I agree with this. The US has never really been dependent on ME oil, and won't be either in the near future. This is perhaps why the US is so hellbent to get rid of Chavez in Venezuela. It's this region (and Europe) the US get its oil from, not the ME. Then there is a competition in Africa (particularly West Africa) between the US and China to get control (and access) of its oil. Democracy is non-existent in most countries there (even our form of it), so it's not hard to get cheap deals and cheap labour. I've heard those quotes from Kennan and Brzezinski quite often, but I can't remember seeing an actual reference to them (Chomsky probably has it somewhere though ;)). I would be interested to read what they have actually said about this, and not only these short, but important, quotes. Another famous quote is the one from the 1945 State Department about Saudi oil ("one of the biggest material prizes in history..." etc). The US "involvement" (big, fat euphemism there) in the ME has never been about access to oil - they basically have that anyway. It has been about control. If the US controls ME oil, they more or less have veto power over the development of China, the Tigers etc, as they have little oil of their own, so have to get it elsewhere. I think the new "Iraqi" (we all know it's a US) oil law basically proves this. The oil sector is being privatized to prevent Iraqi national control of it (what is normal in most countries). Instead it is handed over to Western (mostly US and UK) corporations (many with close ties to the Bush adm). But this isn't enough. It's almost literally being handed over, as in they get it seriously on the cheap, through so-called Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs). They last for decades, can't be re-negotiated, and means the corporations will get a huge chunk of the profits, and the Iraqi state relatively little. When this is completely we can rewind to Bush' speech back in May 2003; Mission Accomplished. Very interesting debate going on here (bar the usual trolls). One of the better ones in the blog system that I've read :thup: Pangaea Oslo, Norway

"But to bend and stretch the truth to make Chomsky appear all-knowing...." Show one exmaple here of that being done. I haven't read every comment so if someone else has done that (I really doubt that anyone has) then perhaps I missed it. But you can't find anything to substantiate that charge in my post or comments; it's not there. I made a baseball analogy to suggest truly remarkable (unmatched) performance in the area of criticism of existing society, suggested much slighter contribution to vision (.265 with some power is not infallible but then neither is the .425 or thereabouts I gave NC in criticsm...infallible would be batting 1000), acknowledged that I myself do most of my work (.287 with speed and a high on base percentage) in the criticsm --- not vision ---area. Same with saying that "Albert [is] beyond criticism." I noted the irony of people ripping on Albert/parecon on this site that is made possible by the hard work of Albert and parecon. You didn't really offer detailed criticism of Albert and parecon probably because you know that it would be sort of silly and perhaps a bit cowardly to be doing that on this blog when in fact other blogs (Mitchell S. and Chris Spannos) are much more specifically focused on parecon and are actually the most relevant locations (consistent with the notion of unavoidable division of laabor and focus on the left) of that debate. I don't claim to be a pareconista in part because to become one I'd have to find time I do not currently possess to read (close to) everything written on, for and against - that's a big project. Maybe I should make that my main next project - or maybe not. "My personal observation is that to criticize either one on this site is to invite all manner of verbal abuse and personal insults." That's rather extreme. I set some new limits on language on this blog a while back. "We stand here on this spot, Znet, in the hardness of the rain without a home, without shelter, without transport, without sight - lonely, cold, wet, living in a world growing more hostile by the day. We can't see to move forward, and we can't see to move backward. We can't see where to place our next step. So we stand here patiently hoping for a let-up in the rain." Yikes. Then get off the spot. This is not good. You may be misusing ZNet in my opinion. It's a tool but it needs to be just one part of a much larger struggle. Take a week -- a month off the Internet...or perhaps just off ZNet. Do an exhaustive search of the real or potential progressive institutions in the community or the country. Join one. Get active. There are all kinds of things you can and should be doing besides arguing with ZNet blog hosts and commenters! "But there seems to be no one here who can see beyond the driving rain, who can take our hands and pull us in a new direction towards hope, towards warmth and dryness and sunshine and the community of comrades in arms. Where are those who can see? Where are those who can communicate vision, set definable objectives, devise alternative strategies, and keep us, the Great Unwashed Masses, motivated and focussed upon the goals set? Perhaps even now they approach. But I don't see them." Stop looking for "them;" it's a bad quest. What's with the search for a Dear Leader? This sounds partly tongue in cheek but not entirely and its not funny. No saviors here...people are going going to have to get out of this Empire and Inequality mess on their own...neither Lenin nor Hugo nor John Edwards nor Noam Chomsky nor Michael Albert nor Subcommadante Marcos nor Bob Dylan nor Jesus nor [fill in the blank] is going to stop the hard rain from falling. Step away from the computer... On that note, I did another post and am off this thread. People ("Anonymous" and otherwise) can flail away all they wish.

It's hard work ferreting out truth - a supremely full-time job in today's world. I continue to be amazed at the variety of sources quoted and the quality of independent analysis shown in the alternative media today, especially here on Znet. Just keeping up with the few sources I attempt to access daily daily is a monstrous job. And in comparison to many on this website alone, I don't feel nearly as well informed in spite of the time I use. So mark one up for those who continue to inform us of current events and help to interpret. And don't apologize for not being in the Albert mode. You are doing a great job at what you do. But to bend and stretch the truth to make Chomsky appear all-knowing and infallible and Albert beyond criticism is to me to hurt the cause of both. My personal observation is that to criticize either one on this site is to invite all manner of verbal abuse and personal insults. In the end, after all the noise made about Znet vision, the message I keep getting from the responses to my comments digging for vision and strategies is that we are woefully short of direction. We stand here on this spot, Znet, in the hardness of the rain without a home, without shelter, without transport, without sight - lonely, cold, wet, living in a world growing more hostile by the day. We can't see to move forward, and we can't see to move backward. We can't see where to place our next step. So we stand here patiently hoping for a let-up in the rain. And in the wait we find ourselves screaming at each other, calling each other names, accusing each other falsely, each outdoing the other in their knowledge of the world, each trying to be heard above the others. But there seems to be no one here who can see beyond the driving rain, who can take our hands and pull us in a new direction towards hope, towards warmth and dryness and sunshine and the community of comrades in arms. Where are those who can see? Where are those who can communicate vision, set definable objectives, devise alternative strategies, and keep us, the Great Unwashed Masses, motivated and focussed upon the goals set? Perhaps even now they approach. But I don't see them.

Somebody here said transcending capitalism is impossible (or something like that). I don't remotely think like that. We have no choice but to transcend it in my opinion. It's that or suffer species death; the capitalist system is hard wired to kill decent human existence. It's not about the crystal ball. "Anonymous" --- whichever one this is (can't keep track, there's so many commenters who go without names...something I find cowardly, as I've said before)--- is trying to show off but it just comes off as snotty bitchiness. Never really offered a full-blown endorsement of parecon. Just didn't. I said what I said and if this "Anonymous" can't deal with it, then whatever....he or she can talk to a friend or a psychiatrist or whoever about the frustration this evokes. If snotting off on the blog makes "A" feel bettter then perhaps I am providing a theraputic function. As for linguistics, one hardly has to possess inside field knowledge to know that Chomsky played the central role I suggested. There's nothing "extravagant" in that judgement. As for studying linguistics because this Anonymous thinks NC did some cool stuff there (he probably did if his political writing is any indication)...great, go read linguistics but don't expect me to. There's a lot of fascinating academic fields and literatures out there and time is scarce. I mean I think the British Marxist historian Christopher Hill did cool stuff on 17th century England but this hardly means I have any reason to expect Anonymous or anyone else to go read up on Hill or others. Go read Hill or don't - it really makes no difference to me. If I get the urge (and time) to read linguistics at some point, then I'll probably do it..when and how I choose. Insofar as I have extra time for intellectual pursuits, I'm investing most of it in learning actual languages (e.g. going back to and then [I hope] going beyond the Spanish course I sat in on ages ago so as to more effectively follow on events in Latin America).

