resulting in asset inflation as the real economy is starved for funds. This is happening now. It is unrealistic to expect private individuals and organizations seeking personal and organizational gain to manage the flow of money in such a way as to benefit society as a whole. The financial system is integral to the management of the economy at the macro level, and needs to be treated as a government run utility. Private business is fine, but private control of the economy is nuts.

In addition to being a privatized financial system, our system is also a debt based system. Every dollar in the system exists because someone or some entity has borrowed money. No joke. The single biggest borrower in the US is the federal government. Not everyone is in debt, of course. There are creditors who hold the debt, debtors and creditors being in balance. System wide, the entire money supply is a consequence of someone owing money to someone else. In our present system, increasing the money supply to accommodate an expanding economy entails increasing the systemic debt. Debt which must be repaid with interest. Interest which compounds. A never ending, geometrically increasing claim on future earnings. An increasing claim which requires the economy to grow exponentially and/or systemic wealth to shift from debtors to creditors and/or inflation to ameliorate the interest burden of the debt. A system which to be sustainable requires mechanisms to counter unsustainable debt service at the systemic level. These mechanisms do not currently exist, hence, the system is unsustainable in the long run, and probably in the short run as well.

Crucial to understanding our debt-based financial system is an awareness of the unsustainable nature of compound interest. For example, a 3% interest rate is usually considered a low return on investment. Being conservative, however, you opt for safety and purchase a $1,000 Certificate of Deposit at the Bank of Rome in the year zero, with automatic renewal and the interest compounding. How much will your CD be worth in the year 100 AD? $19,200. Not exactly spectacular. How about the year 500 AD? Your heirs would collect $2,621,876,900 and be eternally grateful. If they let the CD roll over until the year 2000 AD, it would theoretically be worth $47,726,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, many times the value of the entire planet. Now there are two obvious conclusions: A) either 3% interest is a lot better deal than you originally thought or B) 3% compound interest is totally unsustainable in the long run and circumstances would intervene to prevent your 2000 year old CD from being honored. Obviously, answer B reflects reality.

Hopefully, what the above example illustrates is the long term non-sustainability of compound interest. A healthy, sustainable political economy will deal with this reality by developing means, such as a graduated tax on income and accumulated wealth, which at a certain level of accumulation offsets the compounding effect, bringing the system into equilibrium. This hasn’t been done in the past. In fact, the unsustainable nature of compound interest and the consequences to the economy are never discussed as this would call into question the entire structure of the capitalist economy. As a consequence, the problem has been dealt with by destructive bankruptcies, crashes and depressions, which serve to eliminate unserviceable debt in cataclysmic fashion. This is the situation we find ourselves in now, with increasing income/wealth inequality, ultimately leading to system-wide break down. One must assume that this break down is foreseen by the financial elites who will use the opportunity to rearrange the financial system to be even more favorable to them. A form of financial feudalism with great riches for the oligarchs and debt servitude for the rest.

What must be kept in mind is the extent to which the financial system is rules and regulations maintained by power. Rules and regulations established by powerful nations with powerful armies and dominant economies. Rules and regulations which control money creation and banking which, in turn, are the instruments of world-wide economic control, the arbiters of economic interdependencies. An undemocratic system which can and must be changed if we are ever to have a just and sustainable economy. A system justified by economic mythology and endless propaganda which misrepresents money and wealth and the dysfunctional systemic consequences of concentrated wealth (money-power).

An essential part of democratic control of the financial system is the use of taxes both to redirect spending from private decision making (individual and organizational) to public decision making, and to ameliorate the dysfunctional economic and political consequences of excessive income/wealth disparity. Of particular significance is the need to greatly reduce the power of the huge transnational corporations and financial elites who currently dominate our society. Yet, this clear need has been camouflaged by massive elite propaganda which has successfully convinced an astonishingly gullible citizenry that money is a thing, a piece of personal property imbued with “property rights,” and that taxes are a form of legal theft which diminishes our rights and freedoms. Folks can’t seem to comprehend that money is not a thing but a social/legal construct, the means by which we direct the economic activity of the polity, and that the rich and the corporations have no divine right to rule the political economy (as they currently do), and that progressive taxation is an essential and integral part of a just and sustainable society.

What also seems to have gone unnoticed is the extent to which public expenditures are essential both to provide employment opportunities (particularly in view of corporate outsourcing) and to provide those things which cannot be individually purchased like clean air, clean water, and environmental clean-up. If one were to compile a list of priorities of what needs to be done to assure a sustainable future with quality of life for all, the overwhelming majority of things needing doing like universal health care, affordable education, and restructuring society to deal with global warming and peak oil, fall within the sphere of political decision making, not the individual market transactions of a consumer society. Additionally, advances in technology and automation have dramatically reduced the number of people required to produce “things,” hence, the majority of post-industrial jobs will involve services, such as free ongoing education for all funded through taxes. It is all quite simple. A social vision needs to be established at the macro level consistent with the constraints of the real economy, then money is allocated with the intent of implementing the vision. The financial system needs to support the real economy which, in turn, needs to support the social vision.

Global Financial Control

2011-01-15T16:36:00.000-08:00

“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.” (Mayer Rothschild, 1791)

“You mean to tell me that the success of the program and my reelection hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?” (Pres. Bill Clinton)

The essence of corporate globalization is to establish rules, procedures and economic interdependencies which lock the nations of the world into an all-encompassing system of transnational financial control. Failure to play by the corporate rules results in the loss of the money-power required to enable their trade dependent economies to function, and to provide food and other essentials of life to their populations. Adhering to the rules entails opening up the national economy to the unregulated, unhindered entry and exit of foreign capital. A powerful state such as the US is much more able to bend the rules, restricting foreign capital to the purchase primarily of US Treasuries, however, the weaker states are subject to complete penetration and financial domination.

People frequently don’t understand the extent to which money and credit are the instruments used to control a nation’s economy, which, in turn, is a major part of the national life. Directing the flow of money directs what gets done. Restricting the flow of money restricts what gets done. Large, sudden inflows of foreign capital create an unbalanced economic frenzy to find uses for the funds as bubbles are created. Large, sudden withdrawals of foreign capital cause an economy to deflate and slow to a crawl as productive assets are starved for funds. The rules of the game frequently result in otherwise healthy businesses to become insolvent and go bankrupt, their assets sold off at pennies on the dollar. Without capital controls, currency speculators can attack currencies and destroy economies for speculative gain. Not long ago, the vast majority of international currency transactions involved trade and other productive uses. Nowadays, unregulated currency speculation accounts for over 90% of international currency transactions.

Money is the lifeblood of modern economies. Allowing massively concentrated private capital to operate freely essentially turns the economy over to corporate control. For all practical purposes, this economic control translates to political control as well. Should a nation implement policies not to the liking of global finance, global finance has only to pull its money out and crash the economy. This gives the global financial oligarchy de facto veto power over the actions of the political system, hence, macro economic decisions are not subject to political control and moderation. For this reason, it is absolutely essential that corporate globalization be rolled back and global finance restructured to facilitate local autonomy and control.

Money, Power and Financial Control

2011-01-05T21:08:00.000-08:00

“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.” (Mayer Rothschild, 1791)

Money is power. Economic power in fluid form. The primary means of social control. Our society has been developed in such a way so as to establish economic dependencies which require money in order to satisfy our needs and wants by engaging in monetary transactions in a marketplace largely controlled by those who have concentrated economic power. It is, in my view, the most effective system of social control yet devised, one which relies significantly upon the population not understanding the system, the levers of power largely invisible.

The ability of financial power to more or less camouflage itself is quite unique. Once upon a time, in the not too distant past, Kings and other nobility ruled by divine right, the myth of divinely sanctioned legitimacy. While the mythology justified voluntary compliance with the social order and the hierarchy of control (reinforced by coercive force), nonetheless, there was little doubt as to who was in charge and making the decisions effecting society. This is no longer true. While there are elected officials and corporate executives to blame, there is no real sense of how financial power creates, alters and shapes the social environment within which individual decision making occurs. Somehow, the use of money to direct economic and other activity is seen as natural, the result of beneficent market transactions where individual actions are subsumed to the collective wisdom of the economic rationality of the free market.

When it comes to money, there is a pervasive form of collective ignorance. Most folks cannot even conceive of the arbitrary nature of money creation. Or how it is more or less a social contract and nothing more. It does not seem to be widely known or widely understood that our financial system is privately owned and controlled, or that money is created as a debt obligation between banks and borrowers, hence, the very existence of money in our present system represents a lien on future earnings. Furthermore, the very nature of the system requires unsustainable systemic growth (or inflation) to meet unsustainable compound interest obligations. The tendency is for money to flow from the real economy to the financial sector.

There are other systemic problems as well, such as the emphasis on socially dysfunctional high yield investments (oil exploration, luxury goods, narcotics, money laundering, financial speculation, etc) to achieve competitive advantage. The role of narcotics trafficking and money laundering are highly instructive. The sale of illegal drugs involves the transfer of huge amounts of currency which needs to reenter the financial system for the drug trade to be viable. The currency reenters the system via banks which more-or-less know the source of the funds, but which process the transactions to make money and remain competitive. In other words, the multi-billion dollar international drug trade is only possible with the active collusion of the international banking system. The one thing our globalized, privatized financial system does not do well is to support the real economy or sustainability. It once did, back when financial controls were in place. Now, uncontrolled capital finds it more profitable to engage in financial speculation and fraud.

What must always be kept in mind is the extent to which our society has been monetized, with control primarily residing with those who control and direct the flow of money. Things which don’t get funded usually don’t get done. Things which get funded usually do get done. We don’t have a command economy, per se. Royalty and commissars don’t issue decrees, rather, capitalists (and others) spend money and things get done. The money is the authority for directing activity, and whoever spends money or commits to spending money is exercising economic power, at least to some extent. Those with little or no money have little or no economic power. Those with a lot of money, or who organizationally control and direct the flow of a lot of money have a lot of economic power.

Because we all need to secure a minimal level of money to survive, many are forced to work at jobs and do things they would rather not do in order to acquire money. In a somewhat similar vein, the prospect of making a lot of money and acquiring a lot of economic power is highly motivating to some people who may wind up doing things which they would not otherwise do if not for the prospect of financial reward. The corrupting influence of monetary gain and recognition is clearly seen in the Western trained financial elites of Third World (and other weak) countries, where “success” is contingent upon fealty to neo-liberal dogma and acquiescence to IMF diktats. In short, the power of money to achieve compliance is unique, and, to a significant degree, accounts for the success of capitalism, the first truly monetized system of social control. In the long run, money overcomes all opposition.

Our present system suffers from a double sided dysfunction, a consequence of the systemic tendency to concentrate wealth and power. The first aspect is the concentration of political power corresponding to the concentration of economic power. Concentrated economic power buys the propaganda needed to shape the public mind, and is the source of funding for politicians to purchase campaign advertising, without which they will not get elected. Hence, successful politicians are those which accommodate their source of funding, while their wealthy sources of funding reap the benefits of favorable legislation, frequently at the expense of the general population. That much is obvious. Less obvious is the extent to which concentrated wealth disrupts the social distribution of goods and services, that is, the very function of the real economy. If large numbers of people are insufficiently funded, a highly monetized system is incapable of responding to their needs and wants, resulting in both deprivation for the people and a stunting of the general economy. An additional consequence is asset inflation as the well-to-do “invest” their excess money into existing assets, frequently paper assets, resulting in “bubbles” which eventually crash. Depressions are mainly the consequence of a dysfunctional financial system.

At the national level, global financial dependencies have been created which necessitate nations becoming part of the global financial system in order to enable their trade-dependent economies to function. Local autonomy has been actively discouraged so that nations are dependent upon global finance to purchase the essentials for economic and physical survival within the context of the global market, dominated by the economically powerful. The populations of weaker nations essentially held hostage by the power of finance capital, which contributes negligible economic value, yet is richly rewarded for its role as a middleman in trade relations, financial arrangements becoming the equivalent of invisible chains, a more effective and efficient form of social control than coercive force.

The core of the problem is that the local, national and global political economy is effectively managed by directing the flow of money, and that the world’s capital is in private hands who utilize their financial power for private gain which is both economically and politically dysfunctional. The transition to a just and sustainable society absolutely requires public control of the financial system, and the elimination of debt-based money. From a technical perspective, this is relatively easy to do and long overdue. Unfortunately, the money power of the financial oligarchs combined with the financially linked interdependencies of the nation-states has to a significant degree locked the world into the present system which is headed for collapse. For any good to come from this, people need to understand the present system and why and how it needs to change.

USS Liberty Revisited

2010-12-12T14:56:00.000-08:00

“Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” (Moshe Dayan)

In his 2008 book, Guilt by Association, Jeff Gates briefly discusses the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty intelligence ship, and the cover-up of the intentional nature of the attack. His focus is on Admiral McCain’s (Senator John McCain’s father) complicity in the cover-up, and how this might relate to Presidential candidate McCain’s positions and policies regarding Israel. I am not going to get into that, rather, I am going to attempt to logically infer what occurred: why the attack and why the cover-up.

Let us begin by noting that it is beyond reasonable doubt that on 6/8/67, the Israeli navy and air force attacked the USS Liberty with the intent to sink the ship and kill the crew, knowing that it was an American “spy” ship. The questions remain as to why the attack and why the cover-up? Barring a complete declassification of pertinent materials and a full disclosure, we can only make educated guesses, however, we should be able to eliminate some illogical conjecture.

Let’s start with the why. I would like to begin by eliminating the preposterous notion that Israel attempted to sink the ship (in some versions with LBJ collusion) in order to blame the Egyptians and rally US support. First of all, Israel already had US support and, in fact, a US “green light” for the 1967 war, provided they didn’t go too far and precipitate a superpower conflict. Secondly, the nature of the attack was such that only Israel had the capability of doing it, hence, would fool no one. Had they wanted to blame Egypt, a single low level, high speed strafing run by a single fighter plane coming from and returning in the direction of Egypt would have been much more appropriate. No, there was no real attempt to hide the source of the attack, which was vindictive, the actions of a “mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”

Then why? Israel was in the process of doing things (executing war prisoners), and about to do things (invade Syria and occupy the Golan Heights) which Moshe Dayan (who ordered the attack on the Liberty) didn’t want the US to be aware of and possibly interfere with. He didn’t want a US spy ship in the area. Initially, when the Liberty was ordered into the area, they had requested an escort which was denied. Two days before the attack, however, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered Admiral McCain to reposition the Liberty 100 miles farther out, away from the combat zone. Why the change? Did they receive a back channel message from the Israeli military that the ship would not be tolerated and would be attacked unless moved? Admiral McCain never implemented the order, and the ship was attacked with vengeful fury. Subsequently, on another occasion, Dayan threatened to shoot down US reconnaissance planes and the flights were halted.

Why the cover-up? The primary reason has to do with geo-strategy. Israel performed a great service to US imperial strategy by its crushing defeat of Nasser and Nasserism during the six day war. Prior to the war, there was great concern that the secular nationalists who had overthrown the corrupt, pro-Western monarchies, would eventually form a united pan-Arabian front which would effectively take control of the Middle East’s oil reserves, Washington’s worst nightmare. Israel’s decisive victory made it a valuable strategic asset for Washington (at least in 1967) which would not be jeopardized by the attack on the Liberty. Empire doesn’t allow concern over its “cannon fodder” to interfere with its strategic objectives. Additionally, what if a warning was received and assurances given, but not implemented? How to explain that? It is critical to know why the ship was ordered out of the area, and why the order was not implemented. The official excuse of an equipment/procedural mishap seems far fetched and too convenient to be credible. Surely our military is not that inept in areas of critical importance. As for the “Israel lobby,” while the lobby aided and abetted the cover-up, I find it extremely unlikely that in 1967 it was the primary reason for it occurring. The lobby wasn’t as strong in 1967 as now, and is as much an Imperial lobby as an Israel lobby in any event.

