Sunday, March 26, 2006

Rogue States and Phony Debates

By

Read full article...

Posted 03/26 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. “I am so tired of this phony debate. The employees of the U.S. government don’t have the right to kill one more person, commit one more kidnapping or act of torture against the people of Iraq—or to spend one more taxed dollar doing so either. No right. Is that not simple enough?”

    I like Scott Horton’s statement except that I would shift some of the blame to the citizens. Blaming only the government implies that “we” are all free of any responsibility. I would put it this way, “The best way to leave Iraq is just to leave.” Maybe the problem is that there is not enough testosterone in the USA to accept what the rest of the world knew all along. Accepting the “We told you so” admonitions from the rest of the world takes a bit of courage. Very few members of congress have admitted their mistake in voting for the war.
    Also, even after the latest atrocities, the executions of the 11 civilians (including a 6 month old baby), where is the outrage? Will anyone ever be held accountable? These outrageous slaughters of civilians have become acceptable. That is what we do and that is what we have become. Most in the USA care more about what’s for dinner tonight that the fact that their tax dollars just blew the head off of a 6 month old.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  03/26  at  11:57 AM

  2. I am, to some extent, with Katrina on this.

    Milosovevic is Hitler!

    No, wait, it’s Saddam Hussein.

    And so it goes. Guess what?

    Hitler was Hitler.

    (That said, as far as I am concerned, Katrina slipped up at the end there when she chastised Paglia for equating that what’s-his-bitch snitch for ipodding Bennish; I thought that was rather Hitlerjugendlich of the boy.)

    I am (probably) slate.com’s primo lefty lurker. There, I see intelligent liberals causally refer to neocon-Republicans as “Nazis”.

    No. They are not actually Nazis. Neo-nazis qualify. Neocons do not. (See my quoting Alan Moore on Mark’s review of “V for Vendetta” for the key point on “racial purity” as regards honest-to-goodness fascism. Sure, some Republicans are a bit racist. However, it may be true that some would-be anarchists lug that albatross [Wallerstein] around their necks themselves.)

    However, I do think that the US (and apparently the UK) is hell-bound for some sort of friendly fascist, “market state” inspired shitstem.

    I mean, what’s to say? Alexander Cockburn just said it (about the Dems).

    “They’ll be drawing up Patriot Act 3, plus new national ID cards and street cameras on every street corner, just like they’re installing in the UK.”

    Street cameras? Oh, yeah. As I understand things, they are doing in Chicago now too.

    My only point is I, too, mostly agree with KVH: all these comparisons to old-school dictators are not particularly helpful; but comparing the societies and their political tactics is.

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  03/26  at  07:37 PM

  3. I’ll add, I do think that that shitstem in question does seem to have a bit of a fascist tone.

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  03/26  at  07:45 PM

  4. In response to #1 the question is so what’s new.  This is the reality of the United States.  This country was found on violence and racist genocide.  This is all part of U.S. history. Once we understand this then we should understand that such violence is not surprising.

    Many liberals are hypocrites who supported or kept quite when Clinton used sanction to starve 6 Mo. old Iraqi children.  Bush is Clinton only more blunt.

    Also America is an insular nation and a very indoctrinated nation.  Most U.S. citizens do not control the media and cannot see beyond what they are told anyway.  And many citizens are trying to survive themselves exacerbating the insularity.

    I think it would more constructive to offer analysis rather than engaging in reactionary “blame the victim” rhetoric upon those who are atomized, ignorant, and powerless.  Constructive engagement and dialogue that will build solidarity is badly needed in the U.S.

    Posted by Deadbeat from skid row  on  03/27  at  02:02 AM

  5. Deadbeat...We are all on skid row. I agree with almost all that you say here. “Bush is Clinton only more blunt.” That is a great line.

    You Say, “...Constructive engagement and dialogue that will build solidarity is badly needed in the U.S.” The first step in that process would be to “blame the victim” IF the victim is also the perpetrator of an atrocity. An accurate assessment, of exactly who is responsible for how much, is needed. Pretending that all of the responsibility falls upon a small number of elites is counter-productive for many reasons. One of which is that so far we have not been able to change “them”. “They” have too much to gain by keeping things as they are. Changing those whom you refer to as “victims” might be possible. “Constructive engagement” could apply here because it could be demonstrated how “victims” could personally benefit from change.

    You seem to be saying that it is permissible for the poor from the USA to slaughter the poor in other countries. Geography is not a justification for murder.

    It seems that your argument is calling for a separation between a human and his actions. I am calling for personal responsibility for ones own actions. Your argument could be used to exonerate Clinton/Bush.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  03/27  at  09:24 AM

  6. Deadbeat:

    Bush is Clinton only more blunt.