Oh, one more question Paul.

Since you admitted that you don't know anything about lingustics and have no interest in it, HOW do you know that Chomsky practically "invented or reinvented lingustics" (your words)? That sounds rather extravagent for someone who admits that he has zero knowledge of the field. Did you come to that conclusion based on hearsays?

Are you equally informed in your endorsement of parecon?

 

Paul Street said, You can argue directly with more advanced pareconistas than me Have you actually offered any defence to parecon? I must be missing something as it seems that all you do is to put down and verbally abuse whoever dares to disagree with Albert along the line of "you ungrateful S.O.B, what have you done lately? At least Albert works very hard to put forth some sort of plan(even though I have no clue what it is except it sounds radical and cool)!" Just out of curiosity, why are you so adamant that you will never study linguistics? Believe me, Chomsky did some cool stuffs there.

Frederic you wrote

"Educating the oligarchy is one valuable tool, but the problem is that we are inherently voices in the wilderness."

The importance which the entertainment industry (movies, t.v, novels, etc) plays in educating the elites is invaluable, we see more and more how people in the entertainment industry can use their bully pulpit to educate. How do the people in the entertainment industry get educated? Through sites like Znet and others.

You then wrote

"What I've seen is that privileged people are perfectly
ready to debate leftists, usually a sort of detached bemusement: I'm reminded pleasantly of the first episode of the excellent  Boondocks, where Huey's left protest to rich white people only garners applause for his powerful rhetoric. That has also been the response to my criticism."

IMO all of the world's elites are not hard hearted greedy sadists who care for nothing beyond their own wealth and power. Some are, some are not. Some respond to reason some do not. The more they are exposed to reasoned rational arguments for the betterment of themselves and society the more likely it is they will do something to help. They are not beyond growth, what they need is to develop confidence that they can make a difference. I don't have such a bleak and pessimistic outlook on the character of the world's elites, most of them are probably fairly normal people who are in a situation where they feel they have to go along to get along. They can be inspired to work for change.

Then you wrote

"Dharma, just look at what scares the rich. Pandering to them, trying to educate them in the Dalai Lama fashion (or arguably the Rorty fashion), etc. always make them swell with glee. They can always have a retort for every argument you make, and even if you crush them so obviously they must retreat they can just say "Well, reasonable people can differ" and continue having a shit-eating grin.  The core of the debate reaffirms that they will now and always will be the masters of the universe. Now watch how pissed off they get when you try to organize people, unionize people, preach to the ordinary and to the working class. Why would they get so angry if it were ineffectual?"

I don't know who or what kind of people you have debated with and gotten the types of response you write about in the above. But I think it is a mistake to categorize the world's elites as being all of one mind and character. In my view what you describe is what you hear from some, but not all. I believe that most of the world's ruling class have compassion and care about making the world a better place for everyone. But I also believe they feel they are trapped in a system which they cannot change.

Then you wrote

"I am honestly insulted by your representation of poor people as lazy and apathetic. Many of the poor in America work 60, 80 hours a week to support their families, and you dare to knock them for not being more revolutionarily active when their whole existence hangs on a thread and being involved in left politics might doom their family?"

I wasn't refering to poor people, I was refering to everyone "above the poverty level in first world nations". I simply told the truth. When it comes to educating themselves and then becoming politically active the simply reality is that most people are not going to do it. They are somehow content with being the good little consumers and patriots they are programmed to be, or if they are more cynical then they are most likely not going to want to get involved because they are defeatists when it comes to thinking they can make a difference because that is how they have been programmed to think by the education system etc. Some small percentage believe at most they can make a difference at the local level by getting involved for some local level project which has nothing to do with trying to change the system as a whole. The very tiny percentage of people who are actively trying to make some kind of large scale change to the system generally only get involved in protesting. Which in and of itself will not accomplish much of anything except get them targeted by police agencies.

Then you wrote

"The problem with you and other people who try to spiritually educate the rich's conscience, Dharma, isn't your project, it's everything else you assume: That ordinary people are worse than elites! You honestly are claiming that our time is BETTER served by pandering to people who have a vested interest in continuing economic domination rather than to people who, for all their fatigue, hopelessness and FOX-induced delusions, have no such interest. "

I don't know what you mean by "pandering" when I have said that the oligarchy needs to be educated on how to act in a better way then they are acting know. That is not pandering. I don't think "ordinary" people are "worse then the elties", I don't think most of them have the ability nor the will to do what you think they need to do. And it's not just the people suffering under "FOX-induced delusions" i.e the right, it's also almost everyone else. Most people are either content or cynical, either way only a very tiny percentage will make an effort to try and make a change. That is reality, deal with it.

Then you wrote

"If capitalism is too entrenched, why would or could the elites even do anything about it? "

Because they are not a bunch of zombies, they are humans, humans have the ability to realize past mistakes and then try to correct their current mode of action. Forget about ending capitalism, that is not going to happen and it doesn't need to happen. Forget utopian dreams. Corruption and exploitation, abuse of wealth and power, these things will never go away through some kind of utopian plan. What can be done? Educating the elites so that they want to help bring about a more sane and more healthy and more peaceful world. Once you start talking about tearing the system down you become their enemy and lose all power to make a change. The system can work better, it will never be perfect, but it can work much better then it is now. There are those elites who are causing a lot of damage and darkness due to greed and a lack of empathy, they need to be exposed and removed or changed by the other elites who have been content in not being involved. That has to change. The worst of the elites have taken charge whereas most of the elite class have been letting them run things into the ground. For the most part it is not the very top elite class of people who are running things, it is the lower level people who take on the work of managing e.g. your Bushes, Clintons, Politicians, CFR, CEO's, etc. The people with the controling interests are usually large families who spend their time in recreation, leaving the actual work to others, that isn't always the case, but it is more so often then not. They need to be educated.

Then you wrote

"Please explain for everyone here how it would be in the rich's  nterest to abandon their massive wealth and power so we could push towards an egalitarian society."

It is always in the rich person's best interest to not have an angry mob wanting to harm them. It is also in their own interest if they have any kind of spiritual understanding.

Then you wrote

"Yes, the rich could benefit from some enlightened self-interest: Redistributing some wealth could raise growth rates and increase the survivability of the system. Of course, this would also make the system more tenable for longer periods, which wouldn't be good, and more importantly: There's a reason why they can't, Dharma. What you don't get is that elites are trapped in a way too: They're trapped by the dynamics of the market and the state."

I don't think that capitalism can be replaced in the modern world we live in. Utopian visions only work in small scale communities. The modern world and it's reliance on capitalism is something that is here to stay as long as there are no world wide catastrophies. Thinking that there can be some kind of workers paradise without capitalism is a waste of your time. The system can be improved, there is no way for the modern world to continue on with everyone desiring the comforts which technological mass production can give without capitalism or a resort to some kind of communism. Communism doesn't work, nobody but a very tiny percentage of people will be willing to support the end of capitalism, therefore it will not happen no matter what you think or try to do. We need to try to educate people on how to make the best of the current system. It's not perfect but in our modern world there are no perfect solutions, there can only be attempts at improvement.