Neo-Zionism

2010-12-08T09:19:00.000-08:00

A new phenomenon has arisen. It is Jewish anti-Zionism, which, because of it’s Jewish character, can be thought of as neo-Zionism. Of course, since anti-Zionism stands in opposition to Zionism and all of the evils inherent in that ideology, neo-Zionism may be seen in a positive light. Additionally, it is understandable that Jews of conscience would wish to be seen as Jews in opposition to Zionism, an ideology which claims to be, and is seen by many as, a Jewish ideology. Yet, there is something else going on here.

First, there is the question of timing. Both Jimmy Carter’s book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", and Mearsheimer and Walt’s, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", are fairly recent events which would have been virtually inconceivable 10 years ago. These books are, in many ways, the products of a growing consensus among a powerful minority of the liberal intelligentsia and political elite that Israel has become a strategic liability, and the “Lobby” a political problem. In short, the nation and lobby which once seemed to serve Jewish interests well, is now seen as an albatross to liberal American Jewish interests.

The problem for many liberal Jews is that Zionism replaced Judaism as the unifier of the Jewish “people,” hence, anti-Zionism could be viewed as an “existential threat” to Jewish solidarity and kinship. Yet, if Jews come together as anti-Zionist Jews, then Jewish anti-Zionism would, in effect, substitute for Zionism as a Jewish unifier, hence, neo-Zionism. Having your neo-Kosher cake and eating it too, at least for a while. And make no mistake, many Jewish anti-Zionists reinforce their Jewish identity through their anti-Zionist activities in concert with their “fellow Jews.” Also, like their Zionist brethren who focus on Israel and Zionism, the neo-Zionist Jews focus on Israel/Palestine and anti-Zionism. They avoid a critique of the existing political economy and imperial geo-strategy, and focus almost exclusively on the corrupting power of the Israel Lobby.

MONDO-PEQUOD

2010-11-25T10:02:00.000-08:00

Approximately 9 months ago, I booked passage on the good ship Mondoweiss, bound for Israel/Palestine. The journey was an interesting one until recently. The ship morphed into the Mondo-Pequod and veered off course in pursuit of an iconic whale named Moby-Chomsky. This great whale was depicted as a great impediment to our journey, hence, we must pursue and slay the beast. Believing this to be madness, I have decided to abandon ship. ’Tis better to swim with this grand old whale than sail with a cunning, calculating Captain and some of his obsessed crew members.

The Logic of Irrationality

2010-10-05T21:28:00.000-07:00

Upon first reading, the title of this blurb may seem a contradiction in terms. Don’t “logic” and “rationality” go together? Alas, no. Something is logical if it is consistent with relevant assumptions. Something is rational if it is consistent with observable reality. Assumptions which are not rational lead to irrational conclusions which are nonetheless completely logical within the framework of the initial assumptions. In other words, ideological assumptions have logical consequences even if these assumptions are irrational. That is, ideology tends to define reality even when irrational so that behavior is governed by the logic of the ideology, not by rational thought. For purposes of discussion, ideology is a subjective vision of reality.

In discussing group ideology/mythology, we must keep in mind that in navigating the real world, humans rely much less on instinct and much more on cognitive interpretation than other animals. In order to cope with this higher level of complexity, it is necessary for humans to organize cognitive inputs through the use of simplifying paradigms and normal bias to identify patterns and provide a framework of order. This is done at the individual level and at the group level. For all or most of human history, being a member of a supportive group/tribe was an essential component of survival, hence, the majority of people willingly adapted their individual biases and simplifying paradigms to be consistent with the established group ideology/mythology so as to fit in and promote harmony/solidarity.

The fact that most humans willingly adapt their cognitive interpretations to be consistent with group ideology/mythology is very significant. The tendency for individuals in a group to evaluate situations from the perspective of a shared ideology creates a de facto internalized behavioral guidance system consistent with group objectives. It should be noted that group ideology and group objectives do not reflect the input of the various members of the group, rather they reflect the biases and objectives of the group elites, who basically control the overall thrust of group activity, and who are generally more concerned with personal ambition than group welfare.

Group ideology formalizes group power relationships and differentiates the group from other groups. The greater the irrationality of group ideology, the greater the group ideological uniqueness, hence, the greater the “us” versus “them” cohesion and solidarity. On the other hand, too much irrationality inhibits the group’s ability to interface with other groups or with that part of physical reality defined by the ideology. For those groups that are primarily non-ideological, such as single interest groups, hobby groups, etc., internal cohesiveness and tribal solidarity are minimal. For groups united by a common ideology, however, a key point is that most people simply accept the assumptions of group ideology without rational verification, and that these assumptions form the basis of their logical interpretation of reality, and that this interpretation is usually not swayed by rational argument. Rather, “debate” is almost always a logical defense of group ideology.

The logic of the irrationality of group ideology is essential for comprehending political economy. All ideologies are, to one degree or another, irrational. All are subject to the internal tension which results from the need to be at least minimally irrational in order to achieve a minimal threshold of internal cohesion (believers versus others), and to be at least minimally rational in order to have some ability to interface with other groups and the physical world. The greater the rationality, the better the interface and the less the internal cohesion; the greater the irrationality, the greater the internal cohesion and the poorer the interface. You can’t maximize both. The tendency seems to be an emphasis on group cohesion at the expense of rationality, particularly when the group feels threatened.

The implications of all of this are somewhat staggering. Discussions, debates and arguments influenced by ideology are not so much an attempt at evaluating the rational truth, but a defense of personal/group ideology. My irrational beliefs versus your irrational beliefs. The notion of a rational economic man or a rational political man are absurd. Most people are a bundle of bias and emotion waiting to be exploited. Faithful followers. Leaders are a bundle of bias and emotion waiting to exploit. Power seekers. Society may be thought of as individuals united in defensive solidarity whose actions are guided by the power seeking proclivities of the elite. Furthermore, the natural inclination of elites to engage in deception to achieve their goals means that society is, to a significant degree, a group of individuals united by fealty to fraudulent misrepresentations of realty.

FEAR-BASED IDEOLOGY

2010-08-24T20:47:00.000-07:00

I think that to a certain degree it is fairly obvious that this whole anti-Islam, clash of civilizations campaign is fundamentally propaganda designed to manufacture consent for an endless “war on terror.” Yet, this crass propaganda seems to work. In fact, it almost always seems to work. Herman Goering in an interview before he hanged himself said that it was easy to manipulate the population by appealing to their fears. The question is, why do people allow themselves to be manipulated, and what, if anything, can be done to counter the hysteria manufactured by the elites?

A critical feature of a fear-based ideology is that at the core it is a power-seeking ideology. The ideology provides a rationale for acts/activities which, in and of themselves, are not legitimate. Nazism provided a rationale (the Jews are out to destroy Germany) for naked aggression and internal oppression/genocide. Anti-communism provided a rationale (world communism is out to destroy us) for US imperialism and a purge of the left. Zionism provides a rationale (the Goyim, particularly the Muslim Arabs, are out to annihilate us) for ethnic cleansing, regional hegemony, and internal solidarity. In the case of US Zionism, it also provides a rationale (prevent pogroms and a second Holocaust) for Jewish power-seeking and anti-Gentile chauvinism. What must be kept in mind is that for the power-seeking elites, fraud and deception are critical components of power accumulation. What also must be kept in mind is that the average person seems psychologically incapable of opposing elite rule or rationally evaluating elite actions.

As for why people go along, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most people wish to be members in a powerful organization/group/society as a form of protection and security. There is a certain defensive logic to this. Most groups are hierarchical in nature with a few leaders and a lot of followers. Most choose to become faithful followers of group ideology. The ideology isn’t rationally evaluated, rather, it is accepted as a condition of belonging. In fact, rational arguments are frequently ineffective when put up against group ideology, particularly when the ideology successfully exploit’s the group’s fears.

As for what can be done about all of this, I don’t think that there is an easy answer. Recently, this fear mongering was countered by progressive organizations with contacts within the community. The presence of organized resistance is critical because they represent a form of power. People respond to power. Without organizations, the power of the media to influence the unorganized multitude is enormous. Since media is expensive, the message reflects elite money power, and is taken as a cue as to elite expectations. Alas, social organization in the US is low, and money power is highly concentrated. To return to my original point, unless and until the majority of people shed the ingrained logic of tribalism and begin to view the world rationally, hope seems dim.

PERVERSE TRIANGLE

2010-02-21T19:16:00.000-08:00

As Israel’s ethnic cleansing (and potential genocide) of the native Palestinians continues, there has been a recent focus on the Jewish lobby and its power to influence American foreign policy. While providing helpful publicity to Jewish/Zionist influence on U.S. governmental decision making, these descriptions of the Jewish lobby’s influence tend to be overly simplistic and to incorrectly describe the relationship between the lobby and Israel, which is usually described as the lobby taking its marching orders from Israel. In my view, the reality is a sort of perverse triangle in which American elites (including Jews), American Jewish Zionists (organized American Jewry), and Israeli Jewish elites cooperate and compete, each trying to exploit the others to obtain power-seeking advantage. In other words, the American Jewish power-elite exert considerable influence on the Jewish state, and support Israel to the extent that they perceive that it benefits them.

Zionism represents a return to traditional Jewish service to elite power, an attempt to replace Jewish religious ideology with blood and soil nationalism, and a means by which the Jewish power-elite reign in Jewish socialist/Marxist aspirations. The Jewish service to elite power needs to be qualified insofar as capitalism has permitted Jews to become a significant component of the power-elite, wildly out of proportion to their population base. In days of old, the diaspora Jewish elite prospered by serving the gentile monarch and nobility, but could never hope to rule directly as long as they remained Jews. Nowadays, he who has the gold rules, and Jewish financial power has resulted in the Jews becoming a significant part of the capitalist nobility. This financial success has been significantly aided by Jewish organization and activism inspired and guided by Zionist ideology. Make no mistake, without the aggressive ideological and organizational solidarity centered on Zionism, it is unlikely that the Jewish elites would be nearly as successful as they are in relation to the gentile majority.

A key to understanding Zionism’s significance is to be aware of the significant changes that occurred to Jewish identity during the last two hundred years. According to Israel Shahak, from about 800 AD until 1800 AD, Jews were bound by a common religion (classical Judaism), organized into reasonably autonomous communities, administered by Rabbis who had considerable authority over the Jews in their area. It was a tightly knit group that usually functioned as a de facto middle class which provided loyal service to the Gentile nobility in ruling the Gentile peasants. During this period, Jews were identified as followers of the Judaic religion.

Beginning about two hundred years ago, Gentile monarchs began to restrict the power of the Rabbis to engage in coercive discipline against the Jews in the community. This, in turn, led to a breakdown of Jewish exclusivity and in-group solidarity. Only the Orthodox Jews reflect classical Judaism. Conservative Jews, Reformed Jews, and secular Jews have all broken the bonds of Jewish religious solidarity to varying degrees. The breakdown of Jewish exclusivity both facilitated the assimilation of most Jews into Western society and weakened the organized power of world Jewry. The bonds of solidarity between the secular and Reformed Jews and the Orthodox Jews became tenuous. So to, the power of the Rabbis to command obedience from the reformed and secular flock. In essence, Jewish religion had lost its viability as a common ideological bond uniting the worlds Jews.

About 150 years ago, central and eastern Europe underwent a wave of nationalism. Unlike Western Europe which ideologically conceived of a nation of its citizens, central and eastern Europe tended to unite along racial and ethnic lines. Germany was described as a nation of the German people, etc. This “blood and soil” nationalism tended to identify the nation as belonging to the dominant ethnic group, and to treat other ethnic groups as foreign residents. It was during this period that the Jews (particularly in eastern Europe) tended to lose their religious identification and acquire a racial/ethnic identification. This change in perception was true for Gentiles and Jews alike. It was during this period that the concept of a racially derived “Jewish people” was born. In fact, the writings of some of the early eastern European Zionists concerning the unalterable uniqueness of the “Jewish race” are quite similar to the racial arguments of the anti-Semites, including the Nazis. Further, there was considerable cooperation between the Zionists and the anti-Semite Gentile elites as the Zionists attempted to garner support for creating a Jewish state for the Jewish “race.”

The rise of blood and soil nationalism in central and eastern Europe posed a threat to the Jews living there. At the most basic level, the emphasis on racial purity (as defined by the racists) would mean that the Jews would at best be consigned to the status of foreign residents in an alien land. Additionally, there was a certain residual resentment among the Gentile masses concerning the perceived Jewish complicity in royal tyranny. Finally, there was the strong identification of Jewish involvement in the international Socialist and Marxist movements which were ideologically internationalist, therefore, viewed by the nationalists as traitorous.

Whereas the Jewish Marxists sought to overthrow the existing social order in favor of a worker supported dictatorship, the Jewish Zionists worked to create a Jewish version of blood and soil nationalism via the creation of a Jewish state. At the least, this would tend to ameliorate the anti-Marxist basis of anti-Semitism (for the Zionists at least), and would provide a unifying secular ideology to organizationally unite the Jews. Additionally, this Jewish state would be the Jew among nations. That is, the Jewish state would relate to other nations as the traditional diaspora Jewish communities related to the surrounding Gentile communities in which they were located. In effect, the Zionists always conceived of Israel as serving the interests of the western Imperial powers at the expense of the local Arab population. An “outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism,” as Herzl phrased it to the Ottoman Sultan. It was recognized that western Imperial support was necessary to create and maintain a Jewish state in Palestine.

As the majority of the world’s Jews abandoned the fundamentalist discipline of classical Judaism for a less rigid expression of religion, the religious aspect of Judaism no longer was capable of uniting the various groupings into a unified whole. Zionism has come to replace Judaism as the overarching unifier of the Jewish people. In this regard, Zionism may be thought of as a form of secular religion with Israel functioning as a god-head surrogate. The secular devil is anti-Semitism which is depicted as an innate, irrational never-ending hatred of Jews. The Holocaust is Hell. One consequence of this is to cause many (most?) Jews, and certainly almost all Jewish Zionists to dismiss criticism of Jewish/Israeli behavior out of hand as anti-Semitism.

Two essential points worth noting: 1) Zionism and support for Israel are the modern secular equivalent of classical Judaism insofar as they unite world Jewry in an organized manner. This organizational power facilitates American Jewish elite power seeking vis-à-vis the less organized American Gentile elite. 2) Perceived threats to Israel’s security are seen by many (most?) Jews as threats against Jews in general, hence, there is increased internal Jewish group solidarity during times of middle-east conflict involving Israel. In other words, perceived threats to Israel reinforce Jewish identity amongst most Jews, and provide the motivation to keep them organized and active. Peace and justice in the middle-east would significantly reduce the perceived threat to Israel and shared sense of group victim-hood which unites the Jews, hence, peace is perceived by the Jewish elites as a threat to their power. Because of this, most American Jewish elites support Israeli militarism and oppose compromise and peace.

The role of American Jewish Zionist elites in influencing both U.S. and Israeli policies is of critical importance. It is important to understand that a just and peaceful resolution of the middle-east conflict, in which Israel is no longer engaged in never-ending war with the Arabs, would deflate the emotional appeal of the myth of a never-ending threat to world Jewry at the hand of the Gentiles. While this would likely prove beneficial to most Jews, Zionism as an organizing ideology would suffer greatly. As a consequence, the Zionist Jewish elites would lose much of their organizational advantage vis-à-vis the Gentile elites. It is for this reason that the Zionist elites need ongoing conflict and war between Israel and the Arabs to create the myth of Israeli/Jewish victim-hood, the emotionally potent irrational fear which binds together world Jewry in psychologically defensive solidarity. It is for this reason that the American Jewish Zionist elites tend to support the more aggressive, right-wing elements in Israel, and to strongly oppose any Israeli compromise with the Arabs over Eretz Yisrael.

