AMERICA'S IMAGE.

San Jose,

I wouldn't consider myself a marxist, although i ve read a lot of marx and a lot of critisism on Marx. There are some premises in marxism that i am in complete agreement with: the focus of marxism in changing the (power) structures of society, not merely interpreting them, the issue of means of production and how they are allocated in a society (one cant possibly speak of a democratic society when concentrated power and concentrated wealth are in bed together), i like his use of the notion of ideology and ideological manipulation, aka propaganda, by those in power, i agree to a certain extend with his belief that man is more nurture than nature, he or she is made, is not born, etc. etc.


But also disagree with marxism on a lot of points. First of all, the claim of Marx himself that marxism is a science. Obviously marx produced his work in a era of scientifism and logical positivism and other figures of the time such as freud later on would claim a scientific seal of aproval to their work, my position is that social and economic theory is an incomplete science and cannot be consider infalible, or a dogma. I dont agree with the view that the working class will be the agent of change and that marx discovered the forces of change in society in class struggle, i consider these oversimplifications. The working class is not as brutaly victimized to revolt, at least not in the western world, as it had been in the 1800's. And a lot of other points i disagree with.

I am not defending Stalin, but i dont like to see the soviet union demonized and marxism discredited completely. The soviet revolution was one attempt at progressive change amongst others, in the time frame of history, most conservatives misuse it in a false dichotomy, an either or argument, "see how unfair / autocratic / unfree the soviet union was, that's the alternative to our system, now go back to work at macdonalds for $2 an hour and eat your genetically modified food". There were many brutalities perpetrated in the name of good in the soviet union, but then again human brutalities is not a characteristic of communism as it was applied there but a characteristic of all human societies, or most so far. To talk about the ghulah and fail to mention the atrocities commited by the "democratic" capitalist western world against the rest of the world and their own people is wrong, as is the opposite.

I would say i am an anarchist socialist, in the sense that i am not an anarchist libertarian. I believe in progressive social change, centred not around greed, or technological progress or material aboundance, but on human needs and the needs of the planet and the environment. It will take some time and space to explain what i stand for, but, to put it briefly, i d say that i am an anarchist in the sense that i despise unaccountable power of a group over another in society, i want people to be, as much as they can, active social agents instead of automatons of conformity, etc. etc. I see myself as a socialist because i believe in the struggle for collective betterment, and i see man as a social animal (marx did too) forming bonds with others and an individualistic society in direct contradiction with the "nature" of man. I havent scraped the surface of what my views are politically, but in broad terms this is a not so bad summary of them.

 

"And introducing osama bin laden as the phantom menace"

ROLMFAO!

 

[SanJose]

Jack Dee,

Thank you for the intelligent response. My political views could not be more different than yours, but I give you a lot of credit for posting what you did. Most people who are as far left wing as you are afraid to admit that they are as far left as people like me suspect. It takes courage to admit that you are an anarchist/socialist and sympathetic to many tenets of Marxism.

One more question if you don't mind. Isn't an anarchist/socialist, as you call yourself, really just a Marxist who has replaced concern for the proletariat with concern for the environment and other vague spiritual notions? Marx wrote during the time of the industrial revolution, hence his writings tended to focus on the plight of the urban working class. With the advent of progressive government intervention in Western nations, even in the U.S. after Roosevelt's New Deal, the theories of Marx became somewhat hollow. But utopian progressives like yourself have kept Marx alive by finding new causes like the environment and animal rights, and hostility to globalization, to maintain your anti-establishment views rooted in Marxism even after that theory has been discredited?

 

was going through some of my older posts and came upon your reply which i had missed first time around.

I dont what you mean by discredited, social theory is not like mechanics or chemistry, most of the time they deal with things that cant be easily tested and either verified or falsified, but with more abstract notions. Moreover neoliberal capitalist theory has time and time again been "discredited" in the sense i suppose you use the word by the collapse of one after the other of market economies, such as brazil, or Argentina or the far east countries, the paper tigers and they cam to be known. These where once hailed by the establishment mass media and hired journalist and academic guns as the quintessense of capitalist economic growth in action, and look at Argetina know. These are all very current exaples, not like the 1920s stockmarket crash etc. Marx's economics are very rough, very sketchy, but so is Adam Smith.