Frederic I think Chomsky has said more in the vision area than is sometimes assumed, though I'd put him more around .265 (but showing occasional flashes of power) in that area. On the importance of taking the vision step, here is an intertesting Chomsky comment that I'm not sure I ever see cited (if Mike Albert doesn't cite it he ought to because it would seem to work very nicely for his set-up argument): "But in the long run, a movement of the left has no chance of success, and deserves none, unless it develops an understanding of contemporary society and a vision of a future social order [emphasis added, P.S.] that is persuasive to a large majority ot the population." Further, the same author says that the need "for some far-reaching alternative" [to state capitalism and business rule] is clear since "the economists' 'externalities' can no longer be consigned to footnotes. No one who gives a moment's thought to the problems of contemporary society can fail to be aware of the social costs of consumption and production, the progressive destruction of the environment [emphasis added], the utter irrationality of the utilization of contemporary technology, the inabiliy of a system based on profit or growth maxmization to deal with needs that can only be expressed collectively, and the enormous bias this system imposes toward maxmization of commodities for personal use in place of the general improvement of the quality of life." This is from Noam Chomsky, "Some Tasks for Responsible People" (August 1969), pp. 153-154 in Chomsky on Democracy and Education, edited by C.P. Otero (New York, NY: Routledge, 2003). But I doubt Chomsky would disagree that he went went on write mainly by far on (a) "the understanding of contemporary society," not (b) the "vision of a future social order." See the Albert memoir (I'd give you page numbers but am on the road and away from library) on the debate these two friends sometimes have about this. But (b) is tough and asking Chomsky or John Pilger (for example) to have done more on (b) than (a) is probably like asking the keyboardist to play guitar or the point guard to play power forward. I'm personally a keyboardist but I sense the special need for more visionary guitarists at present and unklike victor and others here Albert et al.'s, riffs are sounding pretty decent to me these days. The "vision thing" is critical and it's a great contribution just to advance it on the left. In any event, it's not good enough to just keep on defensively “fighting the good fight” against one corporate and imperial outrage after another. It's long past time to think and act on the offensive: we and the rest of the world have been ruled by vicious authoritarians and imperialist bastards for long enough.

Chomsky has played center field and shortstop and hit .420 with about 57 home runs and 150 RBIs a year and victor you are critical because he hasn't also pitched and won 35 games and struck out 350 each season. Sorry, there's a division of labor even on the left. It's a team, in accord with the limits of individuals. NC added exhaustive study and exposure of really existing society and policy to linguistics (a field he apparently reinvented or was it invented..I do not read linguistics;probably never will) as his life work. Glad he did that. In his interesting memoir Remembering Tomorrow, for what it's worth, Albert relates arguing with his friend Chomsky about the need for vision. You can argue directly with more advanced pareconistas than me if you like.I admit to being more on the Chomsky than the Albert side of the division of focus and labor --- it's still a necessary and full-time job to discover and expose the truth of currently existing hiearchy and hypocrisy in my humble opinion --- but this is not without self-criticism and it could change.  

 

I have never ever said that I was from the old Left centrist view. Never. I never said that the workers were not important. Never once did I say that. In fact workers are the key to all of this. It is really they who have the ultimate power, if they would rise up and use it. But they won't. I believe that workers naturally look for leadership to show them the way, to inspire them, to keep them secure and strong. To not recognize that people have both strengths and weaknesses when devising a new political/economic system is, in my opinion, asking for trouble. And I simply say that Parecon does not do that in a realistic manner, and that is likely it's Achilles heel. To believe that the teaming millions and billions of the world will latch onto an economic system that quite likely will demand deep and lasting and continuous participation from each of them, is in my opinion just not feasible or realistic. M Albert is a very smart man. And obviously has poured his life into this. I would never trash that. I admire anyone who can do such a thing. But I don't have to agree with them. And I don't. But if you think that because he and his followers have worked so hard at this that they are beyond criticism from responders on this site, then perhaps I have mis-judged you. And I don't believe I am being entirely negative. I want to work for a better future for everyone, like most everyone else on this site. It's just that I disagree when someone tells me that Znet has this wonderful vision. I have never seen it. It may well be there. But it's not obvious to me. But just as serious, I seldom see anything written here (blogs or articles) that does anything other than offer well-presented and insightful criticisms of the world we live in and current events. This is good. In fact, it's wonderful and critical to a right interpretion of the world we live in. But rarely do I ever see anyone offering up a solution to the world's problems here - rarely. With of course the Parecon exception, to which a good deal of the site is devoted and to which I have already commented. As for Chomsky, huge intellect, Leftist elite, almost God-like - but where are his solutions? What kind of a world, a government, an economic system is he working towards? What is his vision? What kind of strategy is he putting into place to get there? He quite obviously has a firm grasp on history and what is wrong with the world. No one can match him on that. But as the old advert in the 80's asked, "Where's the meat?" Where is he taking all this? At least dharmaraja has analyzed the situation and wrongly or rightly come to the conclusion that the next move appears to be in the hands of the ruling elite of the world. We can discuss that. Perhaps even plan around that. But all I get from Chomsky, yourself and others is how we got to this point, which of course is critically needed and certainly welcome, but offers little in the way of a plan forward. Apologies, but that's how I see it. Negative or not. Depressing or not. And I'm sorry, but this IS a shitty world. And it's getting shittier by the day. And the sooner folks wake up to that, the sooner we can get on with making the changes desperately needed to correct it. And unless they do, it won't get done.

The elites have been working on this for centuries now with hiccups here and there. They put in the banking system that is driving this world. They devised the religion of capitalism we must bow to. They instituted the concept of the corporation and made certain that in time it was equipped to conquer all. They worked behind (are are presently working) behind the scenes to transform the most powerful country on earth to a despotic tool they can use to institute the New World Order. There is no mercy here. These are not our friends. Greed drives them, and lust for power. And, I become more convinced daily, even at the expense of the entire world. If they do come to their collective senses, I fear it will be too late.

Anonymous you wrote

<blockquote>Should we seek out and vote for a candidate who is certified insane? I suppose many mental patients fancy themselves Napolean so it is probably not difficult to find someone in the mental institutions who thinks he is the President of the United States. </blockquote>

Vote for the person you want to vote for. From Obama and Hillary we get more or less the same rhetoric as from the leading republican candidates. What Bill Clinton did in office was reprehensible, yet if he was able to run again he would win. Obama at this stage of the game has given forth a republican agenda in his rhetoric, Bill Clinton didn't really do that when he was campaigning for the first time. Hillary has shown her stripes and she is more or less like Obama. If you feel that voting for one of them or for any other establishment candidate that things will get better then go ahead. I would rather see third party candidates like Ralph Nader get enough support so that the mainstream media is forced to give him or someone like him equal coverage and equal respect e.g including him in debates. I know he can't win but the more that someone who can speak like he does is given an opportunity to reach the masses the better. He outlines in a very powerful way the problems and common sense solutions for those problems which plague American society. He exposes the system and the political enablers for what they are for all to see. The more people who can see the common sense solutions to endemic problems in comparison to the idiotic political hackery masquerading as the noble plans for public service by our holy populist establishment politicians, the better off everyone will be.

Victor you wrote

<blockquote>What dharmaraja says makes a lot of sense, up to the point that he gives up and asks the oligarchy to please change their ways for the good of mankind. To that I have to say, good luck. Indeed, time has already told. </blockquote>

Education the oligarchy is not the same as giving up. My point was that only the oligarchs can change the system. They cannot be forced to change because they control all legal avenues of control which can affect change. I don't believe that the entire oligarchy is comprised of boneheaded morons who are unable to grow as people. Education means to enlighten, to illuminate that which is not seen. The oligarchy sees what they are doing as being in their own best interest. Our job is to shed light on a better way of serving their own interests.

You then wrote

<blockquote>So that leaves us with radical change from without. The only chance of success lies in social upheaval, preferably non-violent upheaval. But social upheaval is not enough of itself. The masses have to be inspired and motivated.  </blockquote>

Those days are gone. We won't see another 60's generation and even that did not change the system. There were changes to the system which came about in that era but that was due to the oligarchy acting in their own interest. The protests against Vietnam did nothing. Nixon didn't pull out of Vietnam until it became seen as not worth the effort to continue from a military and economic view. Abortion became legal because the oligarchy is into population control. Civil rights laws were enacted and enforced to a degree for various reasons, none of which had to do directly with protests by Americans. The protests brought the issue to their attention at a time when there were many economic and political reasons to stop the blatant support of racist policies in America. Women's rights are no longer an issue to any great degree. The women's right movement was like the civil rights movement in that the changes that came from within the system were a sign of the times, the protests brought the issues to the attention of the oligarchy, but the changes were made not because of the protests. They were not forced to change the system, they realized the system needed too be changed. The labor movements had some success but failed to a great degree just like the protests against the war failed.