A few additional comments are in order. First, Zionism is a fundamentalist ideology with characteristics similar to various other fundamentalist ideologies/religions. It is as pointless to argue rationally with a Zionist as to argue rationally with a Christian fundamentalist, a Moslem fundamentalist, a diehard Nazi, or a diehard Marxist. A true Zionist has a rigid, emotional commitment to Zionism highly resistant to change. Secondly, exploiting this fundamentalist commitment, the Zionists have achieved an extraordinarily effective level of organization, both in the U.S. and worldwide. This organization and emotional commitment enable the Zionists to raise funds and direct Zionist activity in an awesome manner. This enables the organized, affluent Zionist minority to exert considerable control over the non-Zionist majority.

An amazing thing is the extent to which Jewish Zionist power-seeking is largely invisible to most people. After about 200 years of Gentile pressure on the Jews to assimilate into the wider society, American Jews have overwhelmingly abandoned their distinctive dress and appearance (except for some Orthodox Jews), and are more-or-less visually indistinguishable from non-Jewish Americans. The result is that most Gentiles cannot readily identify who is a Jew, which would be fine if almost all Jews were simply individuals who happen to be Jewish. Alas, that is not the case. As Rabbi Stephan Weiss put it: “I am not an American citizen of Jewish faith. I am a Jew.” The reality is that many Jews, particularly organized Jews, and most certainly Zionist Jews, are ideologically bound together in solidarity, bias, and certain focused goals, including mutual power-seeking. Yet, to the casual observer, this significant social kinship of organized Jews is not obvious. How many people are aware that President Clinton’s middle-east peace envoys (Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, etc) are Jewish and reflect a strong pro-Israel bias?

Most Gentiles are unaware of the wildly disproportionate number of Jews that are in key positions in government. Or in the Federal Reserve. Or are key players on Wall Street or in the media. Or that about half of all U.S. billionaires are Jews (who comprise less than 3% of the population). Now if you say this to a general audience, you are labeled an anti-Semite. On the other hand, Jews in general, and organized Jews in particular, are much more aware than Gentiles of who is a Jew and who isn’t. The consequence is that the Jewish elite form a sort of (more-or-less) invisible kinship group that subtly discriminates in favor of their fellow Jews and against Gentiles. United by an ideology that states that Gentiles are irrational Jew haters, and that there is safety amongst your fellow Jews, how could it be otherwise?

A critically important point is that the wildly disproportionate success of the American Jewish elite is in no small measure a consequence of the bonds of solidarity and kinship among the Jews. This, in turn, is made possible by the emotional impact on Jews of the Nazi Holocaust (continually misrepresented to minimize non-Jewish victims), and by the organizing dynamic of Zionism. It seems to me quite likely that without the Holocaust (which the Zionists aided and abetted), Zionism would not have been successful, Israel would not have been created as a Jewish state, and American Jewry would not have been united by Zionist ideology. Furthermore, the Holocaust provided the powerful motivating force of primal fear which the Zionists were able to exploit, as well as appearing to validate the myth of eternal persecution which underlies this irrational ideology of eternal victim-hood. This is why Jewish dominated Hollywood continues to churn out an endless stream of Holocaust movies (while ignoring the “holocaust” of the Black slaves and the genocide of the American Indians), and why Arab resistance to U.S./Israeli aggression is depicted as anti-Semitic Arabs who want to drive the Jews into the sea.

Of course, the problem of Israeli militarism is not just a consequence of Jewish/Zionist/Israeli elite power-seeking. Israel has functioned, and continues to function, as a U.S. strategic asset. Israel can be thought of as America’s “French Foreign Legion” of the middle-east. Not completely reliable or trustworthy, but immensely valuable nonetheless. Israel provides significant support for America’s corrupt vassal states, and its ongoing subversion and wars of aggression against its Arab neighbors tend to weaken and divide the Arabs, providing a sort of violent and chaotic stability which facilitates U.S. imperial control. It is quite possible that without Israel, many of the Arab governments would have been overthrown long ago and replaced with secular nationalist regimes, a prospect which both the U.S. and Israel dread, and which they have successfully worked to prevent. Much has been made of the high cost of U.S. “aid” to Israel which totals billions of dollars per annum. An alternative view, however, is that the U.S. has acquired the valuable services of a highly effective mercenary force on the cheap, without the political consequences of direct U.S. involvement.

Additionally, Israel provides various unsavory services for the American Empire which the U.S. wishes to avoid undertaking. From training the Shah of Iran’s notorious secret police, to providing weapons and training to Central American death squads, to testing new American weapons on live Arabs, Israel has supported some of the worst mass-murderers in the world. Furthermore, through the use of local Jewish sayanim (helpers), the Israeli Mossad is able to provide valuable covert services for the American CIA. Finally, both the official Jewish lobby and the rest of the Zionist network can be used to influence Congress, the media, NGO’s, and other governments in support of administration policies. This last point is of critical importance. U.S. support for Israel is inseparable from U.S. Imperial ambitions. Likewise, Israel’s territorial ambitions require that the U.S. remain a militaristic empire. The Zionist network provides essential support for both Israeli militarism and U.S. Imperialism.

What all of this means is that the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular, are likely to undergo continued U.S./Israeli violence and injustice for the foreseeable future. U.S. geostrategy seems focused on military control of the planet’s hydrocarbon energy reserves. This will likely entail continued, ongoing warfare and intimidation against independent Arab nations. And while the Palestinians would not appear to be a significant concern of U.S. geostrategy, they are significant in regards Zionist ideology. The Israeli Zionists need to continue making war on their neighbors and the Palestinians to maintain Israeli Jewish solidarity in their increasingly right-wing, militaristic, Gentile-phobic society. American Jewish Zionists also want to see Israel at war with its neighbors so that this can be misrepresented as an existential threat to the survival of the Jewish nation, and by extension Jews everywhere. This provides the motivational energy which powers Zionist organization and Jewish solidarity which is the primary reason for the American Jewish elites power-seeking success.

In other words, the prospects for peace and justice in the middle-east are bleak to non-existent as long as the American elites (including significant Jews), the American Zionist elites, and the Israeli Zionist elites continue to strongly oppose peace and justice. It should be further noted that history demonstrates conclusively that power-seeking elites are not constrained by considerations of elementary decency and morality. How else to explain the frequent episodes of mass-murder down through history, of which the Nazi Holocaust is but one?

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

2009-12-09T17:11:00.000-08:00

It has been remarked that the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) should be registered as an agent of a foreign government. No doubt it should (but won’t). I submit that by any reasonable criteria, the Democratic Party should also be registered as an agent of Israel. With over 60% of its campaign funding coming from Zionist dominated organized American Jewry, the party is a bought and paid for organization of Zionist Jews. Go against Israel and the money and other support dries up, hence, the Democrats are such staunch supporters of Israel as to be an obstacle to peace in the Middle East, not to mention justice for the Palestinians.

In spite of this rather obvious situation, many so-called progressives, led by Jewish liberals, continue to be staunch supporters of the party in election after election, only to be “disappointed” time and time again, and then complain about a lack of “backbone” by the Democrats, or other such nonsense. As with big labor or phony progressive organizations like MoveOn.org, the role of the Democratic Party is to diffuse and control progressive action. That is why these organizations oppose only Republican neo-liberalism and warmongering, but support or acquiesce to Democratic neo-liberalism and warmongering.

Once upon a time, during the Roosevelt administration, the Democratic Party could be described as somewhat progressive, and supportive of the welfare of its electoral base. So could the labor unions for that matter. Following World War II, however, both labor and the Democrats have moved to the right, and now represent right-wing militarism and neo-liberalism, usually camouflaged by progressive rhetoric. This is a consequence of the post World War II attempt by business to roll back hard won progressive change, and by the Zionification of organized American Jewry. The economic success of American Jewry due to organized Zionist power-seeking has raised the Jews to be key members of the dominant elite, whose actions now reflect their new status. Additionally, support for Israel of necessity entails support for militarism. The “left” has morphed into the right, and in some ways is even worse. Nowadays, it is useful to think of the Democratic and Republican parties as two sides of the same corporate coin, a major difference being that the Democrat’s Jewish/Zionist roots run strong and deep.

MEDIA MYOPIA

2009-06-21T12:34:00.000-07:00

I am becoming increasingly concerned that the anti-war dissatisfaction with the performance of the American news media may lead to a self-defeating overemphasis on media reform. Focusing on media reform at this point in time would be a waste of precious time and resources. Additionally, some of the reform assumptions are unrealistic.

Several factors need to be considered. First and foremost is that the media inevitably reflects the social distribution of power. In the former Soviet Union, the Soviet media primarily reflected the biases of the government bureaucracy and communist party. In the U.S., the corporate media takes its cues from the corporate advertisers and their governmental representatives.

An additional consideration is the effect that the entertainment media have in shaping attitudes and opinions, and the effect this has in how the public responds to news media messages. Warfare and warriors, heroes and heroics, the favorable depiction of empires, and extolling patriotism are all recurring themes which facilitate the maintenance of our violent and militaristic society. This provides a significant part of the cultural references within which the news is evaluated, and small amounts of news media reform will not change this pervasive social conditioning.

In a more egalitarian and pluralistic society, there is likely to be a wide variety of viewpoints in the media. In a militaristic, corporate oligarchy, such as ours, the media is predictably propagandistic, controlling the flow of information to facilitate social compliance with elite objectives. While some modest improvement in media performance may be achieved through concerted activism, it is unrealistic to expect significant media changes prior to significant changes in the distribution of social power.

While many (most?) would agree that the corporate media has been getting worse, an interesting anomaly is that I personally feel that I have never been better informed. Thanks to books, magazines and the internet, I am much more on top of things than I was 20 years ago. I’m not alone. Nowadays, many more people are aware of the ugly reality than in the early sixties when the murderous assault on Vietnam was perceived by most Americans as a noble defense of freedom.

How can that be? Vietnam was a watershed. The ugly reality finally penetrated the outrageous mythology. For many, what once was perceived as shining truth was now recognized to be vile deception and rank propaganda. The media message would never be viewed the same. Unquestioning acceptance gave way to critical evaluation and seeking out alternative sources. Many people’s awareness increased even as the media grew worse. The key is the shattering of the illusion.

What’s the problem? Most advocates of media reform are well informed, probably better informed than in the past, and have little difficulty in obtaining sufficient information to perceive reality more or less accurately. Most media critics are primarily upset over the effect that media bias and propaganda have on the attitudes and opinions of their fellow Americans and, in turn, the consequences that has for foreign and domestic policy. In effect, they are advocating that the media go against their corporate sponsors and other power elites to promote some lefty version of “unbiased truth.” Good luck.

Several questions come to mind. First, why do people who should know better keep preaching about unbiased truth, objective reality, and media integrity/responsibility? Media bias is reality. Deal with it.. Second, why do media reformers keep acting as if it is rational to expect the media to bite the hand that feeds them? Finally, why do many social activists feel that their desire for social change is best served by focusing on (unlikely) media reform?

The Soviet Union collapsed about 15 years ago. There were many causative factors, however, Soviet media reform wasn’t one of them. PRAVDA was propaganda. The people knew it and found other ways to inform themselves. The key is that the people knew that the Soviet media was propagandistic.

Many people know that the corporate media is largely propaganda. Unfortunately, many do not. The key isn’t to reform the media, but to get the majority of people to become aware of the extreme bias and propaganda. Among other things, the media are the disseminators of the official mythology which underpins the voluntary support of the population for the way things are. As soon as a significant percent of the population begins to question the justifying mythology, the system is in trouble.

We need to get the flag wavers questioning official propaganda. This is best done through direct (non-media) communication. To succeed, we must be creative. We need to develop alternatives. Pamphlets. T-shirts. Bumper stickers. Protest signs. Meaningful movies. Whatever. Time is of the essence. Iraq is critical. The empire must be stopped.

Seattle Keith 5/24/04 saskckforseattle@msn.com

Ruthless Ambition

2007-09-06T21:19:00.000-07:00

In many ways, history is a depressing continuum of human abuse of humans. Endless wars, imperial conquest and brutal subjugation, slavery and torture. Death and destruction of such an ongoing, recurring nature that it seems to be part of human nature. The way things have always been. And the way things will always be? The answer is obviously yes. And no.

Anything which has re-occurred with such regular and depressing consistency clearly reflects “normal” human behavior. Therefore, unless some change occurs in human social-organizational dynamics, we may expect warfare and other destructive activities to continue indefinitely, or until nuclear warfare ends the human experiment. For those advocating peace and justice, it is critically important to identify what factors may be causing this recurring cruel and destructive behavior, and, hopefully, what can be changed to minimize it.

In looking at social reality, two things seem particularly significant in regards to social behavior. The first is the degree to which power becomes concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of self-serving elites (the nobility, the oligarchy, the corporate aristocracy, etc). The second is the degree to which the elites impose their outlook and goals on society as a whole. In short, society traditionally reflects the outlook, goals, and world-view of it’s elites.

By simple logic we may infer that warfare, exploitation, and other forms of abuse have occurred and continue to occur because the elites perceive that it is in their interests to cause society to engage in these types of activities. Warfare and violence seem to be a means both to facilitate internal social-organizational control and, if successful, to gain control over external resources. Additionally, there seems to be some perverse psychological gratification to arbitrary ruthlessness and cruelty.

Of course, men of ambition are not found only in powerful nations and great empires. The quislings, compradors, and satraps are usually comprised of the men of ambition of the subjugated states. The self-starters whose power-lust is best pursued by service to their imperial sponsor. They are an essential component of successful empires, providing the necessary local compliance with imperial designs, for which they are richly rewarded. Indeed, no empire can long endure without their opportunistic ambition.

If one thinks about it for even a little while, it should be clear that continually engaging in vile, reprehensible and destructive behavior for the sake of power accumulation is perverse. Men of ambition with an overwhelming desire to succeed, and who don’t let anything stand in their way. Their lives devoted to domination and control, they seek to destroy the competition, and react to resistance and opposition with vengeful and vindictive fury. The type of person capable of putting an entire city to the sword or carpet-bombing defenseless civilians. Or inducing mass starvation through neo-liberal structural adjustments. These are the shakers and movers our social mythology praises, yet who, on close examination, are psychologically unbalanced sociopaths from whom society needs to be protected. The depressing reality is that the people (mostly men) calling the shots are humanity’s biggest problem.

I feel justified in referring to “men of ambition” rather than “people of ambition” because the will to power appears to be a predominantly male obsession. While limited numbers of women engage in the historically intense struggle for power, the history of humans and the study of chimpanzees strongly suggests that intense power-seeking activity is primarily among the males. A certain degree of power-seeking seems to exist in most humans, however, the intensity seems to vary among individuals, with truly pathological intensity concentrated in a relatively small number of males. Individual will to power seems to be influenced by circumstances. Power corrupts. Men who acquire power tend to want more, and to put much more emphasis on power-seeking than on other considerations, such as morality, decency, and the common good. In the extreme, power-seekers are myopic, ruthless, and ultimately destructive.

While power corrupts even relatively “normal” people, many positions of power come to be occupied by people who had a strong power-lust to begin with. In the long run, positions of power tend to be occupied by those who strive to achieve power, and who focus their energy on achieving their power goals. This is manifestly the case in the more open societies where hard work, political skill, obsessive striving for power, and ruthlessness are common characteristics of the business and governmental elites. In the olden days, “weak” kings were either dominated by “strong” underlings (the power behind the throne), or overthrown, or perhaps conquered and subjugated. Nowadays, the competitive nature of “success” (power accumulation) virtually guarantees that most positions of significant power will eventually be filled by someone consumed with power lust, a man of ambition.

