Press Action

Sunday, December 12, 2004

The Far Left Takes on the Far Right: An Open Letter to Patrick J. Buchanan

By Rosemarie Jackowski

Read full article...

Posted 12/12 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

Racial undertones? It’s flat out racist, and I’m astonished Buchanan would be so open about it. As to your query Rosemarie that “How could anyone be opposed to equitable distribution of the world’s wealth?”, with all due respect, which is very much, it is a rather naive assumption of those of wealth and privilege.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/12 at 07:10 PM

In fairness to Buchanan, it is likely that he is acting here, as he often does - (many people believe he was Deep Throat) as a provocateur, against the interests of the ultra-right. By brazenly declaring this racist concept, he reveals it for what it is, and he is not wrong about how India and China will overtake the US as world powers. Before we go and welcome this, Buchanan may be saying, in his own way, how Capital (a word he doesn’t use) has sold out American manufacturing, etc. - and would love to see cheap labour countries with strong authoritarian states lead the world. Capital is far more pro-China than pro-Taiwan, for example, see the recent elections in Taiwan. The “Empire/Multitude” model is the best way to understand the conundrum here.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/12 at 09:03 PM

What I mean is that Empire (and its analogue, multitude) are fluid, not fixed at all in terms of geopolitics or even geo-spatial reality. In many ways it is in the interest of Empire (capital) to pose false conundrums and bugaboos that turn into ‘damned if you etc.’ situations. On one hand the United States is a horrendous world leader, an another, China would not at all be much different, and perhaps more belligerent, on the third, there is no “UN” to speak of, beyond an under-powered international organization that encompasses fights between segments of empire and multitude. The trick to seeing these things correctly, in my opinion, is to look beyond geo-politics as well as economics, and exercis a reverse class analysis. Capital acts exactly the way a rational actor would act, with all possible information about possible permutations, ec.

What could be the most perfect situation for capital than one in which it is assumed it is personified by one node of empire, when it actually is personified by another, which could not be that personification without the first personification’s debt. Meanwhile, the assumed personification is encouraged to act in a manner that objectively disempowers it, because it serves a purpose of the negative Stalinist-Capitalist synthesis that exists in China as much as neoconservative ideology. Or to put it more simply, they know they’re selling out America to China, but it isn’t so much China. China is the best possible model, in the minds of most capitalists, since it is highly authoritarian and encourages mass consumption, while controlling capital flows in a manner that on one level may seem protective of its state, but to the more discerning (bond market) capitalist, is actually better for their interests, no pun intended. Though he is a supply sider, the stuff on this issue at Jude Wanniski’s website is quite informative.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/12 at 11:45 PM

Tracy, I knew that someone would notice that I was going easy on Buchanan. I did it for several reasons. 1. I think that Buchanan is a little bit different from the rest of those on his end of the political spectrum. I think that he is genuine in his belief system. I understand how people who are from his era wound up believing what they do. They grew up at a time when racism was everywhere in the culture. It was almost universally accepted. This was the era in which “Little Black Sambo” was in most of the readers used in grade school. That does not justify any racial comment but it explains why ti happens. Also, I would guess that he wishes that he could take that statement back. Every writer has those “oh,no” moments, the next day. 2. Also, Buchanan, seems to not fit the mold of the other right wing screamers who seem to be looking for fame and fortune. I think that Buchanan is a sincere, patiotic nationalist. Wrong, but sincere. 3. I also think that we should be engaging those on the far right in real issue oriented debate. That never happens. We just talk to ourselves and that does not accomplish much. I hope that someday P.B. will be willing to have that debate. 4. Also P.B. is respectful of Nader and also is one of the few on the right to mention civilian Iraqi deaths (Antiwar.com August 2) To sum up my position...I disagree with P.B. about 90% of the time but think that it would be possible to have a meaningful discussion with him. Thanks for the comments, Tracy and Jordy.....How can we get a real discussion going with the far right? We have to do it with, or through them...they control the media. Any ideas?

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 12/13 at 02:32 PM

On the scale of populism, I agree with those who say that PB is a right-sided populist. There is such an animal, you know. Not all populists take up residence to the left.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/13 at 03:03 PM

Re. the above…

“If fascism came to America, it would be on a program of Americanism.” - Huey P. Long

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/083.html

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/13 at 03:21 PM

I think the weight of a member state’s vote should be *proportional* to the number and efficacy of the weapon systems of that nation.

Posted by R.B. Phillips from Westford, Massachusetts USA on 12/13 at 03:47 PM

Distribute wealth on a per-capita basis? This was already attempted, the results disastrous. Thank God the Soviet Union is no more. How about paying people for services rendered? If I spend my life working hard, earning degrees, and putting in the long hours to become a successful businessman, why should I be forced to distribute my hard-earned money to someone who lives with their parents and sits at home all day playing Nintendo?

The same principle applies to the (incredibly corrupt) U.N. Why should a country which has worked hard and made right choices voluntarily subjugate itself to a comittee of tyrants?

Just a quick question for the editor: you want to redistribute wealth so badly, how much did you donate to charity last year as a percentage of your income?

I’m all for making the world a better place, but we can’t do that by forcibly taking money from the wealthy and giving it away. People who are continually given handouts rather than working to earn what they need quickly lose their dignity. So here’s a vote for teaching others to fish, and spending what money needs to be spent to teach them, but not just handing them a net full of salmon each week.

Oh, and the U.N.? Let’s just pull out and stop wasting money on it. The U.N. is as irrelevant as it is corrupt.

Posted by T.A. Bonifield from Portland, OR on 12/13 at 04:19 PM

To T.A.B. from Portland:

Your entire comment assumes Americans are the only people in the world that actually work. But your Nintendo example shows just how little you know about the real state of the world.

A farmer, without the high tech skills to use a typewriter much less Nintendo, who just lost his land due to famine, drought, or war would happily go back to working the land after the rains come back or the war ends… if only he could make enough money growing crops to feed his family - except he can’t, thanks to cheap, government subsidized US exports flooding his markets. That or where his farm used to be now has so many landmines that a dog can’t poop without getting blown up.