Besides that, progressives have always existed in this world in one form or the other, some leaning to a more theoretical utopian stance and others more practical, in the here and know, or in the there and then to be exact, activists. Anti-establishment views have and will always be there and that's what makes this world move forward if and whenever it does. It's just that some people such as myself cant stomach so much atrocity, hypocrisy, ecological havoc, ignorance, cowardice, injustice etc. etc. that are the predominant features of this so called democratic system. I am in my late twenties, so admittedly my so called revolutionary phase is not over, but i doubt it i ll ever make a u turn, i might start being more indifferent as i have already, or less hopefull of change, but i cant imagine myself ever hailing smuggling guns and drugs, genocide, etc. However we do live in a world where Henry Kissinger got the nobel price for peace...

I ll end this post here on a quasi funny note. There was a joke going round in Greece back in the days where the good old u.s. of a was bombing jugoslavia to the ground, which went something like this:

If the u.s. are bombing the yugos for the preservation of peace,
then i am screwing for the preservation of virginity.

 

At least in a few cases, but I have to say my favorite articulation comes from that copious source of intelligence, VVV. who says - "May God Bless America". As opposed to where or what. And not least of all why.


wil.

 

[Oceans11]

The US population always seems to need a political or religous bogeyman.

Most other western countries are way beyond that stuff, viewing the 'establishment' with scepticism when it starts churning out that 'reds under the bed' bull.

You guys seem to accept it quite willingly, the majority of you trundling happily along in your own little world, following the flag.
Maybe your culture creates a sort of religous zeal about 'loving your country', following that flag, and the bloke thats waving it.

To outsiders its weird stuff, totally different from most other western cultures.

Except for the French, they do that sort of thing too, so maybe they'll understand.

Always Double down on soft 19 v six.

 

very well said.

 

[entropy]

would one of the moderators mind transferring to Politics, Governments and World Events ??

 

[kayaman+]

Watching Cnn (in Spanish) report on the war last night with my wife's 17 year old brother (wife and brother in law are Costa Ricans), he says to me, "Bush makes it less cool to be an American every day huh?"
I didn't know what to say, but thought, these are sad times.

 

RPM - MODS

Shouldn't this thread be sent down to the political/World Events forum?

 

[entropy]

Wednesday, April 16, 2003 -- Anti-Americanism may become a global passion

JEFFREY GARTEN

Seen from abroad, American corporations are lining up to enter Iraq. The European media has noted with concern that the first contract in Iraq to put out oilfield fires was awarded without any bidding to Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of US-based Halliburton, a company with long ties to the US military. The governments and business communities of France, Germany, Russia and even Britain are concerned that their businesses will be left out in the cold. We cannot tell how this tension will play out, but whatever America would gain in its drive to sew up commercial contracts, it could lose much more outside of Iraq, where anti-Americanism poses a potential danger.

At this moment, most American business executives do not seem to be overly concerned about anti-war feelings spilling over into their operations - at least officially. I recently talked to some who run American chambers of commerce in Germany, France, South Korea and Mexico. Typical of their comments was that of Fred Irwin, chairman of CitiGroup in Germany and president of the American Chamber of Commerce there. "I don't see any links between tensions between Washington and Berlin and attitudes of Germans towards American investors," he said.

I also interviewed several American business leaders who did not want to discuss these matters on the record and who were much more cautious. Those working in Europe are most secure, although they have an eye on large and potentially restless Muslim populations. Those doing business in the Persian Gulf, in particular, but also in Asia, have deeper concerns, which include an escalation of terrorism coming out of these regions. There is also some concern that if there is a backlash in the US against countries that criticise American behaviour, then this could result in US boycotts that would cause foreign nations to retaliate.

The evolution of anti-American attitudes toward US companies might not be sudden or dramatic. We are unlikely to see massive boycotts of large numbers of American companies. But in nations where governments still have a say in the awarding of big business contracts, such as China and Saudi Arabia, fewer could go to American companies. If overseas American business suffers, so will the US economy. Many US companies have become dependent on overseas markets for more than 30 per cent of their revenues. American businesses have also become central to global supply chains that service the US itself; for example, more than 25 per cent of the products we import come from the foreign subsidiaries of US firms.

Three things worry me most. First is the changing nature of anti-Americanism itself. Dominique Moisi, a French commentator on global issues, told me that there used to be widespread public resistance to what America did, but that today there is an objection to what America is. We should take this sentiment as an important warning about the complexity and depth of foreign antipathy towards the US. In contrast to the past, anti-Americanism today is not propelled just by leftist politicians or intellectual elites, but encompasses a broader spectrum of society.
Second, we could be seeing the rise of a huge counterforce to continued globalisation. American companies have been in the vanguard on that, and were they to be attacked or otherwise impeded, so could the continued liberalisation of trade and investment that they have been so identified with. As political scientist Francis Fukuyama has written, there is a risk today that opposition to American policies could become the chief passion in global politics.