It should come as no big surprise that these men of ambition are much admired in our society. Since the powerful are the primary shapers of social mythology, it is only natural that these myths reflect the elite worldview. It is quite common to admire people who are “successful” in the materialistic sense of the term. People who acquire high status positions (corporate executive, high ranking military, upper echelon politicians, etc.) and who make a lot of money. A good example of this is Alexander of Macedonia who is known as Alexander the Great, even though his primary accomplishment was warfare and mass-murder. The Roman Empire is also much admired, even though the “Pax Romana” is a misrepresentation of the successful, brutal suppression of subjugated peoples. In short, our elite oriented social mythology tends to present as exemplary people and situations which in reality are reprehensible and dysfunctional. One consequence of this is to obscure the reality that warfare and most other social dysfunction is a direct consequence of the social concentration of power, and the virtually inevitable wielding of that power by the more-or-less sociopathic men of ambition.

From a social-organizational standpoint, the problem is relatively straight-foreward. Concentrated power needs to be reduced or eliminated to the greatest extent possible. Stated another way, power (particularly economic power) needs to be distributed much more broadly. At the least, we need to cut the super-rich and mega-corporations down to size. No easy task, nonetheless essential. Local autonomy, rolling back corporate globalization, progressive taxation on income and assets for individuals and organizations are necessary steps. We need to strengthen the political system while weakening government, particularly the imperial military. Unless we make significant changes to how society is run, the future is truly bleak.

What must be kept in mind is that in our capitalist society, money is the primary instrument of social control, which is wielded by the financial elites and corporations who more or less impose their will on society through their control of the media, the government, and through market mechanisms. In this regard, it should be noted that the market always favors the rich over the poor, and is a most effective means of social control. Marxist claptrap about ownership of the means of production is delusional at best. Replacing the oligarches with commissars achieves nothing, and could possibly be counterproductive.

The key is to understand that the primary issue is how society deals with the issue of power, and with the socially dysfunctional, sociopathic men of ambition who lust after it. In any society striving for peace, justice, and the common good, power needs to be relatively diffuse, with strict safeguards against significant power accumulation. All other factors are secondary. Once power becomes significantly concentrated, the more powerful men of ambition will seek to destroy the competition and consolidate their positions of power. Then, all will be as it has always been, and society will continue to be driven to death and destruction by mad-men who are consumed with power-lust. Make no mistake, unless we successfully deal with the empire builders, humanity faces the very real possibility of extinction.

Seattle Keith saskckforseattle@msn.com

Reply to Cockburn

2007-05-31T19:42:00.000-07:00

5/8/07

This is a belated response to Alexander Cockburn’s article on global warming on the Counterpunch website on April 29, 2007.

I am deeply concerned that Cockburn has seen fit to pollute the website with what can best be described as intellectual flatulence. I am also upset that Jeffrey St.Clair has not seen fit to respond (so much for his environmental credentials!).

Apparently you are all unaware of how much damage this has done to Counterpunch’s credibility. Cockburn wears his ignorance, bias, and hubris on his sleeve as he mocks the scientific consensus and, with foolish certitude, promotes the opinions of some PhD con-artist who flattered his contrarian conceits on a Nation cruise.

There is a certain irony here. Cockburn now is imitating the 911 conspiracy wing-nuts that he has (correctly) ridiculed. They have their PhD’s (Dr. David Ray Griffin, Dr. Judy D. Wood, etc.), and Cockburn has his (Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray (may she rest in peace), etc.). Let us not forget Lyndon La Rouche, Cockburn’s fellow global warming skeptic. Did I forget to mention Rush Limbaugh (etc), Exxon-Mobil (etc), and the Bush administration? Birds of a feather?

I have not directly addressed the evidence concerning the anthropogenic impact on global warming because I don’t see the point. The information is readily available to those interested, however, Cockburn’s mind is made up and not subject to change. Set in concrete. Just like the 911 wing-nuts.

Silver lining? Perhaps the pleasure that Alan Dershowitz and Christopher Hitchens must surely feel in seeing Cockburn make a world class fool of himself.

Sincerely,

9/11 CONSPIRACY CULT

2006-11-15T08:57:00.000-08:00

A specter haunts the peace and justice movement. It is the growing power, influence and visibility of a faction of the anti-war movement that is aggressively promoting a truly bizarre version of the events surrounding 9/11. Well-funded and well-organized, this group both saps the strength of rational resistance and taints the entire movement by association. Their fundamentalist certitude regarding wildly improbable scenarios suggests a certain cult mentality. Like creationists and global warming skeptics, they have recruited a few PhDs to provide a veneer of pseudo credibility to their delusions.

Let us discuss the two primary 9/11 conspiracy assertions: the twin towers collapsed due to a controlled demolition of explosive charges set off by government agents, and the Pentagon was struck by a missile fired by the military, not by the hijacked airplane.

Let us begin by noting that prior to 9/11 various neocons in various writings had advocated reshaping American policy in a more militaristic direction towards preemptive war and overt empire. They lamented that this would be a slow process unless a new Pearl Harbor provided an impetus for accelerated action. Clearly, the Bush administration provided ample warning that they would exploit such an "opportunity," and provided sufficient hints for astute managers to conclude that such an event would not be unwelcome. There are reports of numerous warnings being ignored. Under these circumstances, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the government was extremely lax (criminally negligent?) in preventing the 9/11 attacks, and should be held accountable. To maintain, however, that the government was directly involved in the terrorist hijackings is to engage in unsubstantiated wild speculation. Yet, as anyone familiar with black propaganda in general and Operation Northwoods in particular knows, it is within the realm of possibility that the government aided the hijackers. I doubt it, but it is a remote possibility.

Having said all of the above, what can we say about the controlled demolition assertion? It is idiotic on multiple levels. Why would the government want to collapse the WTC towers? When the first plane hit the first tower, Bush had his new Pearl Harbor. When those two planes hit those two buildings it was certain that there would be extensive damage and a massive loss of life. It seems reasonably predictable that as a result of the impact damage and subsequent fires both buildings would be so structurally compromised as to be effectively destroyed. Furthermore, it seems quite possible (likely?) that both would have had to have been demolished had they not collapsed outright.

The destruction of the WTC towers by crashing jetliners into them was a relatively simple, straightforward plan. Pre-placing explosives to collapse the buildings following the crashes would be horrendously complex, fraught with uncertainty, and entail a conspiracy of preposterous proportions. How does one surreptitiously pre-position huge quantities of high explosives against support structures in occupied buildings with the ceilings, floors and walls intact? What type of explosives could possibly survive the crash and raging inferno (up to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit) without premature detonation? What kind of detonation system could survive the crash and fire and flawlessly cause explosions sequentially just ahead of the falling debris, rather than all at once? What if only one airplane successfully crashes into one of the buildings? Do you leave the second building filled with high explosives? And the list goes on. All in all, improbable to the point of absurdity. And for what? When the plane crashes themselves constitute a "new Pearl Harbor," why risk it all for a "mission impossible" of dubious benefit?

Absurd as the "controlled demolition" theory is, much worse is the Pentagon missile strike fantasy. Forget the eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash into the building. Since most (all?) of them worked for the government, they obviously are part of the conspiracy. Instead, we are asked to believe that an airplane was hijacked and then disappeared (I assume with the connivance of air traffic control) as a ruse for launching a missile into the Pentagon. Why a missile, why not just crash the airplane? What happened to the airplane? All of this because some folks don’t think that some of the after crash pictures look like they think they should look if an airplane had crashed. And for what? The WTC attack was the new Pearl Harbor, the Pentagon crash added nothing that could conceivably benefit the Bush administration.

Of course, nothing I have said will have the slightest impact on a true 9/11 conspiracy buff (except, perhaps, generating hostility to me personally). He/she knows for certain that the twin towers couldn’t possibly have collapsed because of being hit by airplanes, therefore, there must have been explosive charges. Counterpunch newsletter (vol 13, no 16) has an excellent article by Manuel Garcia, Jr, who explains the physics of the collapse. He also summarizes the final report on the collapse issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/#draft) a detailed analysis by 200 engineers and building professionals. Their conclusion is that the high-speed impact of the jetliners combined with the high temperature fires caused the collapse of the twin towers. Or are they part of the conspiracy?

So why am I upset about this? Primarily because I feel that the evangelical irrationality of this cult taints the whole peace and justice movement by association. The peace and justice movement has one real advantage over the forces of empire: our ability to see through the incessant propaganda and to perceive reality more or less accurately. Or do we? The self-deception regarding the events of 9/11 indicate that a large and growing part of the supposedly well-informed dissident left is as out of touch with reality as the crack-pot right. Under these circumstances, I have to ask myself if I am wasting my time working within the movement to resist empire. The peace and justice movement appears to me to be moving towards self-destruction. I can’t help wondering if the seeds of this potential implosion were planted by outside forces.

Seattle Keith 11/15/06 saskckforseattle@msn.com

CHANGING CONTOURS OF EMPIRE

2006-06-29T18:40:00.001-07:00

The United States is an empire. The U.S. has over 725 military bases in over 153 countries. Additionally, over half of the world’s population live in countries whose economies are more or less run by the (U.S. controlled) World Bank and IMF. Two critically important points are: how did the current situation come to be, and how is the system changing?

World War II was a watershed. Prior to the war, the world suffered from classic imperialism, characterized by ongoing competition between European empires. These European states engaged in colonialism where each imperial state strove to conquer the most lucrative Third World territories. This competition over who gets to conquer what led to frequent bloody wars between the European nation states.

The advent of industrialization brought a whole new dimension to warfare and to empire. With the development of modern weaponry, large numbers of poorly armed resistance fighters could be killed economically by much fewer, heavily armed groups of imperial soldiers. The battle turned into a slaughter.

Even more significant was the impact modern weaponry had upon the inevitable European wars of the competing powers. World War I provided an example of industrial scale death and destruction, however, it was World War II which caused the western nations to stare into the abyss. The advent of strategic bombing, nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles meant that any future war between the industrial nations of the North could prove suicidal. This fact caused a fundamental shift in imperial strategy.

The United States profited greatly from World War II, emerging as the dominant world power. War had provided the answer to the elite quandary of how to end the depression by utilizing the government to manage the economy without appearing to do so. Basically, the U.S. became a national security state (a covert form of fascism) which relied upon a permanent war economy to stimulate demand, provide government funded R&D, etc. Warfare became America’s core business.

Additionally, U.S. elites took advantage of the post World War II power imbalance to pursue unrivaled world dominance and empire. Germany and Japan were earmarked to be key players in the U.S. global agenda as World War II enemies became friends, and World War II friends became enemies. Now we enlisted the extreme anti-communism of our fellow fascists for geostrategic reasons. The overt fascism of Germany and Japan was transformed into the more subtle fascism of the national security state which, in turn, was camouflaged by nominal democracy (elite rule, with elections).

The problem of inter-European warfare was handled mafia-style. The U.S., due to its unrivaled power, became the Godfather of imperial, national security state capitalism. NATO was formed to provide the U.S. with direct control over the European militaries, and to provide the organizational framework for U.S. dominance of European affairs. The NATO deterrence to Soviet aggression was pure propaganda. At the time, the USSR was an economic and military basket case. Having suffered grievously during WW II with well over 20 million war deaths, the Soviets were in no position to launch any attack against Europe for at least 15 years (if then) according to U.S. intelligence estimates. NATO has never been a defensive alliance to counter Soviet military threats. The expansion of NATO following the collapse of the USSR is in keeping with the true nature of the alliance. NATO has been expanded and has transformed into an Imperial, out-of-area, mercenary strike force. Uncle Sam’s foreign legion.

Uncle Sam’s role as Godfather was to prevent war and promote business, in the mafia sense of the terms. War is when two or more "families" (western industrial nations) engage in armed conflict. It’s usually very destructive and bad for "business." On the other hand, the use of armed force to smash Third World countries that attempt to break free from western economic domination and control is a necessary part of the ongoing business of cooperative neo-colonialism. Following WW II, the U.S. has engaged in a non-stop war against the entire Third World to thwart independent development and to keep the downtrodden in their place as suppliers of raw materials, cheap labor, and markets for western manufactures.

A new wrinkle was the use of Third World peoples as designated enemies, to be used as targets of Imperial mass-murder. One simply cannot justify a national security state without enemies, and defenseless enemies, which can be presented as great threats, yet easily defeated and killed, are the ideal targets of the U.S. national security state. The lesser mafia dons (Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc) deferred to U.S. leadership, supported U.S. geostrategic maneuvers, and were rewarded with a piece of the action. Cooperative imperialism. Peace and prosperity for the western nations (plus Japan), poverty, war and hopelessness for the Third World poor.

The times they are a-changing. There is an ongoing shift away from nationalistic neo-colonialism towards the globalization of corporate economic control. A transnational matrix of economic interdependencies that work to effectively lock-in economic domination and control by the western corporations and financial institutions. The planet is being transformed into one big company town where the corporations call the shots. National economies, particularly those of the Third World, are transformed into unsustainable export economies dependent upon corporate controlled trade for survival. Failure to play by the corporate rules results in sanctions leading to economic collapse and mass starvation. Playing the game begets rich rewards for the compradors and satraps, along with poverty and hopelessness for the majority of people. Economic independence, education, healthcare, adequate food, clothing and shelter are increasingly unavailable as the poor get poorer so that the rich may get richer.

One aspect of the current situation which is far from clear is the extent to which the corporations and financial capital have already integrated the global economy. For example, many commentators issue dire warnings about the U.S. trade deficit, noting that it can’t go on much longer. Or can it? Nobody is much concerned about Oregon’s trade imbalance with California because the federal government can redirect the financial flows to keep things in balance. Is it possible that the global economic system has evolved to the point where transnational finance can effectively force China to buy U.S. bonds indefinitely? Also, how much of the Chinese economy is Chinese? Is the bulk of the Chinese economy controlled by the transnational corporations, using China as one big export platform?

A critically important point is the extent to which corporate globalization is a form of economic imperialism. Also, the degree to which corporate globalization emphasizes economic coercion and forced trade-dependent economic interdependencies as the instruments of global economic empire. The economies of poor Third World nations directly controlled by corporations and/or the corporate controlled instruments of global economic control (World Bank, IMF, WTO, FTAA, CAFTA, etc.). While it is still reasonable to speak of American interests versus German interests versus Japanese interests, it is important to remember that it is American corporate interests versus German corporate interests, etc. Furthermore, transnational corporate interests transcend national boundaries and may not always align with the so-called national interests.

What all of this means is far from clear. It should be clear, however, that the corporate imperial system (corporate globalization) cannot be evaluated strictly in terms of national power politics. At the least, the corporate system seeks to make all nation states (including the U.S.) subservient to corporate domination and control. This could help to explain the intentional hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing base. Therefore, there is a certain internal tension between the jingoistic nationalism of the U.S. national security state and the economic interdependencies of the unfolding transnational corporate empire. Furthermore, as the U.S. gradually weakens relative to its rivals (Germany and Japan), the possibility exists for a return to nationalistic armed rivalries over which industrial power gets to subjugate and exploit what part of the Third World.

The current system (the U.S. as head Godfather) is held together by overwhelming U.S. military power and effective U.S. control of the world’s primary oil supplies. However, U.S. economic weakness (unsustainable deficits, etc) may cause the system to collapse. If that happens, the current mafia style "peace" may also collapse leading to wars between the industrial powers over resources. This could lead to nuclear warfare and planetary annihilation. The U.S. seems particularly anxious to find an excuse to use "low yield" "bunker buster" nukes. It should be obvious that an economic system based upon permanent militarism and contained by overwhelming U.S. military superiority is eventually bound to fail with catastrophic results. Two things seem clear: we are in uncharted territory and we are going in the wrong direction.