You can’t apply the “hand up, not handout” principle of charity when the recipients all have their hands chopped off by some rebel militia.

The problem with middle/upper class America is that we (yes, I’m middle class) are so comfortable in our own little mass-produced bubbles that we think the only problems facing the world is whether our pick for The Apprentice will get fired or not.

Posted by WL from NYC on 12/13 at 05:37 PM

As opposed to a world of laissez faire captialism and free market fundamentalism in which any country which even hints at organizing its society so as to meet the needs of its people rather than corporate multinationals, is swiftly subject to the unmitigated wrath of the US government in the form of the CIA, USAID, and every secret compartment of that government in the most murderous and merciless repression - most recently in Venezuela, Haiti, Iraq, Colombia, and who knows where all, and in a long line of interventions as documented in William Blum’s book Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since WWII. Just so you get a sense of this, without me having to wax on in excruciating verbosity, the United STates has over 400 foreign military bases scattered around the globe. Who is second with how many? Answer: No other government has a single foreign military base.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/13 at 05:39 PM

A discussion with the populist right can and should be based on two values in which the right seems to hold dear, the first is a fear - expressed in economic nationalism - but a rational fear nonetheless, that the USA is going to be “lost” to globalization. Anyone who has travelled through the US sees this happening. In my mind, the fault of the populist right analysis in this regard is that they are still willing to believe in “national capitalism,” such as in pre-Nixon America - not dissimilar, actually, to Social Democrats who truly believe that everything would all be good if not for the loss of the welfare state. In truth, it should be explained that both of these phenomoneons, the switch from Keynes to Friedman, so to speak, and the switch from American industry to international industry, is a result of the globalization and free flow of global capital - but to a Marxist, or any other anti-capitalist, this is inherent in capitalism.

The second is to acknowledge how inefficient the old Soviet model was. not in terms of egalitarianism but in terms of wealth. Right wingers are very into “efficiency” and wealth production. To an extent, they are truer Marxists than any Marxists in that they acknowledge the importance of consumption to the masses. Too many Marxists and anti-capitalists in general have talked a lot about “consumerism” which simply won’t fly. It is true that consumerism, or in Chomskys appropriate term, “fashionable consumption” is part of the system, but it is also true that people live diversity of (non-chintzy? non-Wal-Martish?) consumer goods. In this regard, point to the Yugoslav model, before the death of Tito and the invasion by the IMF. Though I disagree with its conclusions, Parecon is another step towards this - too many leftists are old-style state-socialists. At the very least, both of these arrangements have not succeeded to produce wealth, or equality.

Finally, it can be acknowledged that the only problem with the right wing analysis of imperialism is that it places too much emphasis on individual actors and power politics and movements (neocons, for example) and too little on the demands of capital. But right wingers seem to be truly opposed to war, often for the same moral reasons that we are. Emphasizing shared interest in “peace” is good enough for starters - and of course it should be noted that “The Sorrows of Empire” got a far better review in American Conservative than it did in the Nation.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/13 at 06:39 PM

Tracy McLellan said:
“United STates has over 400 foreign military bases scattered around the globe. Who is second with how many? Answer: No other government has a single foreign military base.”

This is a disingenious bit of information, and false at that. The US has foreign military bases because the host countries permit them. The existence of such bases is not in fact proof that the US is fighting a war against ‘democracy’. Furthermore, Russia still maintains military bases in my beloved Georgia, despite having agreed to pull them down before 2001 (the excuse of the Russians being that they don’t have the funds to close them down!). Also, Russian has a strong military presence in Central Asia, including an Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan and an motorized division in Tajikistan that was given ‘base’ status last year I believe.

WL said:
“Your entire comment assumes Americans are the only people in the world that actually work. But your Nintendo example shows just how little you know about the real state of the world.”

On the contrary, nothing in the post you targeted implied that Americans are the only workers. His analogy--his hard-earned money being taken from his to give to someone not trying to work--is valid, even if obviously not universally-applicable (and obviously was not meant to imply that the recipients of such money in war-torn countries are sitting around playing Nintendo). The main point is this: if it is wrong for me to drag you into a back alley at gunpoint, take your money, and give it to my unemployed brother, it is logically also wrong when government does the same thing under the guise of promoting equality. I’m not a strong advocate of extensive welfare within America for Americans, but I am flat-out opposed to taking money forcibly from Americans to hand out to other countries. After all, an American receiving a payment may indeed get back on his feet, which helps America, but giving a US payment to the poor in Georgia (ex-USSR) will only help Georgia.

Also, your universal claim that foreign farmers can’t live because the US is subsidizing export floods and that rebel militias are chopping off hands left and right are points that could be referenced to show “just how little you know about the real state of the world.”

America’s government is not the cause of the world’s problems, and America’s money is not the answer to the world’s problems.

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/13 at 10:51 PM

rosemarie jackowski said:
“The weight of a member state’s vote could be inversely proportional to the number of weapon systems of that nation. That system would give nations that lack military power increased voting power. There are two advantages to that proposal. It would discourage militarization and also be one step toward global equity.”

This is patently absurd, as you argue for equality by demanding that the weak countries should be given dominance over the strong countries. Okay, if we do this and the International Criminal Court chooses to punish a strong country, who will execute the punishment? The dominant countries--who don’t have the tools to enforce a judgment? Or maybe the powerful countries, who are, on the basis of military strength alone, demonized by the new ruling system? Clearly, this is a no-brainer--the strong countries will withdraw from the organization and pay no heed to the court in the first place, much less fear the punishments coming from the hands of Sierra Leone and Belize. Your proposal is in the same vein as “hey, you don’t have a job and aren’t contributing to society right now, so you get ten votes in the next election. But the guy that owns that store and employs 10 full-time workers, he has too much money and therefore he gets only half a vote at the next election. We have to balance out the power!”

“How could anyone be opposed to equitable distribution of the world’s wealth?”