We won't see another radicalization of the masses again in the near future. What happened in the late 1950's-70's happened because there arose a major shift in values. Whatever caused the 60's cultural shift to happen the simple fact is that the 60's generation saw themselves as living in a society whose culture they rejected enmasse. This contributed to the mass appeal of the political mobilization for change that was happening at the same time. The nations youth, or at least a large part of them, saw themselves as cultural pioneers and they saw their parents generation as languishing in an outdated unevolved cultural backwater. The whole revolutionary spirit of that time was mostly due to the convergence of  new or seemingly new cultural, economic, and political realities. Those days are gone. We live in a postmodern world. What happened 40 years ago wouldn't have happened without the cultural shift, that's what gave the massive numbers of young people, and even not so young, the impetus to feel they were part of a collective movement towards a more enlightened modernity. Now everyting new is old hat. There will be no mass collectivization because everyone is doing their own thing. The 60's political movement failed because the people involved realized they couldn't fight the power and win. So they dropped out for the most part and either joined in the "rat race" or dropped into some escapist scene like religion or the arts or education. Nowadays that kind and scale of political collectivism cannot even arise.

Victor then you wrote

<blockquote>Our leaders are corrupt and self-serving and criminal. And we want to rid ourselves of them. But we fail to understand that under the present structure we will only replace them with other self-serving, corrupt criminals. Why? It's the STRUCTURE. You have to put into place a structure that encourages strong leadership, or the masses won't buy into it. At the same time you have to put into place a structure that does not attract the dredges of humanity to those offices. You have to break the ties between money and politics. You have to change the economic system to one that prevents monetary speculation and the unbridled accumulation of wealth and capital. </blockquote>

The economic system is too complex and too entrenched and massive to change. People are too lazy to live without their remote controls, what to speak of wanting to participate in some kind of political effort to change capitalism which they depend on to pay their cable bill. Most people above the poverty level in first world nations are not going to want to get involved, they can barely name who their senators are or what's going on in America beyond what is spoonfed to them by the MSM. That is not really going to change for the foreseeable future. Without them there is no chance to change the system when the oilgarchy wants to maintain it. 

You then wrote

<blockquote>Capitalism in its present form has to go. The current government systems of the world have to go. They must be replaced, and soon, or the whole system will implode. We are truly on the edge of catastrophe, perhaps even an extinction level event. The current system has brought us to this fateful point. It cannot do anything else but drive us all over the edge. It's only a matter of time. </blockquote>  

Capitalism in it's present form differs from country to country. Regulations, bank laws, monetary laws, etc, vary. The globalist capitalist system which is the playground of the very wealthy and connected is totaly corrupt and that is what causes so many problems on large scales. That cannot be changed by anyone but those self same very wealthy and connected. The system won't implode, it's too controlled to get very much out of hand. Whenever there is a serious problem they make some adjustment, it happens all of the time. The only real big problem the system faces besides natural disasters or weapons of mass destruction is the end of oil. But even that may not be a problem by the time oil runs out (if it does). They are not going to radically change the economic system simply because it works for them, they make out like bandits. What they need to do is see the wisdom of, and benefit for themselves, of making it work for everyone else as well. There is a way, what is needed is the will.

And where would would you read in history about Lenin or Castro and Che or Mao without Russian, Cuban, and Chinese peasants and workers?...who of course got pushed to the margins in the name of revolutionary consolidation once they had done the heavy lifiting that enabled new "elites" to rule (same role that "masses" played in the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries). They were pushed aside to make room for the new "socialist" coordinators. "Workers' control" was defeated by Lenninism by at least 1919. 

It wasn't just the evil perfidy of the capitalist West that led to the demise of the old Lenninist/Stalinist model that victor seems to want to defend. That model was revealed as a monumental failure and indeed as a reincarnation of class hieararchy.

Albert et al.come out a left-anarch tradition that I respect. They advocate revolution that does not inherently and quickly degenerate into a new authoritarianism. They are out of the hard and serious, not really "utopian" left IMO, so their so-called "political correctness" and "inclusivness" is inserted within anticapitalism and has nothing to do with the dominant corporate-liberal/neoliberal variants.

And they are actually engaged in planting some seeds of new participatory forms within an admittedly small and favored but growing number of economic institutions. Imagine that.

I think its ironic that nattering nabobs of negavity ("this is a shitty world"...I disagree) and nameless critics ("Anonymous") spend so much energy just shitting (frankly) on Albert's efforts on the ZNet system, which is a frankly remarkable and heroic project that owes much of its existence to Albert and other dedicated pareconsitas.

I mean, shit: I'd like to see some of the know-it-all critics here get out of the stands and pick up a bat or a glove and mix it up on the ballfield to one 100th of the same extent as the ZNet/ZMag crew.  

Amen to Keir's point about looking at the site beyond the blog system. Personally I'd say that less than 5 percent of my total ZNet writing has been on the blog.

Since I write (so far) more in the Chomsky than in the Albert mode (I focus on criticism of really existing system, not on developing vision and plans for a future system), I probably reinforce some of the nattering negativity but in fact I write out of optimism and do not wish to encourage any of the depressing energy I am picking up from some of you folks

I maintain that strong leadership is both consistent with good governance but is also much more in tune with the complexities of human nature. Perhaps many of the folks who contribute to this site believe in the necessity of a fully participative government and economy, but I daresay that such beliefs are not supported by history or human psychology. Do you seriously think that people's movements begun by the likes of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Castro or Chavez would have been born or continued without their strong leadership involved? Do you seriously think that the great things happening today in South America, especially Venezuela would have survived even a moment without the strong purpose and leadership and resolve by Chavez? How long would the Cuban revolution have lasted without Castro? People naturally look for leadership - strong leadership. Vital leadership. Visionary leadership. What is wrong with that? Is it that most of our leaders historically have turned out to be assholes? Maybe. And that's one of the issues we need to resolve. But the facts throughout history would seem to me to indicate that people continually, in spite of what we might like to imagine, look to strong leadership for protection and support and guidance. To remove that possibility from them by instituting a form of government or economics that requires their consistent and dedicated participation on a day-by-day basis would be asking for far more than the average Joe would desire or accept, I think. Seems to me that the new left appears to project its own ideals and personality upon the populace at large, rather than the reverse, attributing much to the people that in fact they, the new left, desire, not necessarily the people. Those on the right have consistently and historically and very efficiently recognized the need and desire of people for strong visionary leadership, and in fact have taken huge advantage of that need. Even the Old Left recognized this, and though they produced the likes of Lenin and Stalin and Mao, they yet recognized the people's needs and went for it - and the people supported them. The new left, in my opinion, has bought into lalaland in its single-minded quest for political correctness and inclusiveness at the expense of real solutions for a real world made up of real people, people with warts as well as needs - a world in dire need of social justice and environmental sustainability. And if anyone should be accused of Utopianism, it is they. As for Znet, there are a lot of really good articles and discussion and philosophies present. And personally I think that the Blogs are in reality a reflection of the true personality and beliefs of the site - that papers aside, they show the true face of the site on an everyday, in-your-face basis. But outside of Parecon, not only are there no solutions in the blogs or otherwise, but there are, at least in my mind, precious few attempts (if any?) to seriously look at and coalesce around solution alternatives - either political or economic. On the other hand, that might not be the mission of this site. It might only exist to promote Parecon and act as a general clearinghouse for Leftist dialog. That's fine. But don't put me down for advocating something different, and certainly don't accuse me of not being far enough to the left for you. Don't put me down for raising an idea and promoting discussion around it. That only hardens my resolve and makes me take even more seriously that you are not really looking for solutions, only conformity and mutual back-slapping. This is a shitty world. And it's a world in serious danger. And all this site seems to accomplish is to confirm that. And by the way, I am quite aware that most everyone on this site want change. Almost everyone here recognizes the need for change. That's good. But well, really, so what? So let's (and at the risk of raising your hairs again) "get our heads together" and hammer out some realistic and practical solution alternatives.