Seattle Keith 6/29/06 saskckforseattle@msn.com

WHITHER THE GREENS

2006-02-26T16:56:00.000-08:00

Way back when, when the Greens were debating forming a political party and running candidates for office, I was generally supportive of the proposed political action. It seemed like a good way to highlight the issues and to provide a responsible alternative to the Republicrats. I incorrectly assumed that the political effort would be but one part of a broad range of social change activities. With the benefit of hindsight, I see that the political activities of the Green Party have overwhelmed the social change aspects of the Green movement.

In pursuing the acquisition of political power, the Green Party, like all power seeking groups, has coopted itself into just another group competing for popularity and power. The focus has swung to what needs to be done to win elections rather than what needs to be done to transform society. A perfect example of the consequences of this type of thinking can be seen in the Green Party of Germany. What did the German Green electoral victories accomplish other than the debasing of Green ideals and the elimination of a Green alternative?

The elevation of Joschka Fischer to Foreign Minister effectively marked the end of die Grunen as a force for progressive social change. Fischer quickly morphed into a career politician who shamelessly lent a Green imprimatur to U.S./ German/ NATO military aggression, the expansion of NATO, and the use of NATO as an Imperial out-of-area strike force. He is the Green pied piper of a German-led Mittleuropa. For all practical purposes, the German Green Party as a force for progressive change has ceased to exist.

In the U.S., a similar process is underway. The Green Party seems more concerned with winning elections and achieving automatic ballot status than in changing society. Much needs to be done and the time is short. The notion that the best way to proceed is to focus almost exclusively on seizing political power through electoral victories is misguided. A lot of people who would join efforts to halt U.S. militarism are not necessarily going to vote Green. The focus on achieving political power will inevitably consign the Green Party to irrelevancy. To a large degree, this has already occurred. Are the Greens engaged in lively debate over social organizational dynamics, or is the primary focus on electoral strategies?

The Greens need to change, and change fast. Electoral politics needs to be significantly de-emphasized. The emphasis needs to be on developing a strong Green critique of the current system and developing compelling alternative visions for the future. The critique needs to address current social organizational dynamics in lieu of simply criticizing the Democrats, who are acting pretty much as one should expect under current circumstances. I say "visions" because Greens should welcome a wholesome diversity of opinion. This needs to be done at the grassroots level. We should de-emphasize elite Greens gathering in faraway conventions to tell the rest of us what our position is. Rather, we need to encourage the intellectual involvement of all of the membership. The key is an ongoing, vibrant sharing of ideas of how things ought to be. If that exists now in the Greens, I am unaware of it.

Seattle Keith 2/26/06 saskckforseattle@msn.com

DEALING WITH BIAS

2005-12-04T17:13:00.000-08:00

Our perception of reality is strongly influenced by the information filter known as bias, therefore, it is important to understand what bias is and how it works. All biases are not equal. I have somewhat arbitrarily lumped biases into three broad groupings: normal bias, strong bias, and extreme bias.

Normal bias is the essential experientially based filtering process which enables us to quickly evaluate information inputs as to reasonableness and validity. It is, in essence, bringing our life’s experiences to bear as to whether something is more-or-less consistent with reality as we perceive it, hence believable; or is inconsistent with reality as we perceive it, hence not believable. Normal bias distinguishes itself by being reasonably amenable to change. The appearance of significant information which contradicts the particular bias will likely result in a reevaluation of the bias and a shift in reality perception, hence, a new bias. Normal biases usually exist for more neutral things not involving a person’s core beliefs, relationships, employment, etc. The term "unbiased" refers to normal bias.

Strong bias is just that. An information/reality perception filter highly resistant to change. It usually involves core beliefs, relationships, etc, where a shift in perceptions/beliefs could significantly affect a person’s life: his/her relationship to friends, employment prospects, esteem, etc. Information and reality perception are closely tied to a person’s sense of well-being. For example, most people in the media intuitively sense that there are some things one just doesn’t say. To be successful, a certain ideological bias is essential, hence, there is a strong inclination to perceive reality in a career enhancing way. Certainly not to jeopardize one’s livelihood and family’s security through ideological insubordination. People ideologically dress for success. This process normally occurs subconsciously. Strong psychological defense mechanisms shield the person from acknowledging the compromising of their integrity. Challenges to their "objectivity" are met with self-serving, self-righteous indignation. Consequently, a strong bias is highly resistant to change as long as the bias is felt to be performing it’s career enhancing and/or relationship enhancing and/or ego enhancing function. A change in circumstances which alters the perceived serviceability of the bias may trigger a reevaluation. In any event, a strong bias is difficult to change regardless of the objective criteria. The person hears what he wants to hear, sees what he wants to see, etc.

Rigid bias is an extreme case of opinions/beliefs that are psychologically written in stone. These are the core beliefs which define a person’s sense of self and self-worth, and form the basis of critically important relationships with others. A prime example is Creationism. By and large, there is virtually nothing you could say to a creationist that would cause him to alter his creationist beliefs. For a creationist to accept the reality of evolution would be a traumatic experience wherein his whole world would collapse. His core beliefs shattered, his relationship to friends and family in doubt. It almost never happens. Likewise, can you imagine the Pope leaving the Catholic Church?

Virtually all individuals exhibit at least two and sometimes all three forms of bias. A creationist, for example, may be relatively unbiased concerning economic theory, whereas, an evolutionary biologist may have very strong political biases. A critically important point is the degree to which individual bias is influenced by systemic bias. We are not isolated individuals, rather, we function as members of various groups and associations each delineated by a distinctive ideology and mythology. As such, these groups have a built in bias which acts as an external information filter/amplifier. In other words, an individual is constantly exposed to a biased (sometimes highly biased) flow of information which then forms the basis for reality perception. That is, a relatively unbiased (normal bias) person is frequently exposed to strongly biased sources of information. In our society, most people accept the official myhology of America the good, the shining city on the hill. A nation which unselfishly shares its treasure and blood to protect the world from the evil other. The good guys. This is the elite created mythology which forms the basis of information and reality perception. In other words, even normal individual bias will result in a highly biased outlook under the influence of pervasive societal misinformation. Hence, the success of the media and public relations industries in molding public opinion.

An important consideration is the degree to which organizational bias either conflicts with or supports the biases of other organizations, social institutions, and generally accepted social mythology. When various significant groups are in conflict, there exists more leeway for competing points of view. The opposition of peace and justice groups and organized labor to the WTO permitted effective opposition to corporate globalization. On the other hand, where opposition is coopted or muted, as in the destruction of Yugoslavia for "humanitarian" reasons, elite propaganda is amplified by the various interest groups. Since most people/groups find it easier and more rewarding to align with power, the net effect is a sort of ideological consensus on key issues. What this means is that on most issues of social significance, the average person of normal bias is practically overwhelmed by systemic bias, their personal bias based upon a distorted perception of reality. They say that not to learn the lessons of history will result in repeating the mistakes of the past. Yet, history repeats itself again and again because social mythology and elite misrepresentation are designed to distort reality and facilitate elite control. Basically, most public intellectuals (including media pundits) earn their living misrepresenting reality in service to power. Under these conditions, it is very difficult to identify actual history from social mythology. On important social issues, most people are more or less out of touch with objective reality most of the time.

In exposing elite deception, it is necessary to deal with the reality of bias. In this regard, the best course would seem to be appealing to people who have a normal individual bias, but whose opinion is conditioned by the pervasive institutional and social biases. Attempting to change the minds of people who are strongly biased in favor of elite rule is a waste of time and resources. This is why attempts at media reform are ill advised at best, and probably counter- productive. Not only are the institutional factors of media bias virtually insurmountable, but the people who run the mass media are very strongly biased. Most honestly believe that they are doing a good job. Fair and balanced. Trying hard to be fair to conservatives and big business in a media notorious for liberal bias. In other words, true believers and propagandists for the corporate elite.

It should be obvious that when the elites achieve consensus on policy they possess the resources necessary to manufacture consent. For non-elites to oppose the elite agenda is difficult at best. Engaging in alternative propaganda is not an option due to the lack of resources. It would also be counter-productive to progressive change for reasons beyond the scope of this paper. The only way to counter official mythology and propaganda is by skillfully and creatively exposing the lies. This can only be done with highly condensed, focused imagery, which, in turn, must be communicated directly to the people. The nature of the media is such that they more or less work for the dominant elites, skillfully distorting reality in support of the elite objectives of their advertisers. The corporate oligarches are their customers and they will never, ever bite the hand that feeds them. The primary emphasis must necessarily be outside the mass media. The focus needs to be on succinctly exposing the lies and shattering the mythology which distort reality perception, and which underpin voluntary support for elite objectives. We must be creative or fail, it’s that simple.

Seattle Keith 12/4/05 saskckforseattle@msn.com

CONSTANT DECEPTION

2005-10-20T20:57:00.000-07:00

We live in a world of constant deception. In the long run, most positions of power and influence are controlled by men of ambition who never really mean what they say or say what they mean. Like a skilled poker player, the successful organizational politician has learned to never show his hand. His rise to the top greatly aided by craftiness and deceit, his rivals bested through skillful maneuver. The ability to "out fox" the opposition is a skill greatly admired.

U.S. Presidents lie all of the time. It’s part of the job. You can’t be an empire without military intervention, which, in turn, requires selling warfare through massive deception. The left is generally aware of the massive (and clumsy) deceit concerning Iraq, hence, all of the "Bush lied, people died" bumper stickers. On the other hand, the American/German dismemberment of Yugoslavia was welcomed by much of the left as a necessary and praiseworthy humanitarian intervention. The skillful American/German exploitation of ethnic divisions, rivalries and ambitions, combined with the military destruction of the Yugoslav infrastructure was strongly supported by most of the left. Only a few lefties maintained a critical perspective and saw through the massive propaganda and deception.

A bit of history. Between 1960 and 1980, the Yugoslav economy grew at an average of 6.1%. Good economic conditions served to ameliorate ethnic divisions and tensions. Divisions, I might add, that continued to be exploited by western intelligence agencies in their never ending quest to divide and conquer. Unfortunately, Yugoslavia became ensnared in the World Bank/IMF debt trap. By the end of the 1980s, the Yugoslav economy was more-or-less run by the IMF, with the familiar and predictable results. Industry declined, poverty increased, and social services began to be cut. Additionally, money was targeted to the republics (Bosnia, Croatia, etc) while the central government was de-funded. This weakened the central government and created economic pressure for separation. Also, the central government was blamed for the consequences of IMF policies.

In 1990, the U.S. congress passed the Foreign Operations Law of 1991 which, among other things, specified a cut-off of all aid, credits and loans to Yugoslavia within six months. The World Bank and IMF were directed to follow suite. The only money to be permitted was to go to the right-wing separatist forces. It was, in effect, a declaration of economic war against Yugoslavia. The CIA predicted a bloody civil war as a consequence. Of course, that was the intent.

Following the break-up of the former Soviet Union, the U.S. and Germany had decided that their imperial interests were best served by breaking-up Yugoslavia as part of the overall plan to return Eastern Europe to Third World status as a supplier of raw materials, cheap labor, and markets for the Western economies. The plan for Yugoslavia called for an independent Croatia (along the lines of the independent Croatia established by Hitler during World War II), a Muslim dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a greatly weakened Serbia. For propaganda purposes, what little was left of Yugoslavia was referred to as Greater Serbia to create the impression of aggressive expansion.

Throughout the conflict, which was created and fomented by the U.S. and Germany, massive aid flowed to the right-wing separatist forces. In Bosnia, for example, the separatist Muslims (moderate Muslims were pushed aside) were armed, trained and funded by the U.S., Germany, and various Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Aid included Mujahadeen fighters from Afghanistan including elements of al-Qaida. Both the Croatian and Bosnian separatist forces carried out massacres and massive ethnic cleansing of Serbs. These forces had been trained by the U.S. and were being advised by U.S. military officers. Former NATO commander U.S. General John Galvin planned and executed a successful Bosnian offensive in 1995.

All the while, the U.S. media predictably engaged in a massive propaganda campaign demonizing the Serbs, who were compared to the Nazis. Tales of rapes and death camps were orchestrated by our jingoistic press in support of the Imperial crusade. Nothing new there. This time, however, Jewish groups, women’s groups, and all manner of nominally left-leaning NGOs joined in the hysteria. People who knew nothing about the area took leave of their common sense and were stampeded into supporting a highly destructive, flagrantly illegal bombing campaign. It was the most effective propaganda campaign I have ever seen, and proof that when a Democrat makes war, there is no real opposition on much of the so-called left. As for the Right, when have they ever protested against U.S. aggression?

And what are the consequences of Bill Clinton’s "humanitarian" intervention? For the people of the former Yugoslavia, it has been a disaster. This is particularly true for the Serbs who have been ethnically cleansed from Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and have had Serbia destroyed by the U.S. led bombing campaign. Bridges, roads, power generation, water purification, hospitals, and TV stations were defined as valid "military" targets. Depleted uranium continues to poison the countryside. They have been reduced from a decent life to Third World paupers, all the while being blamed for the consequences of U.S./German geostrategic intervention. All of the groups now live in countries whose economies are directly administered by the IMF, with the inevitable consequences of neoliberalism. Countries, I might add, that are now too small to be economically viable. Once again, the Great Powers have Balkanized the Balkans.

On the other hand, the Imperial powers did just fine. A united and expansionist Germany took a big step toward establishing a new Mitteleuropa. The U.S. got to establish new military bases in the region, including the strategically located camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. These serve as instruments of power projection and military domination and control. One of the biggest victories for the U.S. was the ability to transform NATO into a U.S. controlled, out-of-area strike force. NATO is well on its way to becoming a U.S. controlled mercenary army.

My primary reason for focusing on the "humanitarian" intervention in the Balkans is to highlight the ubiquitous use of fraud and deception by the elites to garner public support for destructive policies. Also, to discuss the reason that Bill Clinton was able to engage in unprovoked aggression with virtually no opposition on the left. Basically, the reason is that the majority of the left tend to think of the Democrats as good guys and the Republicans as bad guys. Therefore, the left tended to believe the Clinton administration (and allied NGOs) on faith, and to give unqualified support. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

How to avoid being fooled? The first step is to avoid the good guys versus bad guys world-view. Further, it is critically important to understand that the men of power and their information spinners (media, PR, etc) lie all of the time as part of their job. Most probably believe their own lies. It is also critically important to be aware that the U.S. is a national security state empire. A national security state stimulates and controls its economy through military spending. In order to justify this spending, the U.S. needs to engage in ongoing military confrontations, preferably with a weak and defenseless country which can be attacked with impunity. The business of America is war. Added to this is the reality of empire. Empires don’t engage in humanitarian interventions, they conquer and occupy, subjugate and exploit, kill and terrorize. Finally, simple common sense tells you that you bomb a country to destroy it, not to save it. That, of course, was the unstated purpose of the bombing: to destroy what little remained of the former Yugoslavia for geostrategic reasons.

The "humanitarian" intervention in Yugoslavia exemplifies what should be a core truth for progressives: we are surrounded by constant deception and fraudulent mythology. Only by removing our ideological blinders and honestly confronting the systemic and structural dynamics of elite behavior can we begin to perceive reality for what it is. Actions speak louder than words. Ignore the lies. Evaluate the actions. Draw the obvious conclusions. The United States is a corporate/elite controlled national security state empire. All analyses of foreign and domestic policy must be grounded in that reality. A key component of opposition is to shatter the mythology which camouflages this reality. NO EMPIRE. NO NATIONAL SECURITY STATE.

Seattle Keith 10/20/05 saskckforkeith@msn.com

IDEOLOGY

2005-08-31T08:56:00.000-07:00

Ideology is the intellectual glue which binds a group/society together. It is the unique world-view which informs the members of the group and which differentiates the group from other groups. It is the system of beliefs by which the group interprets and comprehends reality. Religion, capitalist economic theory and Marxist economic theory are examples of some contemporary ideologies.