I assume you are not referring to voluntary charitable contributions but rather forcible government seizure. How can you justify forcibly taking people’s assets without first getting their permission? Isn’t that theft? Remember, Americans living at the US poverty line would still lose money to bring everyone on par.

On the other hand, if you voluntarily give your own money to help someone somewhere else, good for you and I support it 100%. My charity needs people like you. But I will not demand the seizure of my neighbor’s assets so my charity can help kids in the streets of Batumi.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. You have a good heart it seems, but I dispute your preferred methods.

HHS

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/13 at 11:11 PM

To me, the whole notion of charity seems skewed to benefit the consciences of those who have. Somehow, I can’t help but feel that those who don’t have don’t need our charity. What they need, instead, is us treating them as equal heirs to what belongs to all of us.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/13 at 11:57 PM

you are an absolute lunatic. i wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for buchanan to thank you for your ‘being easy on him’. you liberals need to grow up. saving the world from itself _IS_ detrimental to the well being of the United States. someone has to lead the world and we are the best bet.

Posted by mikeymike from at home on 12/14 at 12:01 AM

To HHS: I don’t think at this stage in the development debate anyone (not even George Soros or Bill Gates or Ted Turner) is calling for “taking money forcibly from Americans to hand out to other countries”. First, the amount the US currently doles out in foreign aid is microscopic compared to the amount Congress spends every year on defense, industrial/farm subsidies, pork barrel projects and bureaucracy. A good sum of that aid money already comes from private American pockets anyway - Red Cross donations & whatnot.

Second, there are many, many things the US can do that doesn’t even come close to a direct cash handout. There’s forgiving foreign countries debts. That money’s gone, we’re never getting it back anyway. There’s also using the power of the US economy to enforce fair labor standards in places like China, Malaysia, Pakistan, Mexico. And there’s also the stricter application of export laws to embargo weapons sales to oppressive regimes.

Foreign aid does not automatically equal cash welfare handouts. But it does require a greater effort at making Americans aware of the impact of US policy (especially business policies) upon the rest of the world - and not just the fact that you can get a beef-free McDonald’s burger in Bombay.

Posted by WL from NYC on 12/14 at 12:07 AM

When you discard your excess agricultural products for economic market stability reasons (so that you can maintain your status of “wealth")... instead of share it with those who are in desparate need of it… you act as an inhumane human being, in my opinion.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/14 at 12:14 AM

I’m curious about your statement:
“The U.S. has a long record of using military force to prevent democracy throughout the world. I often site our government’s actions in Iran in 1953 as just one of many examples.”

What do you think were the effects of Mossadeq’s actions in 1952 and 1953? It seems that he destroyed the parliamentary democracy by dissolving the legislative body and consolidating all power in his hands.

It seems apparent that Mossadeq had converted his role as prime minister into a dictatorship, albeit not yet one which could brutally put down all opposition to his rule. The democracy was already destroyed before Mossadeq lost the battle for control of Iran in 1953.

How do you see that as “our government’s actions” to “prevent democracy”?

Do you honestly think Mossadeq’s rule was democratic? Do you think it would have been democratic if he had continued his cooperation with the communists and imposed a Stalinist-style dictatorship as the British and Americans feared that he would?

Posted by Micajah from on 12/14 at 12:39 AM

To mikeymike: Yes I agree that the US is the best bet to lead the world. But emphasis on the word “LEAD”. Not “DOMINATE”. Not “EXPLOIT”.

The black singer Marian Anderson said thus: “Leadership should be born out of the understanding of the needs of those who would be affected by it.” This is exactly what our current crew of leaders in the White House fail to do, most egregiously in matters of foreign policy.

Just because you say saving the world is detrimental to our interests does not make it so. If it was, Jesus would’ve just been some Jewish carpenter long forgotten these 2000 years.

Posted by WL from NYC on 12/14 at 12:41 AM

It depends on what qualities you look for in an exemplary leader. Compassion is high on my list. I’m sure that there are several countries that practice compassionate leadership amongst it citizenry… and can teach us a thing or two about compassionate governance.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/14 at 02:01 AM

The U.S. has been stealing the natural resources of other countries through manipulation of the World Bank, bullying, etc. The myth of U.S. generosity is just that, a myth. below is part of a statement made at the trial of Doris Reed. She states “...Sadly, we found U.S. foreign policy not to be increasing prosperity and democracy in the region, but quite the opposite. We found it directed to gaining control of the region’s natural resources, creating huge pools of dirt cheap labor, and gaining advantaged access to the region’s markets; for the benefit, not of the people or the economies of the region, but for the benefit of trans-national corporations. The former School of the Americas, now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, is an essential link in maintaining the military muscle necessary to further these goals...”.--- It is not only the natural resources, but also by the exploitation of the Labor in other countries that we abuse others. We in this country are being subsidized by the labor in Sweat Shops all around the globe. Look at the label in the shirt that you are wearing. If it wasn’t for those in China, most of us would be naked.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 12/14 at 12:03 PM

In response to #12: It is disingenuous indeed to imply that America has 400 military bases around the globe because it is invited there by host countries and not to extend its economic and military hegemony. To take just one example, the huge base at Diego Garcia entailed the expulsion of the indigenous from the island. Even granting your assertions of the two Russian foreign bases, and I confess ignorance at not being able to affirm or deny it, that is a far cry from 400. As for your assertion of the inviolable sancrosanctity of work, there ought to be limits and moderation to how much one can acquire and consume. The consumption of the citizens of the US, 4% of the world’s population consuming 30% of its resources, is threatening the biosphere and is the direct result of the extreme poverty of the vast majority of the world’s population. Twenty-five thousand children die every day from hunger and related easily preventible causes, while the US throws away as much food as it eats, and the world’s richest 200 people [thieves] control the equivalent wealth of half the world’s population, 300 billion people. The US has no problem providing foreign aid to other countries - 1% of its GDP, the smallest amount of any industrialized democracy - as long as it’s arms to military juntas controlling their wretched masses. As a socialist and in light of the Constitutional mandate to “promote the common welfare,” I storngly favor welfare, and lots of it, notwithstanding market fundamentalist trends to the contrary.