    Would you also say that neconservatism is openly militant neoliberalism? Or would you consider that too much of a generalization?

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  03/27  at  10:40 AM
  7. Would you also say that neconservatism is openly militant neoliberalism? Or would you consider that too much of a generalization?

    I’m not sure what you mean by “militant”.  I see militeristic and militant having two different political connotations.  For example Stokely Carmichael was a militant but not militaristic.

    Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really in my opinion the same thing.  There’s really no difference and the designations only lead to confusion.  The interesting consideration is what you see been the so-called neo-conservatives and the so-called paleo-conservatives.

    What makes the neo-cons difference is their origins among reactionary Jewish leftist who have been able to intertwine their adherance to capitalism and zionism and their desire for acceptance into the “WASP” system.  The confusion lies with the notion that Bush, Chaney, Rice, and Rumsfeld are neo-conservatives they are not but the ideology of neoconservatism has been able to interwine itself with the goals of American Empire and there-in lies the confusion.

    Paleo-conservatives are the “America First” they encompass xenophobes and isolationist.  Both neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives support capitalism and therefore was able to work in alliance to defeat the left.  Neo-conservative (as former leftist) usefulness especially to the elites was their understanding of how to debate and defeat the left on the intellectual stage.  This coalition between the neo-cons and paleo-cons came when the cold war ended. 

    The origins of neo-cons came especally when Israel defeated Egypt who was when Nasser was in charge leaning toward the Soviet orbit.  Isreal to the paleocons was seen as a cold war ally.  However the left, especially radical blacks saw affinity with Palestinian oppression and oppression of people of color around the world.  This is what help to move the neo-cons toward the paleo-cons and their entry and acceptance into the establishment.  The brillance of the neo-cons was to use zionism to forment Jewish identity around the state of Isreal that help to advance western hegemony over Arab states that was leaning towards the Soviets.

    By the end of the cold war paleocons questioned whether Israel was still a useful ally.  This is the origins of the rift that we now see on the right. 

    However neo-cons play on both parties as the Democrats stance on Isreal is no different from the Republicans.  Project for a new American Century was useful as a way to win support among Jewish donors (to split the Democrats) and to conceal the elites empire building agenda.

    As you can see the notion of neo-con vs neo-libs is a false argument because both groups supports capitalism and favor an economy that benefits the rich elites.  Therefore is not worthwhile analysing.  What is needed is anti-capitalist (or Marxist) analysis to really explain how to resolve this crisis.

    Posted by Deadbeat from Riker's Island  on  04/04  at  03:57 PM

  8. Of course I am a Marxist.

    Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really in my opinion the same thing.  There’s really no difference and the designations only lead to confusion.

    That’s what I think: they are the basically the same.

    I might term neoconservatives “militant” only because they are more open about using armed force to enforce U.S. foreign policy.

    But yeah, there is no real difference here.

    And as you pointed out, neither is there a big difference between Bush and Clinton. If you’ve looked at Bobbit’s book ‘The Shield of Achilles’ (a paean to the imperial ‘market state’) you may remember a chapter comparing the strikingly similar rhetoric employed by both G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Of course, whenever I mention this book, I feel obligated to refer people to Gopal Balakrishnan’s take on it in NLR

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  04/04  at  06:46 PM

  9. Let not forget that Clinton used the military to distroy Yugoslavia and from your definition I’m getting the impression that Clinton represents a neoliberal and Bush a neoconservative.  What I attempted to explain is the complex nature of what passes for neo-conservative and to do so you really must carefully analyse the right.

    Bush passed CAFTA and Clinton passed NAFTA so on economic policies they are exactly the same.  The difference was that Clinton “balanced” the budget but that is a farce.  Clinton budget was heavily reactionary as he maintained large level of military spending and increase spending on incarceration and the police while he repealed Welfare.  The idea was while Clinton raised the top tax rate he did not redistribute the money to the needy and working class.  The bankers got the money in the form of debt reduction as much of the U.S. debt is to pay for past military expenditures.

    Also Clinton attempted to privatize Social Security.  Robert Reich deceptively used Great Depression growth rates to make it appear that Social Security was going bankrupt and was in crisis.  What prevented the privatization scheme from going through was that Clinton was fighting for his political life because of the Lewinsky scandal.  Thus as you can see the Democrats as well as the Republican desire to rollback Social Security because they do not want to disburse the trust fund to the populase.  They want that money for their own nefarious purposes.

    Posted by Deadbeat from Folsom  on  04/04  at  07:41 PM

  10. Let’s try this again.

    As you can see the notion of neo-con vs neo-libs is a false argument because both groups supports capitalism and favor an economy that benefits the rich elites.  Therefore is not worthwhile analysing.  What is needed is anti-capitalist (or Marxist) analysis to really explain how to resolve this crisis.