Victor's insistance that "strong leadership" is needed to save the world is FAR MORE UTOPIAN than anything I have read regarding Parecon. I have to second Paul: there are plenty of articles on ZNet about positive vision. Try reading something other than the blogs. And stop saying we have to "get our heads together" as though no one else was noticing and addressing the need for change and how to do it. Keir The Hague

Seriously, why should we not require tests of our leaders? That has nothing to do with being Leftist or Rightest. It has to do with setting standards of qualification for a particular level of job. Nothing unreasonable about that. As I have said in another recent comment (see below). It's the system structure that is important. The structure can be a reflection of Left thought or Right thought or whatever. Then you fill the structure with those most qualified to assume leadership roles that carry out the social objectives of that structure. If they don't do it, you remove them and put someone else in. No leader has job security. This is what differentiates this selection system from a historical civil service system.

What dharmaraja says makes a lot of sense, up to the point that he gives up and asks the oligarchy to please change their ways for the good of mankind. To that I have to say, good luck. Indeed, time has already told. There is another way to bring about the change dharmaraja quite rightly points out is needed. Working within the system will never, ever work. As dharmaraja says, you are working against a stacked deck. It won't happen. And as I have noted, the elite have no motivation for doing it themselves - for God's sake, why would they? So that leaves us with radical change from without. The only chance of success lies in social upheaval, preferably non-violent upheaval. But social upheaval is not enough of itself. The masses have to be inspired and motivated. And there needs to be an understanding of just what it is that the current system will be replaced with. To say that we want a free, participatory society free from bias and full of justice is not only not enough, but in my mind goes against the very nature of the human species. For once let's get our heads out of the clouds and take a hard and serious look at what it currently means to be human in today's world, warts and all, without all this fanciful shit about re-making people into wonderful human beings full of political correctness and selflessness. The reality is that the human race has some serious, and civilization-threatening, character deficiencies. We need to get our heads around that. We need a reality check. We need to break free of traditionalist thought (right or left) and start thinking about a social and political structure that will both recognize our fallible natures and provide encouragement to the application of true social justice and environmental sustainability. I believe that it has rightly been pointed out that democracy as we understand it, is not scalable. I also believe that the new left movement has callously disregarded one of man's most fundamental traits; that he is a social creature subject to herd instinct. Like it or not, men look for and respond to strong leadership. Like it or not, there exists not one society on earth which does not look for the right leadership, and strength, and vision, and passion. IN my opinion that is where participatory economics falls flat on its face - it fails to recognize that men don't really want to participate. They want to live their lives and dream their dreams and work and play and be with their families. They want a society that allows them to do this. They want a society that is fair and inclusive and keeps away the bad guys. And they want leaders who can lead them there. Our leaders are corrupt and self-serving and criminal. And we want to rid ourselves of them. But we fail to understand that under the present structure we will only replace them with other self-serving, corrupt criminals. Why? It's the STRUCTURE. You have to put into place a structure that encourages strong leadership, or the masses won't buy into it. At the same time you have to put into place a structure that does not attract the dredges of humanity to those offices. You have to break the ties between money and politics. You have to change the economic system to one that prevents monetary speculation and the unbridled accumulation of wealth and capital. The structure is critical. It is the structure that makes it easy to accomplish some things and hard to accomplish others. But without the proper understanding and recognition of who and what we are, both our strengths and weaknesses as a species, you cannot hope to put the right structure into place, on that will encourage the good bits and discourage the bad. Capitalism in its present form has to go. The current government systems of the world have to go. They must be replaced, and soon, or the whole system will implode. We are truly on the edge of catastrophe, perhaps even an extinction level event. The current system has brought us to this fateful point. It cannot do anything else but drive us all over the edge. It's only a matter of time.

Victor has a valid point, I cannot put it better myself. I have read znet postings for a few months now I cannot help getting the impression that there are too much complaints and too little solution for the here and now. Mike Albert is a talented guy and obviously full of passion, but I think he would have greater success if he switches career to become a science fiction writer. I am sorry, parecon is completely Utopian and as Victor says on the other thread, it is dead before it is even born(or something to that effect)

I don't know if NC's analysis is accurate, I read some recent documents which state that the U.S.'s reliance on ME oil has increased quite dramatically in the last decade, I don't know how old are NC's sources because he does have a tendency to recylce old materials. I will try to find somne links. As long as oil is a priced comodity you will have outside forces meddling in the ME, whether it is the U.S. or someone else. The genocide in Dalfur is apparantly relating to oil as well, at least that is one reason behind this very complex event. The Sudanese government has to boot the indigenous people off the land because they are sitting on the black gold. The Chinese are the major player in setting up the infrastrutures to extract the oil and obviously will be a major beneficery.(I know David Peterson doesn't like the word "genocide" but I don't care for his selective outrage over atrocities either) When the U.S. becomes successful in deploying alternative energy source its leverage over its competitors will likely diminish to a large extent because its advanced competitors (the E.U., Japan) are way ahead than the U.S. in persuing other energy options. I am not the anonymous who posted the first entry.Somehow I have a lot of problems registrating.

Well I know you're being tongue in cheek but it is not really as far fethced as you think. Lee Kwong Yew, the former President and (current?) Patriarch of Singerpore has proposed a very similar system. He in turned was inspired by the Chinese civil examination system which has been a fixture of the Chinese Empire for centries. The question is of course who get to make the questions, design the syllabus and grade the exam. Besides, being knowledgible doesn't mean one is socially conscious and has the proper priorities. Many autocratic countries are run by an elite of competent technocrats.

Very eloquent piece especially this brilliant formulation: So the question is, is Obama a Clinton clone or is he the real deal Holyfield who is trying to get elected by supporting establishment policies and who then plans on setting down a leftist agenda once he gets elected? If he is the former then it would be no great surprise, if he is the latter then he is not mentally stable enough to be president because that would never work.

One question though. What should the non moron left do in the face of such a paradox?

Should we seek out and vote for a candidate who is certified insane? I suppose many mental patients fancy themselves Napolean so it is probably not difficult to find someone in the mental institutions who thinks he is the President of the United States.

Or maybe we should stay home and post on Znet to whine somemore about the state of the Empire on election night to ensure another victory for the GOP-Christian fundo alliance? When it gets really bad a revolution will come I suppose.

Apology accepted and I'll look for tongue in cheek but good Lord man have you seen the parecon links and the books and articles of ZNet handler Michael Albert and the recent contributions of Chris Spannos and the discussions on Mitchell S' blog including the comments of ebpatton and so on? Stephen Shalom writes about participatory politics on ZNet. You say "please show me the ZNet vision" when many core concepts and debates are linked like just a few clicks away.  In terms of your prior comment, however, one wouldn't have to be a pareconista (I don't claim to be one ...I can only say that I'm barely a fellow traveler at this point given other time and focus commitments) to be well to the left of what you were talking about.   The parecon debate is already well engaged and ongoing on the site and I don't remotely pretend to be the central location of that discussion.

Paul what you have written about Barak Obama  (as have others) seems to be being ignored by a large contingent on the Left. The same thing with Hillary Clinton. In the case of Hillary she has a long record of being an establishment politician. She was also involved to some degree or another with all manner of shady goings on in Arkansas before the HillBilly administration took charge in D.C. In fact many make a good case that it was Hillary who was always the brains of the HillBilly operation with Bill playing the role of the charismatic frontman.