I disagree with HHH’s intimation in #13 that only dutiful drones and loyal consumers make or make the most important contributions to society. On the contrary.

Nader Raider is right; we need justice more than we need charity.

Micajah’s statements in #18 are just absurd. Mossadegh wasn’t perfect, but he was genuinely looking out for the interests of his people when he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Corporation. He was deposed sine qua non by the CIA. The US subsequently strongly supported the vicious and dictatorial shah for the next three decades. Geez, I wonder why they hate us.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/14 at 12:22 PM

Tracy,

Thanks for the response.

I was hoping to hear from the person who wrote the portion I quoted.

I was hoping to hear what it is about Mossadeq’s actions in dissolving parliament and assuming dictatorial powers that could be thought of as “democracy.”

If there was no democratic form of government remaining under Mossadeq, then it seems that whatever the U.S. and U.K. did to coordinate the overthrow of Mossadeq in August 1953 couldn’t be fairly described as eliminating or preventing democracy in Iran.

The facts as I understand them show that Mossadeq eliminated the democratic form of government in Iran.

If anyone is aware of evidence that tends to show otherwise, I would appreciate hearing what it is.

Posted by Micajah from on 12/14 at 02:02 PM

There is plenty of evidence otherwise. Mainstream historian Stephen Kinzer’s book “All the Shah’s Men” makes that clear, as do the works of Stephen Glain’s Mullahs and Merchants and Tariq Ali’s Clash of Fundamentalism.

Even Madeline Albright apologized to the people of Iran. Like the case of Pinochet in Chile, even the establishment has apologized for its actions, for the most part....so why right wingers dredge this sort of thing up is quizzical.

Even if your charges were correct, Time Magazine’s man of the year Mossadeq an admirer of middle of the road liberal Clement Atlee of the British Labor party was hardly as much of a threat to democracy in Iran than the McCarthyites, Hoover’s FBI and others on the American homefront. Further, Mossadeq was replaced by the Shah, perhaps one of the most vicious dictator/monarchs of the past hundred years. It is well known, even admitted by Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent who planned the campaign, that it was about securing American corporate rights to Iran’s oil.

same as it ever was

Posted by j cummings from on 12/14 at 02:50 PM

J. Cummings,

Thanks for the cites to some literature.

The book by Stephen Kinzer, a correspondent for the New York Times, may contain something; but I doubt it. After reading the index and excerpt available at amazon.com, it appears to me that Kinzer simply states that Mossadeq was “democratically elected” but doesn’t mention the steps Mossadeq took to establish himself as a dictator. Maybe there’s more—so I’ll go to the library, get the book, and read it to see.

The book by Glain doesn’t seem to have anything about Mossadeq’s actions in Iran.

The book by Tariq Ali is clearly a socialist polemic, not a history. I hope you will pardon me for refusing to put any time into reading it.

I did find the text of Albright’s 17 March 2000 speech which I believe you characterize as an apology. Here is what appears to be the pertinent part:
But that common ground has sometimes been shaken by other factors. In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah’s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah’s government also brutally repressed political dissent.
[You can find the rest at:
http://www.fas.org/news/iran/2000/000317.htm ]

While I’m off to the library, perhaps you could take the time to read the short history stated in the “Country Study” of Iran by the Library of Congress—and pay particular attention to the dissolution of the parliament by Mossadeq after he had been able to get all power handed to him by that Parliament. (It may be easier to grasp the significance of Mossadeq’s actions if you compare what he did to what Hitler did after being appointed Chancellor. The leaders of the U.S. and U.K. certainly would have made that comparison in their minds—as well as a comparison to the actions of Lenin in strangling the Russian republic in the cradle.) You’ll find it in the part titled “Mossadeq and Oil Nationalization.”
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

Posted by Micajah from on 12/14 at 06:38 PM

Tracy McLellan said:

“It is disingenuous indeed to imply that America has 400 military bases around the globe because it is invited there by host countries and not to extend its economic and military hegemony. To take just one example, the huge base at Diego Garcia entailed the expulsion of the indigenous from the island.”
You argue the wrong point. I didn’t say that the locals invited the military bases. Obviously, it is the host governments that did the inviting, with or without the support of those who would be near the bases. Diego Garcia was a UK dependency, and the UK offered to build a joint UK-US base on the island, relocating the local Ilois to Mauritius. I do not approve of such actions being taken personally and feel that the Ilois should be repaid for the UK’s actions back in the 60s and 70s. However, I would challenge you to find a single case among the 400 in which the US forced the locals out.
“Even granting your assertions of the two Russian foreign bases, and I confess ignorance at not being able to affirm or deny it, that is a far cry from 400.”
But what’s better: when one is invited--as in the case of the US bases; or when one is repeatedly asked to leave--as in the case of Russian bases in Georgia? Granted, the Russian bases were Soviet bases until 1991, but in the 13 years since, Georgia has sought the abandonment of the bases and their Russian inhabitants. Thirteen years with minimal progress? The only reason Russian is moving out now, little by very little, is because the Russian state coffers are drying up and they can’t afford the upkeep!
“As for your assertion of the inviolable sancrosanctity of work, there ought to be limits and moderation to how much one can acquire and consume. The consumption of the citizens of the US, 4% of the world’s population consuming 30% of its resources, is threatening the biosphere and is the direct result of the extreme poverty of the vast majority of the world’s population.”
And your assertion of the inviolable sancrosanctity of taking other people’s money to pay for non-working people...? Why should there be limits to the prosperity of those who endeavor to earn it? If I work a 60-hour work week, why shouldn’t I be able to buy a slightly larger TV than the guy down the street that drives once a week to the local unemployment office for his government check, which is paid for partially from my own hard-earned paycheck?
(to be continued in 5 minutes when I can post again)

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 06:42 PM

(Tracy still)

