I am trying to figure out WHY it makes people scream. I get that the rich, propertied MEN set this all up, and it sucked to be anyone else, but I don’t get why we’d throw the baby out with the bathwater when we’re in such peril.

The above Bill of Rights is not a buffet.

What is for the common good is also very subjective and cannot be universal, except with regards to water, air, space to make survival, just to name a few. Because it (what’s in best interest for all) is so subjective, and only requires majority, however educated, it will always rest on force and subjugation . . . trouble is my emotional attachment to some appealing points, my emotional aversion to others. Hence feeling wishy-washy. Same can be said of most of us, I contend.

#1
Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#2
Right to keep and bear arms

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

#3
Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

#4
Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

#5
Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

#6
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

#7
Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

#8
Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

#9
Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

#10
Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I am not afraid of “commies” coming for my humble shack. I am afraid that we keep swinging (ideologically) back and forth between extreme isms that BOTH suppose that I, as an individual, can’t be trusted to balance self-interest with common good.

International law or not, my body, my children’s bodies are property of State (surrogate for pharma and commerce). That is how it plays out.

Property seems to be defined in too many ways, I need some sort of definitive set of words here. Mean of production is getting closer, perhaps, to a distinction that I need to form what feels like might be an understanding -even if ephemeral.

Yes, the whole basis for the marriage of property and law has been conquest. BUT, my home in the next couple of years WILL be Eminent Domained, and it will, in fact, be for the greater good (transit rail) even though I will be screwed. So, how’s that for wishy-washy ambivalence? It has its place . . .

Thank you,
Melissa

Let me offer what I believe to be the truth of recent history as a Hypothesis, then see if what I come up with in support of same is enough to persuade some readers that I have a clue to what I’m talking about.
Whatever the facts re these matters, I’m not the one who will be leading efforts to do something about them. I’m not a “general” or a “leader”, much less a politician. I do aspire to play the role of something like a Reconnaissance Patrol, to take a long look at the Situation and the Terrain & report it back. I hope what I come up with will be of use to the right people.
Recently we’ve seen some major changes in the Economic sphere. Trillions and trillions of dollar-denominated Money Capital have been looted from the public purse and donated free gratis to private parties.

In my view this tectonic shift in the Financial sector reflects a tectonic shift that has been taking place in the Imperial State, in the Political and the Ideological spheres.

We’ve recently seen whole branches of Industry bite the dust. Is it too farfetched to wonder if whole branches of the heretofore hegemonic fractions of the Ruling Class may not have lost the position of social dominance they once enjoyed?

The only way I can present my hypothesis is to grossly oversimplify it, but it IS based on a couple decades of study of works coming from all sides of the related questions. Maybe I’ll resort to appending a string of source notes.
The first Jews allowed to settle in New Amsterdam were Sephardim refugees from Brazil whom Gov. Peter Stuyvesant didn’t like but thought it wise to tolerate because of their skill and connections useful in facilitating long distance trade. The community established by this first 23 individuals apparently fragmented within a few years, but their example attracted other Sephardim who engaged in similar pursuits.
By the time of the American Revolution their numbers were still tiny but their social significance so substantial that Geo Washington made it a point to demand they be allowed to live and pursue happiness “each under his own vine & figtree”.
So when successive waves of Jewish immigrants arrived, whether Sephardic or Ashkenazic from Germany, then from Poland and the Tsar’s “Pale of Settlement”, they found an established Jewish Community in place. For a long time US Jewish entrance into many of the most profitable industries was hindered, but they were not just tolerated but encouraged to invest in others.
The situation affluent US Jews found themselves in was one which gave rise to considerable satisfaction but also to feelings & attitudes of insecurity. There was a lot of Christian anti-Jewish ideology abroad in the US so it was totally understandable that Security was a top priority.
So the norm for affluent US Jews was to do their best not to attract a lot of attention. Modesty of dress and behavior was the rule.
The late nineteenth century influx of workingclass Jews and their role in the early US Labor movement was seen as a problem by the wealthier element who had secured a place for themselves within US Capitalism. Especially threatening if you were a Jewish capitalist was the wide influence of Marxist, Socialist and Anarchist ideas among workingclass Jews as well as many intellectuals.
Books have been written about the process by which these workingclass Jewish immigrants eventually became assimilated to the US small property and professional classes, and more recently to the Zionist Consensus.