 They, like Obama, were originally hailed as the new face of politics in America. They were supposedly ushering in the takeover by the best and brightest of the 60's generation of the American political system. Even today the mass of people who vote democrat still believe that Clinton was to the Left what Reagen is to the moron Right. I call them the moron Left. Even though there have been countless exposes on the Clintons and their complete rejection of Leftist ideology and their total devotion to rightist establishment causes, Bill Clinton is still seen as some kind of mythical hero by most people on the Left. And apparentely Hillary is still seen as the embodiment of the Clinton mythos to a large section of people on the Left.

 Even Al Gore is celebrated as some kind of mythical hero even though he hardly ever supported anything but rightist establishment positions. This situation is all due to media spin and to the fact that most people don't search out and become educated on the details of the past actions of their political leaders and wannabe leaders. If all the people who claim to be leftists or democrats really got to know the details of the past actions of the Clintons in all it's ugly details, then there is no way they would support them for anything. Yet somehow the Clinton mythos as the people's hero seems to be blindly taken for granted by a huge percentage of people on the left, any criticism of the Clintons is suspected of being right wing political hit jobs because the Clintons have become sacred and holy. They are like what Dubya Bush is to the moron Right. Both the moron Left and the moron Right respond to the media manipulation put out by professional spinmasters and psychologists who craft the images of these politicians. For the moron Right Bush is exactly what his spinmasters say he is, all criticism is believed to be politically motivated because that is what the spinmasters convince them is the truth. The same for the moron Left. The Clintons are exactly what their spinmasters say they are and all criticism is politically motivated.

What we see happening with Obama is a bit more complex. The people who support him have seen through the Clinton mythos for the most part. They possibly were brainwashed by the Clinton spin cycle at one time but they have broken free of it to some degree or another. So how do they support Obama when his record is just as rightist as the Clintons? They either don't know his record or they believe he is trying to pull one over on the establishment and is really going to be what the Clintons promised to be but never were i.e the great leftist liberal hero here to save the republic from the nefarious republican baddies with their fundamentalist christian hegemonic imperial ambitions.

So the question is, is Obama a Clinton clone or is he the real deal Holyfield who is trying to get elected by supporting establishment policies and who then plans on setting down a leftist agenda once he gets elected? If he is the former then it would be no great surprise, if he is the latter then he is not mentally stable enough to be president because that would never work.

Since Obama doesn't seem like a cetifiably insane person then we have to assume that he is a Clinton clone, a person seeking his day in the sun through being a cog in the establishment machinery, which is rightist whether or not they spin it as leftist or centrist.

As usual the the left is being led around by the carrot and the stick. The carrot is the mythical savior figure who always turns out to be an establishment water carrier, and the stick is tbeing told that we should fear voting for a third party candidate because that will enable the dreaded republicans to win by dividing the Left. In this way the establishment controls the majority of the left to support their candidate. Suprisingly even leftists who I thought were fairly intelligent and perceptive have jumped on the Obama bandwagon as if he is the coming savior (Arianna, wtf?) and have harshly and wrongly criticized Al Sharpton as some kind of inverse racist or jealous guy because Sharpton pointed out the obvious about Obama i.e. his rightist record. These people are incredibly naive if they think that the political process can cause the massive change they desire in America and the world. The political process is tightly controlled, only the very powerful elite class of plutocrats can change or alter significantly the American and world establishment system. This may seem like a defeatist or doomsayer outlook for the leftist, but it is the truth. It's better to face reality in truth then to scamper about wasting your life on unattainable dreams in the name of noblity. I do believe change can come, but it will not come from any kind of attempted changing of the establishment system by people who are not part of the oligarchy. Change can only come from within the inner sanctum of the oligarchy. If they can change their greedy self centered exploitative callous mentality, if they can somehow rise above their current debased spiritual level, then change would be forthcoming quite easily. Can that be accomplished? Can the Grand Dukes and the Barons and Kings and Sheikhs and tycoons living in their castles and private islands actually come to some kind of understanding of karma or even empathy which can inspire them to go in a different direction then what is currently laughingly passing off as righteous democracies and spiritually inspired society? Time will tell.

Sincere apologies to both you and dharmaraja for my error. Didn't mean to lecture, and certainly didn't mean to offend. Actually it was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek (well, mostly). But now that you mention it, just what is the Znet "vision"? I see a lot of complaints and a lot of unrealistic economics mentioned and certainly a hell of a lot of opinion and comments on the site from the average Joe to the God-like, but please, show me the Znet "vision", for me and for the world. Even the vision for this country would suffice. Put it on the table in full view of everyone. Let's all touch it and feel it and admire it's "leftness", whatever that means to today's neo-left.

Victor I had to go into your comment and replace "Paul wrote" with "dharmaraja wrote." This is because I didn't write that quote. dharmaraja said it, ok? Mistakes will happen in attributing quotes in blog comment sequences but it really knocks me out that you seem to think I need a  lecture on the need for changing the system.  Not that that's much of a revolution you are proposing after falsely "quoting" me...Opinion and vision at ZNet are thankfully far to the left of what you call for. 

 dharmaraja wrote:

The system is run so that only the elites can fix the problems, which they are and have been causing either by inheritance or by rising to positions of power and prominence.

Hmmm....so maybe we should...uh...change the...uh....system?... ;-) Maybe we have outgrown democracy. It's not scalable anyway as others have so ably pointed out. And way too many flaws. Totalitarian governments don't seem to work either. But at least they are scalable. Only problem is you get some nut case in there like Hitler or Stalin, or Bush (not that I am equating Bush with those other two gents - they had brains and charisma). I suppose one thing we have never tried before, nor has anyone else to my knowledge, is a professional merit-based system. Not talking about Civil Service here guys. President by Test. Give candidates a series of tests on domestic/foreign policy, knowledge of government, etc. Stress test their ability to handle decision-making and team-building. Stuff like that. All sorts of psychological tests and profiling. Then take the leading candidate and give her a 2-year trial under probation. Then give them 4 years on their own. Review them after 4 years and if they are still doing well, give them another 4 years. As for job stability, if they continue doing well and are responsive to the needs of the people, they are kept. If not their asses are fired. Same with congress and the courts. No expensive campaigns. No financial obligations to the elite. Just professional practice. A No-Party System. Maybe even a certification program - Certified Town Leader, or Certified State Leader, or Certified National Leader or something like that. And then get rid of all the Certified Assholes and Shitheads. There could still be political appointees (a president still needs the option to build her own team), but the appointees would have to be qualified as well. So the Pres could select from a pool of qualified candidates, not just his cronies, and not industry foxes to guard the chicken house. When the Pres goes, they return to the pool. Get rid of that Constitution and replace it with a more people friendly version based upon civil rights, social justice, environmental responsibility, prohibiting offensive weapons, requiring national consensus for starting wars, placing corporations under strict laws making them responsible citizens of the world, stuff like that.

Excellent post, Paul. But unfortunately nowhere is it written that we have the right to not be ruled by narcisstic, power-mad shitheads. I suppose our best protection against narcisstic, power-mad shitheads* within our current electoral system is the now-deceased system of checks and balances. Things like term limits seem to have been rendered quite surmountable by Bush the Lesser and Clinton the Not-so-much-fairer. On selection by lot, I will say that I have long believed this to be a far more valid method of finding temporary civic employees of the people than our current representative democracy (sic). Bu then: no campaign season, no televised debates (sic), no scandals, no inane "who-would-you-rather-have-a-beer-with" type questions, no dimwitted USA Today polls . . . . . . I know: no fun. The Left has no sense of humor! *p.s.: I propose "narcissistic, power-mad shitheads" as the official meaning of "them" from now on. Who knows? Maybe it'll take off and we'll see it on the CNN news ticker someday. Keir The Hague

The French were shut out of Middle East's oil regions entirely after the 1956 Suez debacle completing a process that began during WWII. Convulsions in North Africa in the 60's convinced their Gaullist & technocratic "state nobility" (whose unbridled power is an Anglo-American politician's wet dream) to launch a massive buildup of nuclear energy. Interesting how the Westward dimension of France's "energy independence" is nowhere to be found in this NPR report.

btw, my earlier post should have read "one sixth of the oil imported", instead of "one sixth of the oil consumed" (for some reason, blogging software isn't allowing me to go back and edit it). This figure obviously doesn't include other major sources of energy such as hydroelectric, nuclear plants, natural gas, etc. Hence, total US energy reliance on Middle Eastern energy sources is probably below 10%. If anyone can provide a more detailed breakdown, that'll be quite worthwhile.