“the world’s richest 200 people [thieves] control the equivalent wealth of half the world’s population, 300 billion people.”
Ah, here’s our problem! We’re on different planets! The population of Earth is still under 7 billion people. But ignoring that fact, what is your basis for calling the richest 200 people thieves? How far would you extend that label to the wealthy? If my father worked for 50 years and amassed a savings of USD20 million, would you call him a thief for tight saving and good investment? (don’t bother calling me a thief—I’ve never earned more than USD10000 in a year after university, and the case of ‘my father’ above is 100% fictitious)
“The US has no problem providing foreign aid to other countries - 1% of its GDP, the smallest amount of any industrialized democracy”
But on the other hand, it is not required to do so even at 0.001% of GDP. The purpose of a national government is to protect its nation, not be big brother to other nations. Considering that foreign aid money is coming from forced seizure of a portion of my paycheck, it should be used for programs that benefit me or those that could ostensibly be my neighbors (which is to say, my fellow citizens).
“As a socialist and in light of the Constitutional mandate to “promote the common welfare,” I storngly favor welfare, and lots of it, notwithstanding market fundamentalist trends to the contrary.”
Fine, except the United States was not founded as the socialist paradise you want it to be. You’d love for the wealthy to have their wealth--whether earned or inherited--stolen from them and given to whoever wants it, but there’s no real justice in that. Promoting “the common welfare” does not correlate to taking from the rich and giving to the poor. If it was, they would have instituted a welfare system immediately, instead of waiting for FDR to do it 160 years later! The phrase instead means that the federal government was be a partner, or at least not a hindrance, to the success of its citizenry. People, being as they are, try to take advantage sometimes and so federal government tried to keep everything on the up and up via regulatory laws (prevention of monopolies, for example).
(to be continued in 5 minutes when I can post again)

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 06:47 PM

I mention Georgia often in these posts, and it’s because that is my homeland. I was born in Soviet-era Georgia and grew up seeing what socialism does. Let me tell you that socialism is the greatest ideology ever conceived. Unfortunately, that ideology cannot possibly be implemented because of the natural selfishness of mankind. Contrary to popular belief, membership in the Communist Party was not universal; only selected people actually became members. Those who did become members soon became drunk with the all-encompassing powers they received. My grandmother that lived with us was our main line-waiter (I was in school and mother and father both at factories) and would stand for hours in line if she heard that a load of meat-chickens (as opposed to egg-laying chickens) had come into town. This was a special treat that, even at one per family, did not generate a chicken in every pot; nonetheless the party members had special access to beef, lamb, chicken, and pheasants year-round, as well as the best brands of Russian vodka and Georgian wines and such (while commoners were typically allowed to purchase the lower-quality drinks, and much less frequently). Naturally it was a shock to arrive in America as a teenager and see the liberty of people going about their daily lives with a smile, running on their own schedule, working where and how they want, living where and how they want, as long as they take responsibility for maintaining it. It was a far cry from being assigned to the factories and being told where to move to for the state’s benefit.

Don’t get me wrong; there are times that I fondly remember the USSR, but the memories are generally filial or cultural in nature (the savory smells of fresh khachapurebi that grandmother used to make and the cheering at the stadium when Dinamo returned after winning a European soccer tournament in 1981! Oh!) and never political.

(to be continued in 5 minutes, yet again!)

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 06:57 PM

(the final bit to Tracy, I promise! ):

”I disagree with HHH’s intimation in #13 that only dutiful drones and loyal consumers make or make the most important contributions to society. On the contrary. “

That’s a powerful counterpoint you’ve failed to produce there. But you are putting false words in my mouth. I didn’t say that consumers or drones make the most important contributions to society. That’s just your own blind devotion to your fantasized notion of Lenin speaking. I specifically cited a person that risked his life to start a business and was prosperous enough with it to gainfully employ other people. The person gave others the opportunity to make a life for themselves. I suspect you’re an American and have never had to live in the society you’re proposing to impose on America. What’s great about America is that people that create are generally cherished and allowed to prosper. It apparently makes you angry though. But what would be advantageous in a society in which creativity is rejected and all people have no hope of making a difference? I imagine you support animal rights that include the use of positive reinforcement for training, instead of negative reinforcement (that is, giving a reward when right is done, instead of giving a spank with wrong is done). But the society you propose, in which every person has the exact same as everyone else, offers no rewards for those who do anything special, whether it is creating a successful business or finding a cure to a previously incurable disease. (if I’m wrong on this point, tell me how you maintain equality while showing a small favoritism – knowing as well that you as ‘leader’ must also be equal).

I may be wrong about your counterpoint though. Maybe you are arguing that the real contributors to society are those who take the money of others in the form of government welfare? I have no illusions that people that don’t pay taxes are helping society, since it’s the people working jobs and creating businesses that are paying for the welfare recipients.

Please understand that I am no loveless toward those who are on welfare, but I believe it should be limited in duration so as to encourage those receiving it to build a better life for themselves, and you don’t do that if you have a guaranteed payout for as long as you want it.

Thank you for your consideration of this and good day to you,

HHS

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 07:04 PM

I think we need to differentiate between the idealogy of socialism and its numerous statist historical applications of it. Many of which were aberrational applications of socialist idealogy.

Statist socialism is just as authoritarian as statist capitalism is.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/14 at 07:05 PM

That’s true about statist socialism, but then again there’s never been an implementation of socialist ideology without the soon deterioration into statist socialism. That’s the main reason I argue against socialism; it cannot possibly be implemented while people have the ability to think for themselves. Socialism only works in a society like that Star Trek “Borg”, where all members of the society have their thinking controlled and accomplished by a central entity and no member has freedom of any kind.

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 07:24 PM

To Micajah.

Even if you don’t believe Tariq Ali’s views of economic matters, it can hardly qualify him as not worth reading. After all, as a socialist myself, I can’t just go saying that every historian is a “capitalist” so worth ignoring. Do you ignore Orwell and Oscar Wilde? What about pro-American Imperialist socialists like Michael Walzer? I’d venture to say that your problem with Ali is his geo-political view, not his opinion that capitalism is inherently unjust...as well, I’d venture to bet that f queried, Kinzer et. al -those I cited are probably capitalist in their leanings, as was Mossadeq (Except, like the USA, he wanted to build a national bourgeoisie.) I cited the wrong Glain book....but still, can I ask...what makes it so important to you to prove that it was right to empower the Shah?