My third major concern is the potential breakdown in the American-led multilateral system itself - a system in which American foreign policy and its economic policy were in sync, and in which its goals were supported broadly by so many other key countries. If the current paralysis of Nato and the UN Security Council is signalling an end to the post-World War II consensus about the role that the US is playing on the world stage, then over time all bets may also be off when it comes to the prospects of American business.

Jeffrey Garten is dean of the Yale School of Management. This article appeared in YaleGlobal Online www.yaleglobal.yale.edu, a publication of the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation, and is reprinted by permission.

 

[radiofreecostarica]

I see a common and frightening trend in the thought pattern of most of the right-leaning posters here. Namely, that the world is a very dangerous place for ALL countries and "thank god the US is there to protect you."

Have you ever considered that perhaps the world is so dangerous as a RESULT of US policy?

After all, in JackDee's defense, Greece has problems of its own but by no means needs US help in working them out.
Chicken before the Egg...etc. etc.

 

[Oceans11]

Well the world certainly isnt a safer place, for anyone, anywhere.
Nothing has changed, the middle east is still as big a mess as its ever been.
The US cant even afford to keep millions of its own population above poverty, so theres not much hope for a bunch of foreigners thousands of miles away.

You've got to wear a great big pair of blinkers if you're going to be an American right winger.
Buy your Stars and stripes blinkers here folks, and wear them with pride...

 

[radiofreecostarica]

lol.

Reminds me of a tangent to this one:

The irony about the flag frenzy in the States-- the plethora of US flag memorabilia-- is that it was once thought very Un-American to display the flag on anything other than, well, the flag.

(This includes, clothing, foodstuffs, "trinkets" etc.)

 

[radiofreecostarica]

Jackdee,

As far as politics is concerned, I would say I stand with you there at the far left, provided that the viewpoint is approached with reason and a healthy dose of humanity, no opinion is an evil thing.

 

[entropy]

Thursday, April 17, 2003 -- An expression of idealism, or self-righteous hypocrisy?

MINXIN PEI

Nearly two years after the terrorist attacks on the United States, international public opinion has shifted from heartfelt sympathy for Americans and their country to undisguised antipathy. The immediate catalyst is America's hardline policy towards, and subsequent war with, Iraq. Yet today's strident anti-Americanism represents much more than a wimpy reaction to US resolve or generic fears of a hegemony running amok. Rather, the growing unease with the US should be seen as a powerful global backlash against the spirit of American nationalism that shapes and animates US foreign policy.

Coming to terms with today's growing animosity towards America is intellectually contentious because of the two paradoxes of US nationalism: First, although it is a highly nationalistic country, it does not see itself as such. Second, despite the high level of nationalism, US policymakers have a remarkably poor appreciation of the power of nationalism in other societies and have demonstrated neither skill nor sensitivity in dealing with its manifestations abroad.

Nationalism is a dirty word in the US, viewed with disdain and associated with Old World parochialism and imagined supremacy. Yet those who discount the idea of US nationalism may readily admit that Americans, as a whole, are extremely patriotic. They not only take enormous pride in their values, but also regard them as universally applicable. Firmly held beliefs in the superiority of American political values and institutions readily find expression in American social, cultural and political practices. It is almost impossible to miss them: the daily ritual of the pledge of allegiance in the nation's schools, the customary performance of the national anthem before sporting events, and the ubiquitous American flags. And in the US, as in other countries, nationalist sentiments inevitably infuse politics. Candidates rely on issues such as flag burning and national security to attack their opponents as unpatriotic, and worse.

Why does a highly nationalistic society consistently view itself as anything but? The source of this paradox lies in the forces that sustain nationalism in the US. One of the most powerful is the willingness of ordinary citizens to contribute to the public good, either through individual initiatives or civic associations.

Most institutions and practices that promote and sustain American nationalism are civic, not political. The rituals are voluntary rather than imposed and the values inculcated are willingly embraced, not artificially indoctrinated. Elsewhere, the state plays an indispensable role in promoting nationalism, which is frequently a product of political manipulation and, consequently, has a manufactured quality to it.