Any ideology has two components which are in dynamic conflict with each other. The first component is the degree to which the ideology accurately reflects reality. An ideology which greatly misrepresents reality hinders group effectiveness in competition with other groups and in dealing with everyday problems. Creationists have real problems with the natural sciences. The second component is the degree of internal cohesiveness of the ideology: the degree to which it is unique group identifier. This internal cohesiveness component necessitates that the group ideology misrepresent reality to some degree. Science is not an ideology. A group which believes in gravity and magnetism, for example, is not unique, hence, there is no internal "we’re different from them" cohesiveness. In other words, there is a trade-off between reality interface and group cohesiveness. The more irrational the beliefs, the greater the group solidarity for those who accept the ideology. Also, in times of perceived danger, group solidarity is emphasized as people rally around the flag.

Social mythology is the reality distorting criteria by which society evaluates specific events. The notion that the United States invaded Iraq to defend itself against Islamic terrorists is logical within the framework of ideological misrepresentation. Furthermore, true believers have no difficulty accepting the notion that our military troops are risking their lives to bring freedom and democracy (holy words, totally devoid of real meaning) to the ungrateful, ignorant, radical Islamic "ragheads" of Iraq. The reality that "our sons and daughters" (as they are referred to on TV) are, in fact, Imperial storm-troopers subjugating and terrorizing a largely defenseless Third World country is totally incomprehensible to the majority of Americans.

An additional factor is the degree to which most people intuitively sense that acceptance of official mythology is a critically important component of internal social cohesiveness. To debunk the mythology is perceived as an attack on group solidarity, hence, a traitorous threat to the effective functioning of society, and to its ability to defend itself against external threats, real and imagined. Most people can be fairly described as faithful followers. They are not concerned with critically evaluating group goals and actions, which they feel is best left to the leaders in our hierarchical society. Rather, they are more concerned with fitting in and doing their part to advance group objectives. They tend to respond to media messages as to how they should think and behave. There is a certain logic to this. Aligning with power is generally safe and rewarding, whereas, confronting elite power frequently has negative consequences, particularly for the relatively powerless.

Two points come to mind. First, the degree to which the entertainment media actively promulgates the mythology which shapes our society’s world-view. Warfare and warriors, heroes and heroics, patriotism and the use of massive violence to "defend" our freedoms from sinister evil-doers are all recurring themes which facilitate the maintenance of our violent and militaristic society. The average person perceives reality in a massively distorted fashion due to this ideological pre-conditioning.

The second (truly depressing) point is the degree to which self-styled faithful followers can even begin to function as responsible citizens in a democracy. Without delving too deeply, it seems apparent that people who behave as faithful followers in our hierarchical society have a real problem discharging their obligations as citizens. Faithful followers don’t seek out information to use in rational decision making, rather, they respond to media generated cues as to how society’s rulers (the business elite) expect them to think and behave. They look to the corporate media to give them their marching orders.

A good example of what I am talking about concerns the War on Terror. On 9/11, slightly over 3000 people were killed in a horrific act of terrorist violence. That same year, just under 50,000 people died in automobile accidents. The propaganda of the ideological system told the people that repressive, police state measures (and foreign wars) were needed to protect them from the imminent threat of terrorist mass-destruction. The killing machine in the garage continued to be depicted as a friend of the family. Pacifist critics of the government were harassed and put on "no fly" lists as a "security precaution." This seemed reasonable and prudent within the systemic ideological deception. Most people believed because they wanted to believe. When the government said to seal off windows with duct tape, the Faithful Followers climbed into their dangerous killing machines and drove to get duct tape for their windows. To a rational person, this behavior was irrational to the point of being ludicrous. To the logic of the Faithful Follower, it was a demonstration of group loyalty and solidarity.

For most people, acceptance of group ideology/mythology is seen as a condition of group membership. While certain aspects of the group world-view may be demonstrably false and even irrational, there is a compelling logic to being a member in good standing in a powerful, supportive group. Group solidarity is an important component of group power and dissension and infighting are perceived as threats to the ability of the group to defend and protect the membership. Deviation from group ideological correctness may elicit hostility from self-styled "defenders of the faith." These are the drill sergeants who help the elites keep the rabble in line. The brown shirts whose function is to maintain group internal discipline.

In the long run, most organizations (particularly large, powerful organizations) eventually are run by ambitious individuals who use the organization for achieving their personal objectives, usually power accumulation. Almost all organizations are continually engaged in the struggle for power (competition). More sales, more members, more money, etc. This ongoing struggle for power is usually camouflaged by the group ideology which artfully misrepresents reality in a way conducive to disarming opponents and motivating supporters. The U.S. is a benevolent superpower, not a brutal empire, etc. Ideology provides the basic framework of deception by which the elites justify and implement their strategies for power accumulation.

Anyone who seeks to change society needs to deal with society as it is. Rational arguments have little impact on people primarily guided by group mythology and group expectations. Within the internal logic of group ideology, non-conforming opinions make no sense at all, and may be interpreted as a threat to the group. Ideological misrepresentation is an essential component of elite domination and control. As long as the reality distorting mythology is accepted, the majority of people will continue to follow the logic of the illusions and deceptions. Meaningful change absolutely requires the shattering of the official mythology.

Seattle Keith 9/1/05 saskckforseattle@msn.com

POWER LUST

2005-07-15T08:08:00.000-07:00

In many ways, history is a depressing continuum of human abuse of humans. While elite-friendly historians laud the "achievements" of conquering "heroes," the human suffering of the victims is ignored. How many slaves suffered and died so that the Pharaohs could have their wondrous tombs? How many conquered people were put to the sword so that Alexander of Macedonia could feel great and powerful? How many black slaves and Native Americans had to suffer and die so that America could achieve its Manifest Destiny? How many Third World people must continue to suffer deprivation and death squads so that the current empire can maintain its elites in the manner to which they have become accustomed? Why have societies been so vicious and brutal? Why does it continue? Can it be changed?

Having given the matter considerable thought, I have come to believe that the primary driving force behind all of this is what I refer to as power lust. If you prefer, unbridled ambition. It exists in all humans to varying degrees, however, it seems to be more prevalent in men. Circumstances tend to influence the strength of the drive, to moderate or accentuate it. It has been said that power corrupts. Truer words were never spoken. Also, if circumstances permit, those who have a strong desire pursue their power lust with single minded obsession. Their desire to acquire power so intense that they are willing to commit mass-murder to achieve their goal. Willing? Nay, eager would be more apt. Easily enraged at resistance to their grand designs, they are anxious to use "manly" force to crush the opposition and to make an example of those foolish enough to get in their way. To demonstrate that they have cajones. In many ways, most who strive for and achieve great power are psychologically unbalanced sociopaths.

Since the social mythology of our elite-run society tends to reflect elite opinion, the ugly reality of elite brutality is misrepresented, to say the least. Alexander of Macedonia is depicted as a great man. Someone to emulate, rather than as a murderous, sociopathic thug from whom society needs to defend itself. One consequence of all of this is that far too little thought and discussion has occurred regarding how society can reorganize itself to moderate elite power, and how to protect the average person from elite abuse. Too often discussion centers on how "our side" can get control of the levers of power. The assumption being that with the "good guys" in charge, everything will be just fine. Such delusions are the norm.

Lest anyone delude themselves that mass-murder is a thing of the past, the product of an uncivilized world of long ago, one need only reflect for a moment on the extreme bloodletting of the 20th century. The first half of the 20th century witnessed two world wars, the second of which was unusually destructive, killing 50 million people and introducing the world to nuclear warfare. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. put defenseless civilians to the nuclear sword to demonstrate (and test) its new doomsday weapon, and to show the world (particularly the USSR) that we were capable of committing mass-murder against a defeated enemy who was trying to initiate surrender negotiations.

The second half of the 20th century saw a dramatic reduction in warfare related deaths in the North, as the U.S. enforced a kind of mafia-like "peace" among the Western democracies. U.S. hegemony permitted the industrial nations to cooperate in a coordinated non-stop war against the Third World. Between 1945 and 1990, 20 million people died in wars, 99% in the Third World. Greece, Korea, and Viet Nam were viciously assaulted when they resisted America’s grand design. In Indonesia, one million people were murdered, death squad style, in Suharto’s brutal coup, which the U.S. encouraged and supported. The chamber of horrors that the U.S. has constructed in Latin America, with rampant torture and death squads, provide a stark example of the moral enlightenment of western elites.

A strong factor contributing to the never ending abuse of the weak is the apparent desire of the powerful to subjugate and dominate their fellow humans. They want to rule. Abusing other people seems to give them a sense of power, which they crave above all else. Additionally, they seek to destroy the competition, including potential future "threats" to their power and privilege.

The critically important point is that powerful states don’t get to be powerful by accident or divine providence. They become powerful because they are ruled by elites who seek to increase their power by increasing the power of the state. This entails power- seeking diplomatic maneuver, predatory economic competition, and military competition and confrontation, frequently leading to war. To a significant degree, society reflects the values of its elites. In a power-seeking state, the struggle for power becomes the defining social imperative. In these circumstances, warfare, conquest, military and economic subjugation, genocide, mass-murder and torture become the norm. While prevailing social mythology camouflages this reality, it exists and will continue to exist until society is reorganized to guard against the inevitable consequences of concentrated power, and the attendant sociopathic power lust.

One aspect of all of this that may not be immediately obvious is the tremendous impact on social decision making caused by concentrated power. In a more egalitarian society, social decision making is informed by a much broader input of perspectives and objectives. As power becomes more and more concentrated, social decision making tends to default to the power seekers, whose basic goal is to increase their power. The current and future well-being of the majority is rarely considered, except as a problem. Not infrequently, the masses are considered as potential competitors for power, hence, to be preemptively dis-empowered and beaten down. In effect, highly concentrated power structures are inherently dysfunctional. Empires are manifestations of sociopathic behavior imposed upon an entire society. You cannot have intelligent, forward looking social decision making in an empire. The sick-minded rulers won’t tolerate it. The future well-being of human society absolutely requires a radical transformation of our current system of concentrated power.

Any honest examination of history will demonstrate beyond doubt the absolute necessity to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate and prevent concentrated power in any form. In our society, the major focus needs to be on breaking-up concentrated monetary power. The rich are way too rich, and the major corporations are wildly, excessively wealthy. Money rules, and the powerful inevitably abuse their power. Individuals and organizations need to be taxed progressively on their income and accumulated assets. A primary goal is to substantially moderate our present extremes of wealth (power) and poverty (powerlessness). Additionally, the financial system needs to be controlled by the political system. Money is power, economic power in fluid form, the primary instrument of social control. Allowing unaccountable private individuals and organizations to control this power for personal gain inevitably results in a dysfunctional society with disastrous social decision making. Many of our problems are a result of a rogue financial system with too much money to spend on destructive, anti-social activities.

It should be noted that for at least 50 years we have been moving in the wrong direction. The elites and corporations have reduced their taxes and concentrated their power, even as the majority have been economically dis-empowered. The current efforts to extend corporate globalization are intended to legally establish a world-wide system of economic dependency, domination and control. If successful, the future will be truly bleak. The system is inherently unsustainable and the inevitable collapse will be uniquely catastrophic. It is absolutely essential that the American Empire be dismantled and that we take steps to eliminate concentrated power in any form. No Empire! No Oligarchy!

Seattle Keith 7/15/05 saskckforseattle@msn.com

1st CAFTA letter to McDermott

2005-06-10T12:45:00.000-07:00

April 10, 2005
Congressman Jim McDermott
1035 Longworth House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515-4707

Dear Congressman McDermott:

I am writing to inform you of my strong opposition to CAFTA. I understand that congress will soon begin hearings on this corporate/oligarch friendly, people/environment hostile treaty.

The ugly consequences of corporate globalization (of which CAFTA is a part) include the wholesale destruction of the infrastructure of Third World countries. Countries which were once able to feed themselves now must import food to survive (India, Mexico, etc). This is the consequence of the intentional destruction of their local agricultural base. Now they do what we tell them or they can’t earn the money to feed themselves. Water is privatized. Education is privatized (eliminated for most).Healthcare is privatized (eliminated for most). The IMF runs their economy for the benefit of our corporate oligarches.

No amount of economic fairy tales and falsification can hide the destructive reality of the consequences of corporate globalization. This is why people and social justice organizations throughout the Americas are adamantly opposed to CAFTA and other neoliberal trade agreements. The people oppose these agreements because they know that their economic livelihood and hope for the future will be destroyed. The corporations are pushing for these agreements because the common sense and human compassion of the corporate elites have been overwhelmed by power lust. When businessmen rule, society suffers.

Our military is not fooled by this economic deception. In the U.S. Space Command’s Vision for 2020, they anticipate that "globalization of the world economy" will lead to "a widening between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’" with "deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation" leading to violence and unrest among the "have-nots." Just as any sane person would anticipate, and which is already occurring. Of course, our traditional way of maintaining "stability" in Latin America is the U.S. funded application of massive violence against the local population. Among other things, CAFTA is a huge jobs program for the death squads. This is what you are being asked to approve.

As bad as all of this is, the long term consequences are worse. This ongoing increased trade in goods and the expansion of our oil dependent economy is leading to disaster. We are rapidly approaching peak oil output and the days of cheap oil will soon be over. Continuing to expand cheap oil dependent activities is irresponsible. Worse yet, the emission of massive amounts of greenhouse gases which will inevitably accompany the globalization process is a giant step in the wrong direction. We are rapidly approaching runaway planetary warming with potentially disastrous consequences. Voting for CAFTA (or any other corporate globalization agreement) is the most anti-environmental act you can perform. Much worse than opening up the ANWR to oil drilling, bad as that is. In fact, it is the globalization of our fossil fuel dependent economy that creates the demand for oil which makes oil exploration and environmental destruction inevitable. What kind of world is this to leave to our grandchildren?

Jim, voting against CAFTA should be an easy decision for you. Your district is well informed and strongly progressive. We were delighted when you went to Iraq and spoke against the war. We applaud your efforts to protect social security. We are counting on you to stand up and be counted on this critically important issue. To oppose the destructive insanity of neoliberal corporate globalization. To do the right thing and vote against CAFTA. When you do, you can rest assured that the voters of the 7th district will be solidly behind you. I personally commit to providing support on this important issue and if you have questions, comments or requests, please feel free to contact me (enclosed is a paper I gave you at your 2004 potato feed).

Sincerely,

GLOBAL DISASTER

Corporate Globalization (there is no other kind) is the most anti-environmental, anti-social justice, anti-democratic scheme that ever was, or likely ever will be. In a nutshell, the intent of the globalization scheme advocated by our corporate rulers is to turn the planet into one big company town.

At the most obvious level, Corporate Globalization aims at removing any and all impediments to economic exploitation, domination and control. Economic decision making (by corporate management, not the people) is effectively isolated from political interference. Money rules, pure and simple. Any and all laws which inhibit the ability of transnational corporations to do whatever they like are considered restraint of "free trade." Disputes are adjudicated in secret by corporate lawyers who inevitably, inexorably decide that the corporations know best.

At the most fundamental level, trade in goods increases fossil fuel usage, hence, is inherently anti-environmental and should be minimized whenever possible. It is neither necessary nor wise to create "trade dependent" nations, states, etc, which survive on the fuel intensive importation/exportation of commodities better produced locally. Local autonomy (political, fuel, food, etc) is the key to sustainability. Trade dependency is the key to corporate domination and control. Political barriers to economic control are relentlessly attacked, while information sharing and local development (for the people) is discouraged.

