Written in response to..
Peter Dale Scott put it best when talking abut the Vietnam War. It was floating crap game where various corporate and financial players took seats and made money. Occasionally players would leave and be replaced or there would be "shootouts" between the various players. But the moment anyone threatened the game as a whole, everyone in the game turned on them, whether they were allies or not.
To understand some of the players in the craps game, I suggest you look at the US response to recent events in Haiti - the 'administration' issues statements of support for Aristide (and has sent in troops in the past). Meanwhile its pretty clear the CIA are covertly arming the rebels.
Same thing in Columbia - the CIA arms the drug traffickers / FARC whilst the Administration sends millions to support the Columbian Government in their fight against them.
You might say that this is just a strategy of 'arming both sides' - great for arms sales, and sometimes good for destabilizing a region to create a need for US presence. But I really think there's more to this contradiction than that. It appears that the CIA is running a foreign policy/drugs/arms/funding strategy all of its own and that this only happens co-incidentally to agree (on occasion) with that of the 'rest' of the Administration. Now I dunno about you, but that strikes me as deeply corrupt.
Sure, as in any *capitalist* democracy the 'democratically elected' administration' must always work within the limits (private property law, worker oppression, taxes etc) that are set by the Capitalists/Corporations. This applies from Hugo Chavez to Bush, so there's nothing new there. But, unlike many of my socialist friends, I happen to believe that doesn't the democractic administration completely irrelevant - look at FDR, it is possible to have reform, its just that there are certain boundaries. - And hey (admittedly speaking as a liberal white middle class technocrat) I happen to think its better to have a few boundaries than a slow slide towards totalitarianism.
So anyway, as I see it, the immediate problem here is not one of Capitalist/World Bank/Corporate Control or even just one of the usual, inevitable dissapointments of Democracy. The problem in the US is one of corruption - deep seated corruption at the core of many of her most important institutions, and along with that, equally bad a deep cyncism/lack of hope in any of these institutions. On the inside both republican and democratatic congressional representatives don't bother *actually listening and contributing and trying to suggest their own best idea of decent policy* because they believe/know that the system is so corrupted that it's just gonna be a down and dirty shit fight between the systems that decides the issue anyway. Meanwhile folks on the outside from radicals to alternative lifestylers, to businessmen to right wing gun freaks don't bother to vote because 'its all a fix' anyway.
So what do I think should be done? Well sure, I'd vote for a socialist revolution any day, but short of that distant possibility I *do* believe it is possible - via a mandate from the people - to shake things up to the point that a massive reformation of the corruption would take place.
I do believe that there was a solid mandate, the elected representatives
*would* have the power to reform the CIA (or abolish it) and maybe reform the other drugs and corruption infested organisations like the DOD, HUD, GOP, RNC etc whilst there a it.
Now, the capitalists and corporations that really run the place, well I think you can forget about that via democratic means... one has to think in terms of a longer term raising of consciousness and alternative economies on that one. But (Medianite strategy) lets not forget that at a certain point, the corruption and war are *not* in the interests of the corporations and capitalists who I believe prefer stability and order to chaos and disorder. (Uhm, yeah you were right, Barb, when you pointed out that there have been times when the 'powers that be' deliberately manufacture chaos but there is a huge difference between ups and downs that they *control* and things actually getting out of
control.) At a certain point the war and chaos caused by a corrupted out of control CIA on the one hand fascist war hawks on the other might appear to be getting out of control and I tell you, if that starts to happen, it will be shut down pretty fast.
Look, in New Zealand we had for years the problem of two equally bad party institutions to choose from. Then something happened in the late 90's, and we changed the electoral system to 'proportional representation'. As I see it, it wasn't so important what we changed it to (though it's clearly a better system) more just that there was a big shake up. This big shake up means that the old parties lost control, and new parties have sprung up. We still have our normal share of right wingers in New Zealand, but I personally feel a lot happier that we are fairly 'represented' now.
So, I believe there is a possiblity for things to be better. I also believe that exposure of the true level of corruption and evil things they have done is one way towards the sort of mandate I was talking about above.
Sometimes I think this is one of those cases where the US is unlucky because they won the war. The Japanese and the Germans had a huge sweep out of corruption and militarism only 60 years ago. That's whats needed here too.
Oh and there's one more thing. The old marxist line about the inevitability of a communist revolution is always a good one. The point they make is that even the capitalists are helpless to control the ever further ratcheting up of exploitation, mergers and buyouts, inevitably leading to a single ultra-exploitative superclass that become ever more vulnerable.. yeah, you know, that one? Well it's a good one, and there is some truth in the theory that as the world globalizes and wages worldwide start to become more even, that this is whats happening. However, I have one of my own. Its not red inevitability, its green.
The thing is, its *inevitable* that we will move to a lower energy economy. It may happen because we are forced to do so, or it may happen because we choose to do so, but it will definitely happen. (Almost certainly its going to be something in between). Therefore, those who support low energy / low growth thinking will inevitably *win* against the oil companies and the capitalists wedded to a state of permanent high growth expansionism.
If I had any money to invest for my retirement I would invest it across a wide range portfolio of alternative/low energy technologies, and other things that would thrive in that environment (bicycles?) because no matter how bad things get you can bet we are gonna want some more of that, when the shit starts to hit the fan. Hmm I do wonder what BP has up their sleeve in this regard (other than shamelessly false lies and propaganda about selling 'green' oil).