Indeed, any blunt attempt to use the power of the state to institutionalise US nationalism has been met with strong resistance because of popular suspicion that the government may be encroaching on individual liberties. In the 1930s, the Jehovah's Witnesses mounted a legal challenge when some school boards tried to make the pledge of allegiance mandatory, arguing that it compelled children to worship graven images.

Thus, the secret of the vitality and durability of American nationalism lies in the dominance of civic voluntarism, not state coercion, making nationalist sentiments more genuine, attractive and legitimate to the general public. These expressions of American nationalism have become so commonplace that they are virtually imperceptible, except to outsiders.

American nationalism is hidden in plain sight. But even if Americans saw it, they would not recognise it. That is because it is a different breed from its foreign cousins and exhibits three unique characteristics.

First, American nationalism is based on political ideals, not those of cultural or ethnic superiority. That conception is entirely fitting for a society that still sees itself as a cultural and ethnic melting pot. As President George W. Bush said in his Fourth of July speech last year: "There is no American race; there's only an American creed." American political institutions and ideals, coupled with the practical achievements attributed to them, have firmly convinced Americans that their values ought to be universal.

Second, American nationalism is triumphant rather than aggrieved. In most societies, nationalism is fuelled by past grievances caused by external powers. Countries once subjected to colonial rule, such as India and Egypt, are among the most nationalistic societies. But American nationalism is the polar opposite. Triumphant nationalists celebrate the positive and have little empathy for the whining of aggrieved nationalists whose formative experience consisted of humiliation and defeat.

Finally, American nationalism is forward looking, while nationalism in most other countries is the reverse. Those who believe in the superiority of American values and institutions do not dwell on their historical glories. Instead, they look forward to even better times, not just at home but also abroad. This dynamism imbues American nationalism with a missionary spirit and a short collective memory. Unavoidably, such forward-looking and universalistic perspectives clash with the backward-looking and particularistic perspectives of ethno-nationalism in other countries. Haunted by memories of Western invasions since the time of the Crusades, the Middle East cannot help but look with suspicion upon US plans to "liberate" the Iraqi people. US support for Taiwan, which the mainland regards as a breakaway province, is the most contentious issue in bilateral relations. The loss of Taiwan - whether to the Japanese in 1895 or to the nationalists in 1949 - symbolises weakness and humiliation.

The unique characteristics of American nationalism explain why one of the world's most nationalist countries is so inept at dealing with it abroad. The best example of this second paradox is the Vietnam war. The combination of America's universalistic political values (in this case, anticommunism), triumphalist beliefs in US power and short national memory led to a disastrous policy that clashed with the nationalism of the Vietnamese, a people whose experience was defined by resistance against foreign domination (the Chinese and the French) and whose overriding goal was independence and unity, not the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.

This ongoing inability to deal with nationalism abroad has three immediate consequences. The first, and relatively minor, is the high level of resentment that US insensitivity generates, both among foreign governments and their people. The second, and more serious, is that such insensitive policies tend to backfire on the US, especially when it tries to undermine hostile regimes abroad. After all, nationalism is one of the few crude ideologies that can rival the power of democratic liberalism. Look, for example, at the unfolding nuclear drama on the Korean peninsula. The rising nationalism of South Korea's younger generation - which sees its troublesome neighbour to the north as kin, not a monster - has not yet figured in America's calculations concerning North Korea's brinkmanship. In these cases, as in previous, similar instances, US policies frequently have the perverse effects of alienating people in allied countries and driving them to support the very regimes targeted by US policy.

Finally, given the nationalism that animates US policies, American behaviour abroad inevitably appears hypocritical to others. This is especially glaring when the US undermines global institutions in the name of defending American sovereignty (such as in the cases of the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court). The rejection of such multilateral agreements may score points at home, but non-Americans have difficulty reconciling the universalistic rhetoric and ideals Americans espouse with the parochial national interests the US government appears determined to pursue abroad. Over time, such behaviour can erode US credibility and legitimacy.

An amalgam of political idealism, national pride and relative insularity, American nationalism evokes mixed feelings abroad. Many admire its idealism, universalism and optimism, and recognise the indispensability of American power and leadership to peace and prosperity around the world. Others reject American nationalism as merely the expression of an overbearing, self-righteous, and misguided bully. In ordinary times, such international ambivalence produces little more than idle chatter. But when American nationalism drives the country's foreign policy, it galvanises broad-based anti-Americanism. And at such times, it becomes impossible to ignore the inconsistencies and tensions within American nationalism - or the harm they inflict on the US' legitimacy abroad.