When looking at political decisions made by anyone, shouldn’t the end-result be a part of the mixture? And yes, I know that modern Iran is no picnic, and probably worse than the Shah, but as Ali, Kinzer and even the very capitalist Ivan Eland show, it was this coup that set in motion Islamist resistance in Iran. Further, it is inarguable, as Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirn Ebadi, an Iranian social activist maintains, that it HURTS reform efforts in Iran for America to appear to be attempting a regime change, and strengthens the conservative mullahs.

So if your desire here is to support both the Shah and the Mullahs, you suceed in spades, but if your desire is to actually make sense out of history, you are on the wrong track - unless of course you believe in the old dictum “my country, right or wrong.”

Does Iran have the right to affect and alter the US democratic process? I don’t believe it does, thus the US has no right to do so, anywhere. The US, as signatory of teh UN is party to international law, and this hardly seems to be an article 51 situation. Of course, the US has no regard for international law, putting Americans and your neighbours like me in harm’s way.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/14 at 07:31 PM

I’m beginning to suspect, HHH, that you may be a closet mutualist, as defined here:

http://www.mutualist.org/index.html

Note that it is only a suspicion, at this point.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/14 at 07:32 PM

With respect, it is HHS and not HHH.

Well, I define myself more as a libertarian, but it may just be a matter of semantics. I favor a massive reduction in federal government, which would eliminate many branches of it. As I see it, the responsibility of any government is to its own citizens, and the responsibilities of the US federal government are laid out in the Constitution--which means their responsibilities are miniscule compared to everything it has its nose in today.
As far as matters within the US go, I think the federal government should not concern itself with internal affairs as much as possible, leaving it to the state and local governments (where elected officials are more representative of and responsible to their constituencies) except in interstate matters.
Best regards,
HHS

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 07:50 PM

J. Cummings,

Here’s how I started this chain of comments:

“I’m curious about your statement:
‘The U.S. has a long record of using military force to prevent democracy throughout the world. I often site our government’s actions in Iran in 1953 as just one of many examples.’”

That quotes a part of Rosemarie’s “open letter” to Buchanan.

I want to know what evidence supports the assertion that the U.S. government took action in Iran in 1953 which had the effect of preventing democracy.

It is no more complex than that.

I look at 1952 and 1953—specifically at the actions of Mossadeq—and I see that there was no democracy for the U.S. to “prevent.” The democracy was already destroyed by Mossadeq—who was well on his way to imposing a dictatorship.

Rosemarie apparently sees things differently, since she often cites Iran in 1953 as an example of the U.S. preventing the establishment of democracy throughout the world.

I had hoped to find out whether she had any information about the specific case of Iran in 1953 with which I was not already familiar.

I still hope to find out.

Posted by Micajah from on 12/14 at 07:54 PM

Thanks for the clarification, HHS, and the correction. I’m not too embarrased to admit that I have been spoiled by the numerous spell-checkers that exist on several message boards, but is absent here. So when I post here, I bring my willingness to expose my grammatical and spelling warts as well.

While I’m not addicted to labels, I do feel warm and fuzzy when I pin the button of “anarachist” on my chest. People often ascribe that label to many libertarians too, inaccurate as that may be. Here’s an article that does a good job, I think, of delineating the differences between the two idealogies.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between.html

Regards,

NH (tit for tat)

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/14 at 08:06 PM

I don’t need to bring this any farther except to say that it scares me to live next door to a country whose citizens believe it is perfectly fine to topple any government they don’t like. You can quibble about semantics, but the commonly believed assertion among the world is that Mossadeq was a Democrat, while the Shah was not. The US put the Shah in power. Hence, the US destroyed democracy. This is quite simple, and only an American could see it differently.

Further, Mossadeq was elected to reform the Iranian system, some may opine that he did some things with the legislature that were authoritarian, in response to opposition that threatened to topple his government. This is not dissimilar to Roosevelt “packing the courts” when business leaders were attempting a coup against the New Deal. Most Roosevelt supporters were glad to see the fascist-sympathizers crushed and demoralized. And it is far less authoritarian than what the Truman and Eisenhower administration, with liberal support, were doing at the time, with their “loyalty oaths,” McCarthyism, the Red Scare, etc. This is not to say that the Soviet Union and Stalinist-style socialism were a good thing. This is to say that anyone who can look at the last fifty years of Cold War and destruction, which many Democrats (labelled commie sympathizers) were against at the time, hence purged (hence the Wallace campaign) by Schlesinger et al - must be getting cash from the defense industry.

If the US had followed Yalta, it would not have forced the Soviets to maintain permanent garrison states in Eastern Europe. The mission of the UN - indeed what Roosevelt wanted, perhaps not Stalin, but definitely his successors - and definitely Tito, the true hero of the communists- wanted was world peace. Insted the drunken oaf Churchill, Truman et. al started the cold war, well before Soviet interference in Eastern Europe.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/14 at 08:14 PM

NH

Hey, I have no problem with grammatical or spelling problems, but names… oh no!

I am familiar with the state/property axis concept and I am clearly in the upper right quadrant, believing that there should be private property rights as well as minimal government.
HHS

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 08:21 PM

HHS — if you are working a 60-hour work week for USD10000 a year, I assume you are working for Wal*Mart. And that any health care you need is covered by the State of Michigan since Wal*Mart seems to foist those costs off on the taxpayers. But then how do you reconcile that with your feelings that each person (and corporation?) should be fully responsible for their own needs?

Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN on 12/14 at 10:22 PM

Greg,

Ha, that is very funny and very cynical. To work 60 hours per week and make only USD10000 per year, one must be paid less than $2.75 per normal hour (with time and a half for overtime hours) or $3.21 if all hours are at straight time. This is well under the state mandated minimum, so obviously this is not happening. The only way this could happen legitimately is if I was a waiter that made no tips. In any event, your attempted paradox is unsuccessful.