MELISSA: first off, your right to control your own body is a human right guaranteed by international law. it is not a “property” issue.
The right to “own your own home” is limited even under US law; the misuse of Eminent Domain has recently become epidemic. But when we speak of “private property” what is usually meant is Private Property in the Means of Production: land, factories, deposits of valuable resources, fisheries etc etc. When Marxists etc talk about “abolishing Private Property” they/we aren’t talking about siezing the modest dwellings of workingclass people or even of journalists and college professors.
But to be clear, your “right and title” to your domicile is ultimately guaranteed by the State which controls the jurisdiction where you live.
A “Real Estate 101″ truism: Land Titles Rest On Right Of Conquest.
Okay, I’m mentally exhausted, will try to finish this rap later.

in the old days it was solely high and low nobility that voted; i.e., voted for king, war commander, etc.
now everybody votes. This is an insignificant structural change; not affecting much if at all basic structure of governance.

voting in US is rendered null and void because the owners of [dis]information, [mis]education are the modern high nobility but fully supported by lower nobility.
i use US because it exemplifies more than any other land how it is done.

in the olden days, nobles were called dukes, princes, generals, bishops, marshalls, kings, lords, counts, barons, earls; in modern times they are called billionaires or mutlimillionaires.

arms manufacture, army, spies were owned by nobles; today the same is owned by modern nobles. So, the system of rule is not that esoteric or comlex not to espy reality.
natch, the ruling class wld accuse me of making a simplicity out of a comlexity or simplifying complex events that no one can comprehend, etc., so that any sipmlification wld be a misevaluation.

in fact, it is the ruling class which almost always make simplicity out of complexity and complexity out of simplicity. While substituting one for the other or switching btwn them, a man on the street becomes at total loss as to what is going on and usually blames self for not understanding or calls self stupid.
precisely why that trick is used.
do the above descriptions limn reality as it is? tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver

Where does one draw the line here? I am specifically interested in how you protect people’s homes, privacy and most importantly BODIES, without allowing for private property?

Don’t read between the lines, here, I believe in the commons as well, but it seems that sometimes the “greater good” bleeds into areas where it ought not. (Think mandatory experimental vaccinations and evolving viruses, forcing transfusions, forcing chemotherapy)

Sorry to drag this thread further from the article, I find your arguments rather informative . . .

Melissa

This proposition may seem like common sense to you, Max, but the evidence presented so far says otherwise. Of course we can’t know what various oil moguls were thinking, but publically, when the PNACkers were calling for a second attack vs Iraq to be followed this time by a ground invasion, all the reports I know of say that oil industry representatives were expressing grave misgivings about US involvement in any such project.
Perhaps you have inside information proving that PNAC was initiated by the oil industry? Or about oil industry lobbying for such a plan?
Over and over DB and myself have cited scholarly research which you or anyone else can go and check, but it seems you prefer to remain in denial.
It’s one thing to differ with me over the role of Zionist-controlled Capital in the globalized system of capital concentration/centralization we call “Imperialism”, but the record of political activity, of who advocated what then and who is advocating what now leaves no doubt that the principle advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq is the same as the current principle advocate for a US attack vs Iran: the State of “israel” and its Fifth Column in the US, often loosely referred to as “The Lobby”.
You keep trying to claim, along with Chomsky, Zunes and Co. that when people hold the activities of the Zionist Power Configuration in the US up to the light, such people are somehow “diverting attention from Imperialism”. Others have already dealt with Chomsky’s and Zunes’ nonsense on this question; I can supply citations upon request.