Minxin Pei is a senior associate and co-director of the China Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. This article first appeared in Foreign Policy magazine.

 

[entropy]

William Pfaff: Bush's new global order will generate resistance
 
William Pfaff IHT/TMSI -- Thursday, April 17, 2003 -- Unfettered power
 
PARIS The war now is past tense, the dead are gone, the wounded are paying the price for all the cheers and relief.

The controversy resumes in the present and future tenses, over Washington's planned - or, as it seems, largely unplanned - pacification and reconstruction of Iraq as an economic and political society, and over what may follow in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The oil ministry was secured early in the battle of Baghdad, even if the hospitals and museums were not; that told us about one Bush administration priority.

Jay Garner and his team of American officials and businessmen are already, in the political realm, up against the factions, sects, and religious and tribal interests of Iraq, and the influence of interested foreign powers.

In the short term, American power will impose its choices. In the long run, Iraq will prevail. This, Washington would say, is negative thinking, but it is true. However, positive thinking is the order of the day because the Bush administration's brave new world is already under construction.

The moment of victory has been seized to start reshaping the Middle East. Step One is the intimidation of Syria, a presumably weak regime with an ophthalmologist as dictator, enjoying office because his departed father put him there, with a weak and under-equipped army and a feeble economy.

The maximum goal in Syria is regime change. The minimum goal is an end to lodging and support for anti-Israeli militias, notably Hezbollah in Lebanon, a country that Syria now dominates.

Lebanon in the new order of things will become an autonomous state under U.S. and Israeli surveillance.

The "road map" for the Middle East will lead nowhere, to Tel Aviv's satisfaction and Tony Blair's chagrin.

Washington would like to terminate the power of the ayatollahs in Iran. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that "all the nations of the region" should now reconsider their positions. They undoubtedly are doing so, probably with a view to maximum dissimulation of maximum resistance to the new order.

President George W. Bush, pushed by the neoconservative activists who surround him, has a second and more imposing ambition. It is to strip from the United Nations its political functions, leaving it to go about its humanitarian activities, continuing to provide its other useful and noncontroversial international services, without interfering with the political decisions of nations, notably those of the United States.

Washington says the United Nations has "failed," as the League of Nations failed. The League failed because its creators, Woodrow Wilson chief among them, built failure into it. They required unanimous decisions in both assembly and the council of great powers. Even then, Poland defied it in 1920, France and Italy in 1923, Japan in 1931, etc. The United States, of course, never joined.

Those who defend the United Nations obviously do so because they don't want the United States to have unchecked power. That is why the forthcoming battle over the UN's role can be expected to become an embittered one. So long as the UN has universal membership and is generally recognized in international law as the sole authority that can legitimately authorize violence by one state against another, it presents a problem for the Bush government.

The Bush administration wants a new international regime of democratic coalitions, which it says would possess a legitimacy the UN lacks, and could deal expeditiously and effectively with threats to international order. Powell says that U.S. interventions would come only on international request, or when U.S. interests are directly involved. But Powell is not a neoconservative.

NATO might be thought such a coalition, but Washington wants the problem to define the coalition, so that each would be different and none would give members a veto over what the coalition does, as in the case of NATO.

Put simply, the Bush administration envisages a world run by the United States, backed by as many states as will sign on to support it but not interfere.

Its stated intention is to maintain an overwhelming military advantage and do its level best to prevent other states from creating nuclear or other deterrent systems. It intends, where feasible, to disarm those already in possession of nuclear weapons. North Korea is a candidate for imminent preemptive disarmament.

It doesn't want any government in a position to check it through international institutions or legal opposition, which is why the United Nations has to go. Otherwise, the only obstacles to neoconservative Washington's freedom of action (other than Chinese and Russian nuclear forces) would be Europe's economic power and potential political unity, and even there the American advantage is large, although not decisive.

Washington says victory in Iraq was the first step in making a new Middle East and a new world order. There probably will be more resistance to both ambitions than it currently expects.

 

The Arab world will see more of:

KILROY was Here!

Which means America will help you get FREE

Arab WOMEN want this more than anything

 

[Oceans11]

The war has been an outstanding success.

Americas ongoing image as the benign saviour of human civilisation has been utterly destroyed in the short term at the very least.
This Iraqi expedition has been a diplomatic disaster, on all fronts.
Americas morals are on trial now, and the whole world is watching.

You cant BS your way out of this one. It was your decision. And now its your butt thats hanging out over the fire.