Right sk - about one sixth and its worth noting that Europe and Asia have higher dependencies on Persian Gulf and remember National Intelligence Council is saying that U.S. will actually shift away from PG oil to "Atlantic Basin." Chomsky has been writing about this a lot lately (including on ZNet). If you really want to get historical about it, my sense is that oil/ME oil takes on real significance in imperial (certainly British but interesting to hear you mention the French) calculations around WWI. This has to do with the use of oil (over coal) in warships and then of course the rise of the mass produced automobile and auto-trucks I would imagine. People sometimes forget how much oil came out of SW US in early decades of petro-Fordism and its interesting that U.S. planners were locked in on controlling ME oil (and making sure to muscle the British out of the Saudi prize during WWII) when we still supplied most of our own petroleum from our own continent. The comment by dharmaraja I'll have to look at more closely tomorrow but will say that I'm not holding my breath for any power elite spiritual/moral conversions.

One of the sine qua nons of any liberal commentary in this country (annoyingly, even Cartalk on NPR) is the notion that the economy is tragically in hock to "foreign (read Arab) oil". Actually, only one sixth of the oil consumed here comes from the Persian Gulf.

The "great game" of control over Middle Eastern oil started much earlier than the generally acknowledged WWII timeframe. This is what the French were saying internally in 1928 about an agreement with American companies: "The execution of the Red Line Agreement marked the beginning of a long-term plan for the world control and distribution of oil in the Near East."

What was "long-term" 8 decades ago is still not going to turn "short term" in the foreseeable future. Pity the nations of the region.

Paul, it is easy to point out the ethical and moral shortcomings of the current and past American political/economic establishment elites, what is not so easy to do is to make a clear case on how to get out of the mess which was created by short sighted greedy elites of the past and which has grown into an entrenched system which millions of people rely on for their luxurious lifestyles. What is difficult to believe is that the desire for "empire" as you call it, is something which the elites believe they can give up even though they can intellectually acknowledge the immoral or unethical actions which their predecessors performed or they themselves perform.

What you seem to propose is akin to asking a big time sports franchise to stop giving players 100 million dollar contracts and to stop the athletes from playing with their commonplace attitudes of "win at any and all cost by constantly trying to cheat or foul or hurt other players". You can preach to the sports teams owners about how sports are supposed to be about having fun and developing your health and relationships with others instead of being about winning. The reality is the big time sports are competitive businesses. If a team owner found religion and decided to follow your ethical and moral advice then the teams that didn't follow that advice to give up unethical and immoral practices would end up winning and making money, while your team would end up losing and possibly go out of business.

That is how the situation is viewed by the elites of any and all countries in our modern world. If they didn't think that way then they would not remain in power positions for very long. The wars in Iraq or Vietnam or by the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechnya or any major conflict, are fought on the basis of trying to survive in a world where there are many others who are trying to take what you want or what you already have. The rational for going into Iraq was that if America didn't take over Iraq that Iraq would fall into someone else's hands. Because of the nature of Iraqi society under Saddam and of it's importance to the world's economy, it was seen as a vulnerable and essential place to control by any and all of the world's biggest power players. If America didn't take control then all of the others who were trying to control Iraq and or had plans to control Iraq would have made their bid to do so. At least that is the thinking from the side of the elites who control American military policy i.e. if we don't play to win then we will lose to those who are playing to win.

The major problem for the American agenda in Iraq and in the general "War on Terror" has been it's  ruthlessness and it's openly immoral and unethical actions at home and abroad. The loss of public support around the world has been mostly due to the perception that the American leaders are contemptuous for the rule of law and are and have been intent on creating an ever more all powerful  police state, and that they are without real concern for the common people. This is the result of the current administration's "in your face" policies. If you are going to cheat and steal from others it is always better to do it in a way that creates as little animosity as possible, that has been the golden rule of American political policy until the current administration. Clinton was loved and is still loved at home and abroad even though his administration's policies were not much different then the current administration. Why the system changed so radically under Bush is a puzzle. It almost seems that they wanted the world to hate America, and maybe that is the case for some possible future rise of the U.N. as a "sane" answer to American deprivations. Or maybe the powers which control the Bush administration have simply gone crazy or been taken over by crazy people.

Anyways I don't think that the common person can really do much to affect change for the positive in terms of domestic and foreign politics and policy. While a democracy is a great ideal, for all practical purposes it really only works in small scale communities. Large scale communities on the scale of modern countries have never been successful democracies and they never will be. The Athenian model is not practical in larger societies due to the need of expertise, and therefore the modern democracy cannot become true democracies due to corruption. All political positions inevitably become targeted for corruption from all sides at all times. There is no escaping that. Therefore it is inevitable and it has been seen that in every case all modern democracies have become plutocracies. Those with the most wealth or with the best plan to subvert the democratic process always end up doing so. So any dream of a democratic solution is simply unfeasible due to democracy being inherently unstable beyond a certain size and modernity.

The only solution as far as I can see is for the leading elites to become less tolerant of immorality and more attuned to higher spiritual goals, a spiritual revolution is needed, an attempt to stop their abuses cannot succeed without their desire to change for the sake of the higher good. The system is run so that only the elites can fix the problems, which they are and have been causing either by inheritance or by rising to positions of power and prominence.

It's more complicated is my sense. The U.S. was meddling in the Middle East in very significant and powerful ways (Iran 1953 and many other examples) back in the early post-WWII era when North America was still the world's major oil producer (up to about 1970 or so). The U.S. still doesn't especially rely on ME oil and recent U.S. intelligence estimates project U.S. relying on more 'stable' Atlantic Basin supplies in the next decade (see Chomsky's learned discussion and sources in NC and Gilbert Achcar, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy [Paradigm, 2006]), pp. 54-55. The U.S. forms a pivotal alliance with Saudi Arabia --- based on the kingdom's oil riches and the Roosevelt administration's strong sense of the strategic imperial relevance --- as far back as the 1930s and 1940s, when peoople are still having black gold strikes in Texas and Oklahoma and before the mass suburbanization and auto sprawl take off. In the imperial planning documents of the period it is clear that lusting for ME petroleum is about control, not so much about access. ME oil gives the empire veto power (Kennan) and critical leverage (Bzrezinski) over industrial rivals who actually are much more reliant on ME oil than the U.S. My sense is that the Empire would be obsessed with the great ME petro-prize even if we ourselves had gone fully wind and/or solar and/or nuke and/or biodeisel and the reason they can't leave isn't so much that mass consumerism and growth will be shut down as that the ME (where curiously much of the oil land is inhabited by Shiites...in Iraq, in Iran and even in holy oil mother Saudi A [this has to be highly relevant to current U.S. "redirection" against the rising "Shia crescent" ) could (if left alone) could connect up its critical materials with key rival sectors in Europe and especially Asia. The Empire talks a lot about global access to ME oil but it is lying through its nuclear tipped teeth as usual. The bigger issue is critical leverage. Our rulers are addicted mainly to empire, not oil, though of course U.S.-based firms are looking to make a windfall through U.S hegemony and I doubt that access is irrelevant.  

Chomsky gets it right is my guess when he says that this is the main thing: "the United States wants to control the major energy reserves of the world in the Middle East, for reasons of global control." One of the funny things about political discourse (such as it is) in the U.S. today is how nearly unmentionable this is. You can sort of hear a bit of it in elite communications but it's a big taboo for serious public discussion

And I'm pretty sure it's not short term.