All countries which successfully developed and modernized relied extensively on ideas, procedures, processes, etc, developed elsewhere (technological diffusion). It is highly indicative of the true goals of Corporate Globalization that "trade" agreements strongly emphasize "intellectual property rights." In other words, to prohibit the Third World from doing what the First World did to develop! The intent is clear: to keep the Third World underdeveloped and locked into dependency on First World corporations. An economic plan to subjugate the Third World into perpetuity! Let us not fail to mention that the economists who provide pseudo intellectual justification for this Economic Imperialism earn their living misrepresenting reality in service to power.

Every environmental and social justice organization that I belong to (I belong to a lot) opposes Corporate Globalization. The voiding of existing environmental regulations, the inevitable massive burning of fossil fuels, and the destruction of local Third World economies worldwide represents an unprecedented political, sociological and environmental disaster.

The era of cheap fossil fuels is nearly over, and in the not-to-distant future, an economy based on excessive fossil fuel dependency (international trade, etc) will collapse (hopefully, prior to irreversible ecological destruction). Whether or not this occurs depends upon political decisions made now.

Seattle Keith 10/17/03 saskckforseattle@msn.com

Reply to McDermott's Response to CAFTA Letter

2005-06-10T10:07:00.000-07:00

May 13, 2005

Congressman Jim McDermott
1035 Longworth House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515-4707

Dear Congressman McDermott:

I was stunned, shocked and saddened by your response (attached) to my anti-CAFTA letter. I’m not exactly sure what to make of it.

Let us begin by noting that CAFTA is a response to the U.S. failure to force through FTAA. Our corporate controlled government is now trying to achieve its objectives piecemeal. The full force of empire is being directed against these pathetically small and weak countries which we have used and abused for over 150 years. Their current sorry state a direct consequence of U.S. intervention and exploitation, which CAFTA will perpetuate and intensify.

You mention brutal civil wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua in the 1980s which claimed over 200,000 lives. Civil wars? Let’s be honest. In the 1980s, the U.S. unleashed a brutal campaign of terror, torture and mass-murder to pacify the population and create the "stability" necessary to improve investment opportunities. In El Salvador and Guatemala, the U.S. trained, equipped and funded military, acting as U.S. mercenaries, committed numerous massacres, while their companion death squads tortured and disappeared any and all opposition to U.S. domination and control. In Nicaragua, the CIA ran a proxy war utilizing ex-Samoza military personnel to invade Nicaragua from neighboring countries and conduct terror operations against the civilian population. The economy was destroyed, the population murdered and terrorized until finally in 1990 the Nicaraguans surrendered at the polls.

In your third paragraph, you note (correctly) the endemic poverty, high unemployment, and dependence upon a few export commodities. You then engage in incredible sophistry by suggesting that the Caribbean Basin Initiative was a kindly attempt by the U.S. to alleviate the conditions which were a root cause of the "civil wars." That’s pure crap. The primary consequence of this corporate friendly initiative was to provide economic incentives to the transnational corporations to establish sweat shops in the maquiladora export zones. This encouraged U.S. corporations to relocate (or threaten to relocate) offshore to "business friendly" locations and export back to the U.S.. A good deal of international trade is actually internal corporate transfers among their various holdings. Surely you don’t mean to imply that this was a boon to the local economy? As you should be aware, any and all attempts to reform the oligarchies and provide benefits for the majority have been met with U.S. violence. Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, and now Chavez in Venezuela, to name a few obvious examples.
To suggest that we were trying to benefit the people even as our mercenaries engaged in mass-murder is simply incredible.

You mention coffee prices. For how long have the Latin American countries tried to establish rules, procedures and agreements to stabilize coffee prices? For how long has the U.S. opposed and thwarted these efforts? The drop in coffee prices was a direct consequence of the (U.S. controlled) World Bank encouraging and financing Viet Nam to become a coffee exporter. Since it is bad business for producers to create an over supply, we can safely assume that the World Bank intentionally collapsed the market to ensure cheap coffee prices, and for other reasons as well. One of the functions of the World Bank is to keep Third World commodities plentiful and prices low. Yet another example of our deep concern for the well being of our Third World brothers and sisters.

Fortunately, you opine, export diversification saved the day! If it wasn’t for all of those maquiladora sweat shops, what would the poor people do? Congressman McDermott, are you aware that thanks to globalization the wages of these poor people (the numerical majority of the population) have been falling? The whole intent of corporate globalization (including CAFTA) is to create corporate controlled economic structures which will prevent independent economic development anywhere, but particularly in the Third World, which is to be maintained as a world of paupers. Not everyone, of course. The satraps and compradors are doing just fine. Richly rewarded for their service to empire. Please don’t counter with any macro-economic statistical claptrap. All that this would show is that the corporations and oligarches are doing just fine (which was the intent, after all).

I almost gagged on your fourth paragraph where you note significant changes with much more to be accomplished. The obvious inference is that good things have happened, but we can do even better! Is it possible that you consider the immiseration of the majority of the population of these countries a good thing? That the destruction of the local agricultural base, the privatization of health care and of education is good? That hunger, poor health and ignorance are a sound basis for future development? You want to accelerate the process? Why? Why is it good to eliminate any and all political constraints on corporate exploitation and environmental destruction? Who are these agreements going to benefit? Surely not the people of Latin America, who have suffered grievously for many years as a consequence of U.S. intervention and domination.

But wait, a ray of hope. You seem to tentatively oppose the Bush approach to trade agreements because they lack the fig leaf of labor protections. Paper protections, I might add, that are in direct conflict with a core purpose of these corporate driven agreements. Protections that won’t be worth the paper they are written on. You express hope that these agreements can provide an incentive for Central American labor reform. Are you joking? Do you actually believe this? Do Central American labor organizations and progressives oppose these agreements because they’re too stupid to appreciate that Uncle Sam has their best interests at heart?

Getting back to the Central American economies, it is highly instructive to note that as a consequence of IMF structural adjustment programs, a fast growing area of Third World economies are the remittances from friends and relatives in the First World. The World Bank and UN estimate total remittances worldwide at $200-$300 billion per annum. In Haiti, remittances account for almost a quarter of total gross domestic product. This is your idea of economic development? For large numbers of people in Latin America, the two keys to economic survival are remittances and coca production. All of this is a direct consequence of U.S. economic and foreign policy.

I know that this letter is long and strident. So be it. I have reached the point of total disgust with U.S. illegality, immorality, and stupidity in regards to corporate global imperialism. I had hoped that there might be few members of congress who would have the courage to resist the pressures of their corporate constituency and show real leadership in these troubled times. To acknowledge the reality of peak-oil production, global warming and other forms of ecological breakdown, the immorality of Third World subjugation, and the unsustainable nature of our National Security State economy. To take the lead in opposing U.S. militarism, canceling (not "forgiving") the odious Third World debt, getting rid of the World Bank, IMF, WTO, NAFTA, and all other instruments of economic subjugation and control. To fight like hell to get the U.S. to transition to a sustainable peace-time economy. Things which most of the politically active progressives in the 7th district generally support. Things which I had thought you might support.
And then I got your letter. What am I to make of it? That Congressman Jim McDermott is basically a neo-liberal imperialist who occasionally masquerades as a progressive? Say it ain’t so, Jim, say it ain’t so.

Yours disapprovingly,

April 26, 2005

Dear Keith:

Thank you for contacting me about the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). As you know, The Bush Administration launched trade negotiations with Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua in hopes of securing a trade agreement that will lead to increased trade among these countries and ours.

In the 1980s, three of these countries - El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua - endured brutal civil wars. The other two, Costa Rica and Honduras, often were staging grounds for military action. The wars left more 200,000 people dead and more than one million seeking refuge abroad.

Some of the roots of war lay in economic conditions, such as endemic poverty, high unemployment and a heavy national dependence on a few export commodities. In an effort to temper these problems, the U.S., in 1985, created the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI), which reduced tariffs on many products imported from Central America. As a result, CBI countries have significantly diversified their economies. For example, in 1989, coffee represented $105 million of El Salvador's $245 million in total exports to the United States. Today, clothing represents $1.7 billion of El Salvador's $2 billion in exports to the U.S. This growth and diversification has enabled the Salvadoran economy to withstand the record low coffee prices that would have crippled its economy in the 1980s. Today, each Central American country is a peaceful democracy working to integrate their economies with other new world democracies.

While significant changes have occurred in Central America over the last two decades, there is still much more to be accomplished, especially in the area of labor rights. While pursuing free trade agreements with developing countries, our aims shoul include not only opportunities for American businesses, but also development of those principles and labor protections that allow our workforce to compete in foreign markets.

When we encourage developing countries to sell us their goods and services, we can help them expand their economies, create jobs, and raise the living standards of their populations. CBI and other trade preference programs for developing countries have demonstrated this. A well-structured free trade agreement could build upon the progress that resulted from CBI, and provide new opportunities to American firms and exporters, which would help create jobs here at home.

I am concerned that the Bush Administration is taking the wrong approach to CAFTA, as it did with the recent Chile and Singapore free trade agreements, which I opposed. Instead of seeking and promoting greater labor protections for workers in countries with whom we trade, the Administration virtually ignores this concern. I believe its approach is wrong; addressing this critical issue would provide substantial incentives for labor reforms in Central America while ensuring that American workers are not unduly harmed.

While I will reserve a final judgement about CAFTA until the negotiations are finalized and I have had an opportunity to review the agreement thoroughly, I remain dubious about the Administration's philosophy toward international trade, particularly with regard to Central America.

Thank you again for your comments. I will keep them in mind as the 109th congress moves forward.

Sincerely,

Jim McDermott, Member of Congress

THE LEFT (2/21/05)

2005-06-09T10:43:00.000-07:00

I tend to think of myself as being on the left, however, I’m not sure exactly what that means. I have come to believe that many "lefties" misperceive what the designation refers to, erroneously imputing some sort of shared ideology. The reality is that the term "left" is a historical designation referring to the location in the French legislative assembly of various factions. On the "right" were the monarchists, on the "left" was everyone else usually thought to be reformers because of their opposition to the monarchy. That’s it. In its present usage, the "left" refers to widely divergent groups of people and ideological perspectives who, curiously, feel that they have much in common when, in fact, they don’t.

If the term "left" refers to a historical grouping, what can we say about the ideological orientation of "the left." For starters, much of "the left," the communists, Marxists, Stalinists, Leninists and Trotskyites are ideological right-wingers camouflaged by progressive rhetoric. Think about it. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a contradiction in terms. Was the former Soviet Union socialist? Was the National Socialist (Nazi) party socialist? Were Hitler and Stalin a couple of well-meaning lefties? Virtually everyone on the left (but not the right) would agree that Hitler was the ultimate right-winger, but what about Stalin? A one time hero to many so-called lefties, I might add. Sure there were differences between Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union, but there were also a lot of obvious and significant similarities. Similarities which were ignored by the party faithful for far too long. Similarities which were the logical consequence of their authoritarian ideologies and organizational structures, with their strong emphasis on party loyalty and discipline.

I have a real problem with the prevalence of a Marxian perspective in much of the left. I say "Marxian" rather than "Marxist" to refer to those who share a Marxist outlook and bias, but not necessarily an acceptance of Marxist ideology. Those, for example, who are infatuated with class analysis. Or who see capitalism and profits as the source of most social evil. People who do not self-identify as communists or Marxists, yet who quote Marx and Lenin and accept the Marxist framework of anti-capitalist critique. In other words, people who analyze current social reality from a narrow and archaic ideological perspective.

It is not my intent to be overly critical of Karl Marx. He wrote The Communist Manifesto a little over 150 years ago when the Industrial Revolution was in full bloom and most of the workers worked in factories, the very symbol of western industrial power and might. At that point in time, it may have seemed realistic to organize factory workers into a class-conscious group that self-identified as "proletariat" and thereby usurp the capitalist elite. The Marxist elites would then assume power and establish a dictatorship. Out with the oligarches, in with the commissars. Why a dictatorship would be better than an oligarchy is a bit of a mystery to me. Personally, I don’t care for either. My main point, however, is that from an intellectual perspective, Marxist analysis may have seemed somewhat plausible in 1850.

Folks, with over 150 years of relevant historical experience, I am of the opinion that Marxist social analysis is so far removed from reality as to be detrimental to understanding current social organizational dynamics. For starters, the very notion of a class-conscious proletariat (factory workers) rising up to seize power is absurd. Yet, many on the left continue to base their hope for change on organizing the masses who, they believe, when confronted with Lefty Truth, will finally see the light, denounce Fox News, turn off the football game, fold up their flags and march hand-in-hand with their lefty comrades to form cooperatives. Marxist ideology has become a sort of secular religion where the followers engage in mind-numbing ritual incantations of the holy Marxist-Leninist scriptures. The one-hundred plus year old writings of Marx and Lenin are treated as revealed truth rather than outdated insights of questionable validity. Arguments are supported by scripture quoted from the book of Marx. Enough already!

To have any chance at all of achieving our worthy goals, progressives must be insightful and creative. The forces of empire have immense resources. Our one big advantage is our ability to perceive reality for what it is and to act on that knowledge. We must out-think the elites, un-hobbled by ideological constraints. We cannot continue to do the same old thing, to redouble our efforts in the same losing strategy. We need to understand basic social dynamics. Why do most people go along with elite rule? Why do most people accept crude propaganda rather than critically rejecting it? Why are Americans so patriotic? What can we do to counteract the social control mechanisms of our elite run society? We need to understand why society is the way it is, then act creatively to change it to be more like the way it ought to be. The understanding comes first.

There are several critically important points I am trying to make. The first is that "the left" is not an ideologically homogenous group. Attempting to crunch us together into a classical centralized organizational structure is counterproductive, yet, that is the recurring organizational philosophy. The second point is that those who do share at least a minimal intellectual kinship need to somehow communicate with each other to develop a cohesive social analysis and philosophy to guide their actions. Hopefully, there will be many different perspectives and insights. Diversity as strength, not weakness. Finally, we need to emphasize networking ( as opposed to organization building) as a means of coming together on specific issues. People who have significant differences can nonetheless work together on common goals.

Seattle Keith 2/21/05 saskckforseattle@msn.com

ANTI-CAPITALIST MYOPIA (6/6/04)

2005-06-09T10:34:00.000-07:00

As a radical left dissident, I tend to associate with people who are advocates for change. Most of these people would agree that the United States is a capitalist country. Frequently, I perceive an undercurrent of anti-capitalist bias, at least at the rhetorical level.

Although I am anti-capitalist (as I define capitalism), I nonetheless have several problems with what I am seeing and hearing. For starters, I doubt that you could get much agreement on a common definition of capitalism (mine is somewhat unique) , hence, everyone thinks that they are talking about the same thing when in reality significant differences are hidden by conceptual vagueness.

Another problem I have with vague capitalism bashing is that I get the impression that many lefties suffer from the delusion that getting rid of "capitalism" (however defined) will solve most of our problems and usher in some vaguely perceived Golden Age. Capitalism didn’t invent war, empire, slavery, exploitation, subjugation, etc. Simply getting rid of capitalism guarantees nothing.

Additionally, many on the left tend to discuss the issues utilizing a sort of shop worn Marxism. Bourgeois. Unearned rents. Rentier class. Profits are evil. That sort of thing. In short, many seem conceptually stuck in a 150 year old intellectual cul-de-sac of dubious (at best) validity. The problem with this is that it inhibits serious intellectual discussion of social organizational dynamics.

Marxism’s fatal flaw is that it is primarily based upon economic theory. Capitalist economic theory developed in response to the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the rising power of the business/financial elites. At its most fundamental level, it evolved into a complex ideology which rationalizes and justifies the concentration of economic power (money) in the hands of the captains of industry and commerce. This economic power roughly translates into effective social control. Capitalist economic theory serves to facilitate and camouflage this social control.