However, I do know Wal*Mart employs, and they have good health insurance from Wal*Mart, but indeed, like every other company in America that offers their employees health insurance, these costs are ‘foisted off’ on the taxpayers. The costs are found in the prices paid at Wal*Mart by their customers.

Thanks for the attempted hit piece.

HHS

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/14 at 11:02 PM

J. Cummings,

You stated: “You can quibble about semantics, but the commonly believed assertion among the world is that Mossadeq was a Democrat, while the Shah was not. The US put the Shah in power. Hence, the US destroyed democracy. This is quite simple, and only an American could see it differently.”

Your “commonly believed assertion” doesn’t square with the historical facts, so far as I know. (Of course, as I’ve stated before, I am searching for information which would support the assertion made by Rosemarie—and now by you—that the U.S. destroyed democracy in Iran.)

I don’t see it as a matter of semantics to say that a man who consolidated all governmental power in his own hands and dissolved the legislative body was no “democrat.”

Shah Reza Pahlavi was the second Shah of Iran. He was on the throne from 1941 to 1979. Please note that his father (who had been Shah since 1925) was deposed by the USSR and the UK in 1941. The USSR and the UK put Shah Reza Pahlavi on the throne in 1941, not the U.S.

You say that Mossadeq “did some things with the legislature that were authoritarian.” The “some things” he did were to dissolve the parliament after getting “emergency powers” which placed him in control of all governmental power.

That seems indistinguishable from Hitler.

It seems you have cited all the historical sources you know which might assist me in finding an answer to my original question.

Unfortunately, your interpretation of “democrat” and “democracy” differs so much from mine that it appears we could never agree about the proper way to describe what occurred in Iran in 1952 and 1953.

Thank you for that cite to Kinzer’s book. Perhaps it contains some hint of evidence in support of your article of faith.

Posted by Micajah from on 12/14 at 11:17 PM

I meant 3 billion people, of course, and apologize for the error. I’m not suggesting so much that poor people should take the wealth of rich people, as that the system itself that allows such disparities of wealth is rotten and should be changed. Moreover, welfare to the rich far exceeds welfare to the poor. The disparities in wealth amount to a lot more than owning a slightly bigger TV. Take John Kerry for just one example. He owns five multimillion dollar homes. Where’s the justice in that and the hundreds of millions or billions of homeless?

For the sake of argument, let’s grant that Mossadegh dissolved parliament (this is the first I’ve heard of that). Does that give the United States the right to come in and depose him? Do other countries then have the right to depose George Bush when he lost the vote in 2000, but was given the White House in a coup by the Supreme Court?

The thing that is so alarming about what the US did in Iran in 1953 is that it’s a pattern with the US. There is a long list, going back to the genocide of the original Americans and that includes Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Pinochet in Chile in 1973, an attempt at Chavez in Venezuela last year, and too many more to mention.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/14 at 11:48 PM

It is indistinguishable from Hitler? As a relative of holocaust survivors, that is pretty strong there M. What’s your point? Can you name one perfect Democrat in the history of humanity. Mossadeq was surely no less authoritarian than Truman who allowed lists of “subversives” to be detained against their will and presided over McCarthyism. If you can at the very least bring yourself to condemn that, then I will believe you are speaking out of principle. Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/15 at 12:29 AM

Tracy McLellan said:

“that the system itself that allows such disparities of wealth is rotten and should be changed. Moreover, welfare to the rich far exceeds welfare to the poor.”

What system would you prefer? People can acquire up to $X of net value, and thereafter they must surrender all other objects of value? How would you define X? Or would you collectivize all things and allow people to take whatever they want? I really don’t see an unabusable replacement.
Concerning welfare to the rich, why not revise the laws governing such? Rather than attacking the rich, why not just cut out (or at least whittle down as a start) this ‘welfare’ you reference? That’s something people can get behind, not the notion of ‘attack the rich because they’re rich’.
“Take John Kerry for just one example. He owns five multimillion dollar homes. Where’s the justice in that and the hundreds of millions or billions of homeless?”
Well, he only owns one home, the one in Boston. The rest are Theresa’s from her previous marriage, and she’s got a tight grip on those just in case. But nonetheless, his ancestors at some branch in the family tree did something to make that expensive home happen. If it was gained wrongly, then it was not just. If it was gained honestly, where’s the problem? It’s not necessarily unjust that some people don’t have homes. It’s sad, but not indicative of fault within the system itself.
Do other countries then have the right to depose George Bush when he lost the vote in 2000, but was given the White House in a coup by the Supreme Court?
Well, Bush actually did win the election (the electoral system is nothing new; if you had government class in high school, you’re aware that it’s not the popular vote that matters in the presidential election). Nonetheless, any country is free to invade any other country, but they must deal with the consequences. For example, the first Gulf War: Iraq invades Kuwait and easily takes the country. US’s help is requested and given and the Iraqi army is driven back into its own borders and Iraq looks even dumber in the world’s eyes. If a country felt it could invade the US and get away with it, they are welcome to try. Eventually, these things tend to balance themselves out, as countries either achieve military parity or the perceived value of acquiring new land does not meet the perceived cost of the action.
I’m not endorsing the rampant use of force--I’m not a big fan of the Iraq situation--but I’m just pointing out reality to you.
Best regards,

HHS

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/15 at 12:51 AM

J. Cummings,

You stated: “It is indistinguishable from Hitler? As a relative of holocaust survivors, that is pretty strong there M. What’s your point?”

My point is the same as when I began: I’m searching for historical evidence which might support your claim that the U.S. destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953.

I’ve noted that Mossadeq wasn’t a democrat. His consolidation of all governmental power in his own hands and his dissolution of the Iranian parliament were the actions of a dictator.

I compared his rise to dictatorial power to the steps taken by Hitler, because I believe the two men took advantage of democratic forms of government to seize power and end the democracy.