    I did not particularly need that pointed out, thank you.

    In all seriousness, my personal, politics could be summarized as advocating the immediate expropriation of the plutocrats.

    Again, I do not see much of a difference between these two kinds of “neos”. If I think neolibs and neocons are basically the same, and I agree that Bush and Clinton are very similar, then why should I be keen to label Bush as a neocon or Clinton as a neolib?

    I think they are agents of the plutocracy, commanders-in-chief of “bands of armed men”.

    All I asked was whether or not you thought of these “neos”. And I thank you for your clarification.

    Naturally, I am aware that Clinton bombed Yugoslavia. I live in Greece. As far as I am concerned, Clinton started a war in Europe. The main political difference between the bombing of Yugoslavia (no UN mandate), and Iraq (no UN mandate), is that, because of the “human rights” arguments, Clinton had the blessing of “the international community”, whereas this war does not.

    Although I cannot really agree with him about Yugoslavia here, I still appreciate Zizek’s musings.

    To the horror of many leftists, even I did show some understanding for the NATO bombing of ex-Yugoslavia. Sorry, but this bombing did stop a terrible conflict. Some kind of humanitarian effort was perceivable, and the action had some kind of international legitimacy. Since then, a whole series of shifts threw things into a different perspective. One of the key events was the American dismissal of the Hague International Court. Although it may appear just a minor judicial matter, it inscribed itself into people’s consciousness. And with Iraq, the U.S. wanted to do it alone. It was absolutely clear already before the war that all the official justifications - the al-Qaeda connection, the mythical status of the weapons of mass destruction - did not work. (Emphasis added)

    As for Bush’s and Clinton’s similar economic policies, I do not disagree with you. These policies are the same.

    I do think the PNAC neoconservatives are those Wallerstein described thusly:

    The hawks around George W. Bush believed the United States had been in a slow decline for at least thirty years. Their remedy called for the United States to flex its considerable military muscle, abandon all pretense of multilateral consultations with hesitant and weak allies, and proceed to intimidate both friends and enemies alike.
    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  04/04  at  08:59 PM

  11. When I say I do not agree with Zizek about Yugoslavia, it’s because I think that war was totally unnecessary.

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  04/04  at  09:09 PM

  12. Rosemarie in #6, I feel your pain grin

    But seriously I know you’re angry and anger can go in two direction: enmity or analysis. For example divorce made me homeless and deprived me of my liberties.  I could respond with enmity toward all feminist and join reactionary “men/father’s right” groups or analyse the situtation and take a Marxist approach to the issue and propose solutions that will unify me with *working class* feminist whose approach challenge the mainstream notions of bourgeois women.  The point is I can be angry and blame “women” for my plight or blame and fight the system. 

    You seem to be saying that it is permissible for the poor from the USA to slaughter the poor in other countries. Geography is not a justification for murder.

    I never made such a statement or imply any such thing and but I am not surprise that you are making such an attribution.  What your statement reflect, Rosemarie, is your own personal frustrations with the American people’s ignorance and indoctrination.  This is why ANALYSIS is necessary.  ANALYSIS is the centerpiece of Marxism.  What I would suggest is that you take a little time out from your writings and musings and STUDY some Marx and his comptemporaries or take a course on Marxism.  A good place to start would be Louis Proyect website and blog.

    Posted by Deadbeat from Skid Row  on  04/04  at  09:13 PM

  13. Theo,

    Thanks for the clarification.  My apologies if I misinterpreted your question to me.  Clearly I didn’t mean to insult you in any way.

    I also thank you for the book references.  To be honest I don’t have the time presently to read too many books.  I have read Chomsky of course, Alexander Cockburn, Michael Pirenti, Manning Marable, and spent time reading books on economics.  Much of my current perspective has been a slow process from Liberalism to what I would say is now Marxist (anti-capitalist).  Much of my knowledge of Marxism has come from the Internet because it is the only analysis that ties it all together.  You are right when you say plutocracy.  Marxism doesn’t shy or sugar coat this.

    All I asked was whether or not you thought of these “neos”. And I thank you for your clarification.

    I guess I went over the top grin

    Thanks,
    DB

    Posted by Deadbeat from Skid Row  on  04/04  at  09:28 PM

  14. No insult taken here, I enjoyed reading your responses. You may not want to read Bobbit at all. The book weighs about 60 pounds and isn’t particularly good. It’s worthwhile to get a grip on how the American empire sees itself (Bobbit used to head the NSA).

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  04/04  at  09:44 PM
    15. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Athlete as Role Model: Remembering Baseball Maverick Curt Flood

    Previous entry: V for Vendetta

    [ads]

    Support Press Action