Marx manipulated standard economic concepts to produce an alternative economic ideology. He hoped to unite the factory workers as a class (proletariat) in order to overthrow the capitalist elites and replace them with a communist dictatorship (of the proletariat, of course). Out with the oligarches, in with the commissars. Like capitalist economic theory, Marxism rationalizes and misrepresents the power relationships of the social system it seeks to justify. Marxism and capitalism have more in common than either would care to admit. Both rely on a vocabulary ill suited to describing or analyzing current social reality.

It’s not just that some of the vocabulary turns many people off, but that the vocabulary itself tends to pigeonhole the thought process. The vocabulary was developed to advance a different version of hierarchical domination and control. To understand what is really going on, we need to develop our own social organizational theory, and to understand the crucial role that money and finance play in modern society. Money is power. Economic power in fluid form. The primary instrument of social control. One cannot even begin to fathom the nature of corporate globalization by talking about worker control of the means of production. Nor can one deal with the reality that imperialism preceded and transcends capitalism by chanting slogans about socialist solidarity. In short, we need to make a conscientious effort to emphasize non-ideological straight-talk. We need more understanding, not ideology masquerading as theory.

Seattle Keith 6/6/04 saskckforseattle@msn.com

FASCIST AMERICA (1/2/05)

2005-06-09T10:20:00.000-07:00

The United States is a fascist nation. The transition to fascism occurred during and immediately following World War II. No, we are not a fascist dictatorship like Germany or Italy was. Rather, we are covertly fascistic. A corporate dominated national security state.

The essence of fascism is governmental control of the economy through the military-industrial complex. Benito Mussolini once said that "Modern fascism should be properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state, military and corporate power." In the U.S., military spending provides the essential government spending which underpins the economy. Also, it provides the subsidized R&D that the high-tech sectors of the economy rely upon. Without massive military spending, the government would have to redirect spending to socially beneficial things (currently unacceptable to the ruling elites) or the economy would crash due to lack of demand.

The Great Depression was a wake-up call to the ruling elites. It became obvious to most of the corporate leadership that, rhetoric aside, advanced capitalism required massive government intervention in the economy. Obvious, direct quasi-socialist intervention could lead to citizen involvement in economic decision making and was totally unacceptable to American economic elites. Fascism, on the other hand, provided indirect control responsive to elite pressure and insulated from popular involvement. Additionally, fascism was mutually congruent with and supportive of empire.

For a country mired in a great depression, economic stimulation through military spending had great appeal. Prior to World War II, both Hitler and Mussolini received considerable favorable press coverage in the U.S.. FDR himself referred to Mussolini as "that fine Italian gentleman." In the 1930s, Henry Ford was honored to receive a medal from Hitler’s Germany. Charles Lindbergh was a frequent guest of the Third Reich, who downplayed the negative aspects of Nazi Germany. Before the war, American business found much to admire in Germany and Italy.

The war itself convinced elite skeptics that a war-driven economy was the way to go. I doubt that they thought of themselves as fascists or would have described the evolving system as fascism. The term fascism is usually used to describe overt fascist dictatorships, not the covert fascism of the national security state the U.S. became. In any event, World War II served to jump start the economy out of the Great Depression. Republicans are fond of saying that the war brought us out of the depression, not Roosevelt’s New Deal. True. And more significant than most people realize.

After the war, the business elites feared a return of the depression if normal demobilization occurred. The spending splurge of the returning troops bought some time as the elites frantically sought ways to justify the military Keynesianism that they had come to depend upon. Thus, the Red Menace was born as Americans were told that it would be suicidal to disarm and leave ourselves defenseless against the ruthless onslaught of International Communism. The onset of the Korean war provided the government with a pretext to rally the public in favor of massive military spending. A permanent war economy became the norm.

The transition to a national security state dovetailed nicely with elite imperial ambitions. After the war, the U.S. waged an unrelenting and successful effort to restore the pre-war conditions of western dominance and Third World subservience and exploitation. The key difference being that the industrial nations would no longer compete and war with each other over who gets to plunder what. Rather, Uncle Sam, acting as planetary mafia don, engaged in non-stop aggression against the entire Third World to keep them in their place and ensure cheap raw materials for the west, and open markets for western manufactures. Uncle Sam enforced order and called the shots, the western allies gave support and got a piece of the action. All of this was sold to the public as defense against communism.

A key to understanding current U.S. foreign policy is to understand the impact of American fascism. It has been said that the business of America is business. Following World War II, it would be more appropriate to say that the business of America is war. Not war against other industrial powers which would be mutually destructive and possibly suicidal, rather, war against some defenseless Third World country, justified by some flimsy pretext with the support of the doctrinal system. War on terror, war on drugs, humanitarian intervention, whatever.

Uncle Sam is always looking for some excuse to get involved in a war, although "war" isn’t accurate when applied to U.S. aggression against the Third World. If a mafia don were to send some goons to beat up some hapless shopkeeper, would you call that a fight? How many millions of Third World people have died because of U.S. imperial interventions? The sad truth is that the last thing our elite rulers want is peace on earth, goodwill to all. Our economy would have to change or collapse, and they don’t want either to occur.

The critically important point is that the massive U.S. military budget is not a response to any military threat, rather, the emphasis on military might leads to U.S. aggression and terrorist retaliation. Our excessive military spending doesn’t buy security, it promotes conflict. And profits for corporate America. It is imperative that we work to dismantle the American empire and roll back the national security state. No easy task with virtually every congressional district receiving significant money from "defense" spending. An essential first step is to relentlessly attack the patriotic, jingoistic mythology which provides the ideological justification for our warmongering insanity.

Seattle Keith 1/2/05 saskckforseattle@msn.com

CAPITALISM (4/3/05)

2005-06-06T18:11:00.000-07:00

Even though we live in what most would agree is a capitalist nation, there seems to be much confusion as to what capitalism is. To a degree, that is understandable. Part of the function of capitalist economic theory is to obscure the power relationships and social organizational dynamics behind a facade of self-serving ideology. The essence of capitalism is the control of society by the economic elites. Money (capital) rules.

Giant corporations and the super-rich constitute an oligarchy which exercises effective social control both through their domination of economic decision making and through their indirect control of our totally corrupt political system. It is this unwholesome concentration of economic power which is the essence of capitalist control. Talk about ownership of the means of production is an archaic misrepresentation of reality. It’s the money.

In discussing social organizational reality, we must at all times be aware of the social dynamics of power. When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, did they usher in a worker’s paradise? Of course not. They consolidated their power and ruled through centralized bureaucratic control, justified by ideological misrepresentations of reality (dictatorship of the proletariat, etc). The main point is that the concentration of power in any form is the key problem to be dealt with in trying to transform any society from the way it is to be more like the way it ought to be. In our society, money is the key. It is pointless to advocate replacing a Fat Cat with a Fat Bureaucrat, and cooperatives have only limited application. We need to clear our minds of ideological baggage in order to understand and deal with the consequences of organizational hierarchy.

One of the critical features of capitalism is the use of market control mechanisms to achieve efficient social control. The giant corporations have created a system whereby the average person needs to accommodate himself to powerful corporate controlled market forces in order to survive. The market has expanded to the point where virtually every adult must work for wages to obtain the money to buy the essentials of life. There is nothing wrong with working for wages, however, the nature of our economy is that most are forced to take whatever employment they can get. The corporations and the rich decide whether there will be a demand for teachers or a demand for munitions workers. The decisions which profoundly effect our economic well-being and quality of life are made in corporate boardrooms and most of us have no say and little choice but to go along.

The control of the flow of money is a remarkably efficient means of social control. Most people respond to monetary inducement so unthinkingly that the social control aspects of monetary power go unnoticed. The attention usually falls on governmental actions (strongly influenced by the economic elites) while our corporate rulers wheel and deal in the shadows, the true nature of our political economy largely unexamined and misunderstood.

What to do? In theory, the transition from a corporate-capitalist controlled society to a more wholesome, balanced and more or less democratic society is fairly straight-forward (implementation is another story). The two keys are 1) governmental control of the financial system and 2) breaking up concentrated economic power. In regards to the second item, it should be noted that we have been relentlessly moving in the opposite direction for at least the last fifty years. The ongoing reduction in taxation on the corporations and super-rich have concentrated economic power as never before. The net effect has been the creation of a transnational corporate oligarchy controlled by the wealthy elite.

The way to break up concentrated economic power is through taxation. We need realistically progressive taxation on income and accumulated wealth for individuals and organizations (dealing with non-profit organizations may be difficult). The intent is to drastically reduce the concentration of economic power under elite control. In the case of corporations, it would tend to make massive size uneconomic, hence, to shrink the size of the big corporations and spread the wealth around. Many more smaller businesses competing is better than a few large businesses dominating. Oligarchy requires sufficiently small numbers to permit efficient coordination and control.

This is not a return to the past where many small capitalists vigorously engaged in cutthroat competition. That would be a disaster. Rather, it is a means to wrest the political system from the control of concentrated corporate and financial power. In any advanced industrial economy, the government plays an active role, however, now it would be open and above board and subject to at least some democratic decision making. It would not be difficult to take appropriate measures to ameliorate any adverse consequences to increased local business competition. This would be far preferable to the current race to the bottom caused by corporate globalization. When businessmen rule, society suffers.

In addition to dis-empowering the monster corporations and super-rich through taxes, we need to empower the people through income redistribution and entitlements. Poor people need more money to spend and we all need universal health care. The minimum wage needs to be significantly increased. Higher education should be free and widely available. The social safety net needs to be expanded and strengthened, not destroyed. In short, an economic bill of rights to give meaning to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As for control of the financial system, there is simply no way that private control of the fundamental driving force of social control (money) is going to facilitate socially desirable, sustainable development. For starters, banks in competition with other banks need to offer attractive rates of return to depositors which requires attractive rates of return on loans. This, in turn, requires investing in market friendly activities which reinforce market domination and control, and also in the more lucrative socially dysfunctional types of business: oil exploration, big dams, roads, airports, luxury hotels, shopping malls, financial speculation, money laundering, etc. Allowing private control of the economy for private gain is insane. Private business is fine, but overall control of the political economy must be in the public domain through the political system.

In order to implement these or any other socially beneficial changes it will be necessary to break free from the tyranny of global capital. All of the financial and trade agreements are designed to facilitate global economic domination and control by the economic elites. This unrestricted private financial intrusion into local economies renders popular democratic economic reform impossible. The cross-border flow of money needs to be severely restricted and controlled.

Also, international trade, far from being the key to universal prosperity, is another means of economic domination and social control. In the international market, as everywhere else, the economically powerful dominate the economically weak. International market interdependencies ensnare the Third World in a web of First World financial and corporate control. Control, I might add, that is backed by US military power, ready to punish weak and defenseless nations that resist playing by our rules. Additionally, the global trade in goods requires massive use of fossil fuels and is inherently anti-environmental. To the greatest degree possible, international trade should be discouraged and local autonomy encouraged.

A final point needs to be emphasized. In any society, the political system needs to be the overarching system of coordination and control. In our society, the economic system has totally overwhelmed the political system with disastrous consequences. That needs to be corrected. However, it is essential to keep in mind that the government and the political system are not synonymous. Even as we use the political system to gain control of the economic system through financial control, taxation and economic rights, we need to guard against giving governmental officials too much discretionary power. We need a political system which safeguards against all forms of concentrated power.

In conclusion, the essence of capitalism is the rule of money. The nature of capitalism is that the social impacts of money making activities are ignored as capitalists engage in a kind of economic warfare (competition) to increase their power (money). The tendency is for economic power to become ever more concentrated, and for oligarchic social control in which the elites intentionally dis-empower the citizenry economically and politically in order to consolidate and protect their power and privilege. The consequence is a highly dysfunctional society with a strong emphasis on the exploitation of human weakness for gain. For the majority this means a lack of development of their human potential and the degrading of their quality of life. The system seems to gravitate towards a form of National Security State (fascism), and serious social and environmental problems are not dealt with because the solutions would impinge upon elite power. Our long term goal should be the transformation of society away from the oligarchic rule of capital into a more balanced society of citizen empowerment and corporate/elite dis-empowerment that emphasizes the sustainable development of human potential rather than the unsustainable exploitation of human weakness.

Seattle Keith 4/3/05 saskckforseattle@msn.com

No Empire (7/30/04)

2005-06-01T21:27:00.000-07:00

The movement which began in opposition to the conquest of Iraq now continues in opposition to the occupation of Iraq. There is an awareness within the movement that Iraq is not an isolated incident and that the movement needs to address the ongoing problem of U.S. militarism. Additionally, there is a sense of the need to deal with other peace and justice issues not directly related to Iraq. These concerns need to be linked conceptually.

Structurally, all of these problems are manifestations of empire. The United States has a military presence in 153 of the 189 U.N. members, for a total of 725 overseas bases. That’s not defense, that’s empire! Additionally, over half of the world’s population live in countries whose economies are more or less run by the (U.S. controlled) World Bank and IMF. Further manifestations of empire.

Up until recently, the American empire was something of a stealth empire to most Americans. The cold war and official rhetoric provided semi-plausible pretexts for U.S. military interventionism and massive military budgets. Following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, however, the barely restrained use of military force (and threat of force) against defenseless Third World countries (justified by flimsy pretexts) has created a situation where the reality of empire is becoming obvious for all to see. This is the Achilles heel of the American empire. The American people are not likely to support Imperial wars of conquest. Once they are forced to accept reality for what it is, voluntary support for the system will collapse.

Aye, there’s the rub. Getting the American people to recognize reality in the face of massive propaganda to the contrary. Honest discussion is drowned out by the din of hundreds of media flacks, and the constant use of patriotic jingoism. Yet, if not now, when? Never has the disconnect between reality and mythology been greater. Now is the time to exploit that schism to shatter the mythology. Once people accept that America is an empire, their perception of reality will profoundly shift.

Imagery and vocabulary are critical. There is no such thing as a good empire. Empires don’t liberate, they conquer and occupy, subjugate and exploit, kill and terrorize. We don’t have a defense budget, we have a military budget. We are lied to by the corporate media. Our government mostly serves the interests of the corporate elite, whose control over the economy roughly translates into effective social control. The IMF and World Bank serve the interests of the First World corporations. The WTO, NAFTA, etc. are attempts to institutionalize world-wide corporate rule. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is an attempt to establish direct U.S. control over the Middle East oil reserves. Also, to send a message to other Third World countries to get in line and stay in line or else. Brutal Imperial aggression which all citizens have an obligation to resist.

An essential component of resisting empire is to identify the various manifestations of empire as examples of Imperial aggression, domination and control. We need to link the specific problem with the overall theme. END THE OCCUPATION and NO EMPIRE. CLOSE THE S.O.A. and NO EMPIRE. NO SPACE WEAPONS and NO EMPIRE, etc. All of these need to be visually linked through posters, bumper stickers, etc. Right now the emphasis should be END THE OCCUPATION and NO EMPIRE. We need to be creative in finding ways to break through the propaganda and discredit the mythology.

While ending the occupation of Iraq is a critically important part of opposition to empire, the end of the occupation would not signal an end to progressive attempts to roll back empire. No doubt opinions would vary as to post occupation priorities, however, I think that slashing military spending and dismantling the neo-liberal instruments of economic domination and control (IMF, WORLD BANK, WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, etc) are essential priorities. The key is to stay focused on dismantling the structural components of the American empire.

Stopping and dismantling empire will require a frontal assault on official mythology and propaganda. This can only be carried out through direct communication. Posters, bumper stickers, leaflets, whatever. The corporate mass media is an instrument of elite propaganda. Talk of media reform is a pipe dream, and a waste of time and resources. We need to find creative ways to bypass the media and, hopefully, discredit them as well. The intent is to create a network of people who are opposed to an American empire, and who share a fundamental belief in peace and justice. This could include considerable diversity of political perspective. The core unifier would be fundamental decency and opposition to empire.

Seattle Keith 7/30/04 saskckforseattle@msn.com