The American empire is squandering its blood and treasure in a useless and short-lived adventure, to secure the resources it says it needs in the future, however, it only needs those resources because of its will to power.

Very interesting observations, and quite true. Should be no controversy there. But I wonder if the American public and even the informed Left realize the implications of that decision. Therefore, I might take at least some exception to the above statement, specifically where the "will to power" is concerned. The entire American way of life has been built upon the concept of Suburban living, individual transport as opposed to public transport in and out of those pleasant suburbs, and a highly distributed and globalized supply line of cheap goods(food, clothing, energy, raw materials, durable goods, electronics, etc.). All this relies very heavily upon cheap and available oil, a cheap and available global distribution network, and cheap and available foreign labor. It is critical to the life of suburbia as we know it today that that supply be preserved and protected at all costs, else we run the risk of destroying an infrastructure that likely can no longer be replaced except at extreme cost of lives and wealth, and in no way quickly. Indeed the need for empire is not so much grounded in the thirst for power and riches (though certainly those are significant factors in some sectors of the elite establishment) as much as it is in simply keeping the engine running at an ever-increasing growth in speed. It has built up a momentum and a need for continual growth feeding off the resources of the world that cannot possibly last indefinitely.

I think these are useful and richly informed reflections that help contextualize the meaning of my post.

In my less ambitious and possibly confusing (it's generally a bad sign that I feel the need to elaborate so much in the comments section) post,  I was only (or mainly) trying to capture the contuining relevance (or at least instructiveness) of the ancient democratic argument for selection by lot: that a genuinely democratic polity and society would discourage the existence of a group of people who make ruling others their life goal. 

It would also (without denying the inherently uneven distribution of talents and capacities among diverse people) discourage the development of artificially imposed class (and other) divisions of knowledge and skill so that "ordinary citizens" (obviously barring the significantly mentally disabled, for example) would in fact be qualified to execute policy if called upon (by random selection) to do so.   

The remarkably narcissistic ("you all marched in Selma to make my very existence possible"...."look, I'm drawing a picture of myself") Obama (and other politicians) strikes me as an example of the supreme dangers inherent in having an elite political class...dangers than some early Athenian democrats (in spite of the well known flaws of their society and government....which were not uniform over time, apparently and unsurprisingly) were quite concenred about, with good reason. 

Obama, for what its worth, is a full fledged supporter (as one would expect of anyone serious about reaching the pinnacle of the U.S. political class) of the United States global dominance project, as I argue in unlucky no. 13 of the E&I Report and (more elaborately) in the extended review I did of B.O.'s  nauseating campaign book The Audacity of Hope. 

King (who B.Obama likes to quote with all the radical content deleted), I suggested, was a very different bird....much closer to the radical democratic traditon that some noble if highly imperfect (like Jefferson at al.) Athenians helped initiate.  For that and other reasons, MLK was not interested in personally attaining political power.  

In encouraging ordinary Americans to choose democracy over Empire, we need (I humbly submit) to emphasize the class basis and consequences of imperialism, reminding folks that (as Chomsky noted in his 1969 book For Reasons of State) the costs of Empire are spread across the entire society (they seem to fall with greatest tragic consequence on working-class Americans) while the profits of Empire (still considerable) accrue to the privileged few.  

I would be careful not to downplay (not that you are necessarily doing this) the imperial rationality of the U.S. goal of controlling ME oil, which I think is the officially unspoken (officially unmentionable in explicit ways in public discourse) key to the invasion of Iraq, to why they can't leave (even while they can't stay) and to why they may well attack Iran (very possibly with nuclear tactical missiles) sometime this or next year.  The imperial ambitions are mad but within their lunatic framework the focus on ME oil is eminently rational given (a) the stupendous world-systemic "critical leverage" that is granted the hegemon who controls it and (b) the total U.S. imperial disaster it would be for the the people (or just the states) of the region to attain fully autonomous control of the unparalled strategic petro-prize that sits beneath their nominally sovereign soils.

 

 

Athenian democracy was far more potent and egalitarian whilst Athens was a poor (relatively) small city able to support itself by agriculture in the surrounding area . . . which it included in its political process.  That is, of course, after it rejected elite leadership and rule as part of the phalanx revolution.  Citizen soldiers defending their own farms, homes and city performed their civic and military functions differently than the professional soldiers of previous and later years.

When the elite generals regained power, Pericles is a good example, power was again recentralized, and this, I think is Paul's point.  With centralized power, the will to power was also centralized.  They saw an inherent weakness in Athens, in that if it were to grow to dominate the Aegean and Eastern Med., it needed access to more food, more markets and more people, and saw anyone outside of their circle as a threat to Athenian preeminence.  The wealth of Periclean Athens spent on monumental architecture and military improvements forced the expansion and justified it simulataneously.

Again, the parallels are relevant.

Those who will have power over others see those self-same others as a threat, primarily because the others do not desire the domination by others.  Linguistically awkward, yes but accurate nonetheless.

The American empire is squandering its blood and treasure in a useless and short-lived adventure, to secure the resources it says it needs in the future, however, it only needs those resources because of its will to power.  And, because we have all been convinced of the necessity of this purpose, we surrender ourselves to the people with the will to get it done.  The only way out is to actively reject the imperial mission. Again, like Athens, once it rejected its imperial ambtions due, in part, to defeat and occupation by the Spartans and their allies, democracy returned to Athens along with relative poverty, trade and self-sufficiency.  And democracy, inegalitarian though it was, remained until the Roman occupation.

I guess we have two choices here . . . we can abandon the will to empire, outrageous wealth and martial power and survive democratically, or we can surrender that democracy in a futile attempt at global dominance.  THe choice, really, is ours.

Your whiny little comment is off base and silly, "Anonymous (not verified)." The issues of slavery and sexism --- if you want to throw in foreign policy no problem (it makes no difference) ---  in ancient Greece were acknowledged in the post... precisely to anticipate your curiously "teary eyed" attempt to use them to discredit the wider point made here.

The fact that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder does not discredit the Declaration of Independence's (DOI's) value in pronouncing the people's right to alter or abolish an unjust government and that government finds its only legitemate basis in the consent of the governed. Howard Zinn can simultaneously give some high praise to the DOI (for announcing the rights of civil disobedience and revolution) and denounce the vicious slave system that produced Jefferson's wealth (see Zinn's book Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology [New York: Harpercollins, 1990]).  Unlike you who have no name, apparently, he can chew gum and walk at the same time.

My post isn't really about "Athens" and makes little claim to be about Athenian history in any substantive way....as if it were an installment in some online Ancient History series.  Go read up on Athens; it makes no difference to this post. The post is about the need for direct democracy, the lessons of the selection-by-lot idea, and problems with hiearchical divisions of labor and power.  Its also about Obama et al in the 2008 race,  Martin Luther King Jr. and the problem with having a political class....a group of rulers who have made ruling their life goal.  

It's strange that you think an actually rather cold and unsentimental look at authoritarian and hierarchical politics is somehow "teary -eyed." My guess is "you" think that its inherently ineffective and sentimental (and "whiny") to advocate direct and participatory democracy.  

In my opinion that is an idiotic and dangerous judgement.  If it comes from an "anonymous" who identifies with "progressive" causes (as seems possible), then it is an indication of authoritarian sentiments within what passes for a Left. 

Even though progressive movements are burdened by people with the kind of dull-witted, negative and reactionary sentiments you express, they have still always accomplished a great deal and will continue to do so. 

It's not for nothing that you hide your identity and go with the name "anonymous."  I encourage people to either substantively engage my posts or not comment at all. I hardlly require or expect 100 or even 50 percent agreement, but if you are going to criticize (and particularly if you are going to be so snotty about it and to rip allies), bring your A game and do not come into the lane (to make a basketball analogy) with this kind of weak shit.