There the comparison obviously ends, since Hitler wasn’t quickly removed from office in 1933 after his dictatorial powers were granted in the Enabling Act. Mossadeq was removed in August 1953, shortly after he assumed dictatorial powers and dissolved the Iranian parliament.

As I said before, your definition of “democrat” is clearly very different from my understanding of the meaning of that word. Your statement that Mossadeq “was surely no less authoritarian than Truman” indicates that you and I are worlds apart in other ways, as well.

If you come across any helpful historical sources, please let me know.

Posted by Micajah from on 12/15 at 01:27 AM

HHS, I am just using the numbers you posted for yourself. And I guess I am not surprised you would defend Wal*Mart. Five of the ten richest people in the US are Walton children. God, they must be hard workers and wise investors.

Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN on 12/15 at 09:19 AM

I suppose Micajah that you would characterize the US as a democracy - defined as every two to four years the corporations giving the citizens one or the other of their agents to confirm.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/15 at 11:53 AM

Greg, you’ve got to read and not just skim for numbers. The 60-hour week was in a what-if situation in statement #26, not a statement of fact.

As for Wal*Mart, I didn’t say that everyone with money is a hard worker or wise investor. Again, you fail to read. I said, to paraphrase, you can’t just blanket all rich people as thieves; they got it somehow, and if they got it by good means, good; if by bad means, it’s bad. What’s so hard to comprehend?

Your attitude about not being surprised that I would defend Wal*Mart is moronic. Why are you not surprised? Because I don’t seek to either slaughter or rob the rich simply because they have more than me? Do you want me to condemn Wal*Mart and the Waltons for having “too much”? I could say that I’m not surprised you are offended by the prosperity of Wal*Mart, because you seem to be jealous that someone else has succeeded financially beyond what you have and therefore you seek to see them ruined and abased. But I don’t stand by that description, because it would be rude to label someone I don’t actually know.

As for the Waltons, their father worked extensive hours, and with his death, they’ve inherited his fortune. Is it a shock that the widow and children of one of the richest men in the world should appear on the richest people list after the father is dead (for they record, the four children and the widow are all jointly-ranked at #4 among Americans)?

Nakhvamdis (goodbye),

HHS

Posted by HHS from Michigan on 12/15 at 03:13 PM

Gollee, H - I should do feel funny not seeing that “if.” Naw, I saw it. I’m just funnin’ you. I never figured you would be working 60 hours a week for $10,000.

Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN on 12/15 at 04:13 PM

Wal-Mart continues to increase its fortune selling cheap Chinese crap by employing hundreds of thousands of workers at 7-8 dollars an hour, with little or no benefits, subsidized by state governments in the form of food stamps and health insurance, and putting the screws to foreign workers holding down their wages, and suppliers driving down their prices and thus their employees’. It’s certainly in the democractic spirit that you would defend five disgustingly rich Waltons and ignore the miseries of the hosts on whose backs Wal-Mart makes its fortune. In fact, it’s the American way. Oop, you know what? Now that I think about it, I just remember I’ve seen several television commercials which show what a good and noble corporate citizen Wal-Mart is. So I take back what I said.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/15 at 04:29 PM

Wal-Mart workers unionized a shop in Quebec. Within a month, they closed it down.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/15 at 04:52 PM

Re. Walmart in China:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1128-26.htm

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/15 at 10:16 PM

Earlier I wrote something about a unionized Wal Mart in Quebec. I have been informed that it is still open, still a union shop.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/16 at 12:44 AM

Is it possible that James Taranto of WSJ.com [From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page] missed the point? I just saw this on that web site........ “A Disarming Proposal
On a Web site called Press Action, Rosemarie Jackowski, “an advocacy journalist living in Vermont,” offers an amusingly zany plan for reforming the U.N. Security Council:

The weight of a member state’s vote could be inversely proportional to the number of weapon systems of that nation. That system would give nations that lack military power increased voting power. There are two advantages to that proposal. It would discourage militarization and also be one step toward global equity. . . .

Respect for the International Criminal Court is necessary for global order. Membership should not be optional. Any nation, charged with a crime against international law, should be subject to the court’s findings. If a nation chooses to not participate, that nation should be tried in absentia. A verdict should be rendered. The rule of law should prevail.

And be enforced, apparently, by countries that have no weapons!” ........ My answer to James Taranto is, maybe slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, as we are currently doing, is a little more ZANY than what I propose!

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 12/16 at 10:19 AM

James Taranto, of course, is an idiot. In the same post in which he mentions Rosemarie’s proposal, he has this to say about Rachel Corrie:

“It was in Rafah that terror advocate Rachel Corrie died in a bulldozer accident last year trying to protect such tunnels, which terrorists usually use to smuggle in weapons and explosives from Egypt.”

Posted by Mark Hand from on 12/16 at 10:45 AM

Regrettably, and in my estimation, Mr. Taranto suffers from a similar affliction that many ABBers suffered from recently. For the ABBers, if was the paradigmatic affliction of “a candidate is worthy of your support only if he or she is generally perceived as ‘electable’”. And in Mr. Taranto’s case, it’s “a standard for a nation’s conduct in the world community is only worth supporting/implementing if it is enforceable by military means.”

Science undergoes paradigmatic changes periodically. Unfortunately, politics does not follow suit as frequently. What is needed is a change in paradigms, vis-a-vis a nation’s role/relationship to other nations within the world community.

And the interesting thing about paradigm changes is… it does not require everyone to “buy into” the new way of looking at things. Science reveals that it only takes a critical mass. Fortunately, for us.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/16 at 11:52 AM

Someone should send that to Rachel Corrie’s paretnts. That is actionable. I don’t even thin the Israeli press stooped so low. I know the WSJ lies to investors all the time...but this is simply a case of defamation.

Posted by j cummings from Canada on 12/16 at 12:17 PM

Next entry: Merry December: Mickey Z. Gets in the Holiday Spirit

Previous entry: Free as in Freedom - Part Two: New Linux

[ads]

Sunday, December 12, 2004

The Far Left Takes on the Far Right: An Open Letter to Patrick J. Buchanan

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate