Comments on: Quacking on the Eve of Diasaster

By: bozh

bozh — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:08:47 +0000

lloyd,
i don’t know what r u trying to tell me. ur question appears as an either-or structure.
one posts for various reasons and not only to have one’s name on dv.
does this clarify sit’n?

By: Lloyd Rowsey

Lloyd Rowsey — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:41:05 +0000

gee bbb, i want my (this) comment first. And what IS the definition of a “regular” at DV – someone who posts to see his/her name in DV’s Recent Discussion column?

By: bozhidar bob balkas

bozhidar bob balkas — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:06:17 +0000

max,
i see it that way also. thnx

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:37:17 +0000

Given the history of American empire, starting with the merciless genocide of the indigenous people, with their complex egalitarian societies, the Northern transport of slaves to the South, the racism created to divide and rule as a result of uprisings such as Bacon’s rebellion that challenged the elite in 1676, and the horrific westward move which bore ultimately neoliberalism; the hate and destain for the poor that comes from Calvinism the Northeastern world-view that mapped so perfectly to the materialism and elitism of capitalism and empire.

When we post about the killing in Iraq, Afghanistan and elswhere where American Empire has planted itself, we are talking about the brutal history that is the American colonial history to the present. Technology has simply made the rule of empire, and the subserviants of other more sophisticated, but with a level of brutality unmatched in its reach and totality.

Until this is changed to its core – not through some election or evolution (we’ve had 400 years and we are still barbarians at heart), there will always be the same unmitigated narrative.

By: Lloyd Rowsey

Lloyd Rowsey — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:23:53 +0000

Yes. It’s capitalism’s inability to deal with what were called “negative externalities” in college economics courses in the early 1960’s, that’s finally doing it in. And all the head-of-a-pin economists who won Nobel Economics Prizes, starting with Milton Friedman (in 1972?), and all the money in the world, can’t put it back together again.

I say. Isn’t Paul Krugman a bit pro-regulation?

By: bozhidar bob balkas

bozhidar bob balkas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:32:39 +0000

how can we change america when america is not broken? it is not broken as long as it has a sanctified constitution.
it is not broken as it has congress, WH, senate, vast army, cia, etc.
it is broken only to ab 2% or usans.
cia is not broken; it’s working smoothly and obediently for the ruling class and ab 90% of its fierce supporters.
US military isn’t broken, either. it’s all over the globe doing the work that the ruling class demands of it.
not that changing constitution to whatever degree wld change anything for better.
changing education might produce enlightened people who then cld fix US.
but it too is not broken but best in the world according to clero-ruling class. it is broken to ab 2% of amers.
to me, US education is the best in the world for bringing up serfs.
and it is controled by the ruling class.
and may receive accolades from 98% of amers. thnx

By: Ron Horn

Ron Horn — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:27:08 +0000

‘There are no constructive creative ideas for dealing with the current crisis coming from the left either. For example the editors of the respected socialist journal, Monthly Review, write in a November editorial: “It is not our job to fix their (capitalistic) system.” So, Monthly Review editors, whose job is it? Who will come up with the ideas that will get us from where we are to where we need to be for a sustainable civilized existence?’

Why on earth would socialists want to save a capitalist system?? The author seems unable to imagine any other system than capitalism, and doesn’t appear to understand another system when he reads about it.

I only had to look at the lead article in this month’s edition to find constructive alternative ideas. For example, the article states when discussing socialism within the context of ecological constraints:

‘Socialism has always been understood as a society aimed at reversing the relations of exploitation of capitalism and removing the manifold social evils to which these relations have given rise. This requires the abolition of private property in the means of production, a high degree of equality in all things, replacement of the blind forces of the market by planning by the associated producers in accordance with genuine social needs, and the elimination to whatever extent possible of invidious distinctions associated with the division of town and country, mental and manual labor, race divisions, gender divisions, etc. Yet, the root problem of socialism goes much deeper. The transition to socialism is possible only through a revolutionizing practice that revolutionizes human beings themselves. The only way to accomplish this is by altering our human metabolism with nature, along with our human-social relations, transcending both the alienation of nature and of humanity.’

Then the article continues to elaborate this thesis in greater detail.

By: John Hatch

John Hatch — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:22:39 +0000

Almost always taken for granted is America’s insane military budget. People are allowed to go homeless, hungry, uneducated and sick while America indulges in insane killing orgies abroad, while it maintains bases where it isn’t wanted, while it chases ghostly ‘terrorists’ while indulging massively in the same. America tortures people, then lets them go without charge or apology. 9/11 wasn’t conceived in a cave, but probably a boardroom a lot closer to home. Like Washington.