But in your case Max, I have to laugh: you pose as this great opponent of “Imperialism” without having a clue to what the term refers to. You seem to think that if only “Imperialism” was eliminated, we could return to some ideal decentralized mom & pop capitalism run by highly intelligent Green Libertarian philosopher princes such as yourself.
Modern Imperialism is a phenomenon of the Capitalist Era. The era of Commodity Production in the context of Feudalist political relations automatically gives rise to Capitalism. This happened not just in Europe and its colonies, but over and over again in Japan, where the Samurai class intervened time and again to stop the process by decapitating the Peasant class everytime their accumulation of wealth started to threaten the established order. (Gary Leupp is a good source for more on this fascinating chapter in economic history).

Anyway if you think you can eliminate US Imperialism and its war machine without eliminating A) capitalist laws of property, the capitalist system of property relations, and B) the US Zionist Power Configuration, which is the operational State Apparatus in power now and here, I have a bridge I want to sell you:)

Next time I want to take up Marx’s dialectic and the successions of Modes of Production, so we can discuss how best to approach the political suppression of the War Criminal imperialist class. But for now I’ll content myself with noting the Iron Law of Oligarchy, and the truism that “Democracy” is a principle, an ideal to strive for, but is an impossibility except on a very small scale. What we can do is try to influence the outcome of the contest between competing oligarchies, so that hopefully we can help install the one most favorable to our interests.
How’s that for “ranting and raving”?

The truth is the “Left” uses this tactic so create confusion and discombobulation. This is why the “Left” was able to dismember the anti-war movement and other movement. They don’t need the Democratic Party to breakdown the Left. The “Left” phonies like you Max does a good job of doing that. You USE the Democrats as a foil to cover up your own bogus MO.

I’m still waiting for you Max TO POST EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR SMEAR.

What a brave soul this Blankenship.

Anyone who has been on DV for a month knows your mo. It’s consistent and your denial of US hegemony (which is what an imperial empire does by definition) is done either by ignoring all efforts to bring your attention to it; or through your lashing out by coming up with your – “you must be a Chomsky-Zionist”.

The US invasion of Iraq had multiple motives, but among them (and central) is the control of the primary resource in the region. Creating bases in a central location (Iraq) was and has been the outcome of that invasion. I would not overstate “oil” but it is a pivotal gateway to be controlled by the world’s only Empire – USA.

And I’m still waiting for you to stand corrected on this…not because of ego but because it will help with future discourse….

“Oh really that Iraq was not under “effective” hegemony. Iraq was suffering under the sanction that lasted from the end of the first Gulf War in 1990 through the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Those sanction led to the deaths of 500,000 children and crippled Iraq’s economy. Can you guys do any better”?

To focus on Zionism in fact weakens the pretext for U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Many people attempt to justify U.S. imperialism on economic grounds as “the need for the resources”. However your piece, like many who spread the “War For Oil” mantra results in diminishing the role Zionism plays in ADVANCING U.S. imperialism abroad as well as ADVANCING racism WITHING the U.S.

I still waiting for you to back up your assertion of my denial of U.S. Imperialism. Until you back up your remarks with EVIDENCE you have NO credibility whatsoever.

I appreciate your contributions to this discussion and appreciate reading the history of your political journey. My journey is not nearly as deep as yours. I accepted the “War for Oil” explanation until I got active in the anti-war movement only to see the “Left” deliberately dismantle that movement in order to obfuscate Zionism which was finally being raised. I also adopted the Chomsky-esque perspective of “U.S. Imperialism” as a major talking point until I read articles which indicated that the oil interest was against the war in Iraq. It wasn’t just articles written by Petras but articles in very mainstream publication like The Economist which revealed the oil interest angst toward both Gulf wars.

The insidiousness of the “U.S. Imperialism” explanation is that it transposes the awfulness of U.S. History to explain every epoch. I’ve stated this before here on DV in rebuttal to Mr. Shields. Sure the U.S. History is replete with violence but the MOTIVE of the violence in one epoch doesn’t mean they are the same MOTIVES in another epoch. It means ANALYZING the particular epoch. This means Mr. Shields and ironically Chomsky are engaging in intellectually laziness or intellectual diversion. Either way both are dishonest and does little to foster trust which is at the core of building solidarity.

Max’s latest tactic is not new. It is to interject a strawman — the “victimization” line to claim that there is an attempt to explain all things Zionism. The real problem has been the opposite. To blame all things “war for oil” and “U.S. Imperialism” as a way to dodge the question about the growing influence of a virulent racist ideology in the United States. This behavior is extremely troubling. And it is extremely troubling when the “Left” elevates a right wing hack like Alan Greenspan as Ms. Spence does to the level of “believability” in order to maintain the “War for Oil” mantra in order to obfuscate Zionism.

Again from the debate from 2007 where I made similar arguments. (Also if Mr. Max Shields is reading this you will notice in my 2007 rebuttal I acknowledge that the U.S. in an imperialist nation. I’m still waiting for Mr. Shields to back up his slanderous allegation.)

>ron jacobs>However, to pretend that US foreign policy is set by Tel Aviv is nonsesne.

The rhetoric has now been altered to say that the Iraqi invasion is part and parcel with “U.S. Empire” and “U.S. Imperialism” by “leftist” like yourself not to educate the intended reader but to serve as a reactionary shield for U.S. Zionism.

I know, it’s easy to start reacting to what seems to be a personal challenge. I do it myself from time to time, and always regret it. But I’m not important, my “image” is not important, my ego is less than irrelevant. Actually you Max, are probably quite a bit more important than I am in the political process overall, with your following attending your lectures, your standing in the Green Party & so on. There is just this one area in which you aren’t making full use of your intelligence.

Now to this counterposing of your concern re “Imperialism” vs the strawmen you call things like “fixations”, “Zionitis”, Chomskyitis: I can’t speak for DB, but my own fixation on understanding the phenomenon of US Imperialism really took hold about 1961. Capitalism in general was the focus at first. My investigations began with C Wright Mills, proceeded through the sociologists. Floyd Hunter, Weber, critical theory. Thence to Sartre, detour through Heidegger, Husserl. Back up, start over with Galbraith, Keynes, Samuelson, Shumpeter, Robt Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchy. Adam Smith, de Toqueville in here someplace.
Then: Vietnam. To that pt I’d been concerned about 1. the Civil Rts/Blk Liberation movement, 2. why the CEO of Western Electric was being paid something like a hundred times what I was getting — but very quickly Vietnam became Topic No 1.
It was widely believed or at least claimed that the Vietnamese revolution was an extension of the Chinese, which led me to the Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung. Of course the Sino-Soviet Split was raging at the time, and people like Bob Scheer and John Ross were talking in terms of Lenin said this, Lenin said that. Realizing I was way behind the curve I dug into “What is to be done”, “State & Revolution”, “Imperialism the Highest Stage” etc. But in the light of Kruschev’s speech, all this stuff was cast into doubt. So back to Marx. A whole shelf by Karl & Fred, then to biographies, histories. Raya Dunayevksaya said Back to Hegel. Phenomenology of Mind, take a class from– ohdamn, mentalblock, cant think the name, brilliant guy, ran down the whole Hume/Kant/Feuerbach number off top his head to intro the course. Dunayevskaya put me onto CLR James. From there I got to British Trotskyism, Perry Anderson. There to Frankfurt School, Nikos Poulantzas, Althusser, then Wallerstein, Samir Amin, Andre Gunder Frank. Of course I’m leaving out a lot, like Brecht & Genet. Le Balcon. Les Noirs. Monk’s “Evidence”, Parker’s “Donna Lee”:)
Little remembered fact: 1946/47 WEB Dubois used to lecture Sunday afternoons at the Audobon Ballroom in Harlem. He featured an Opening Act consisting of the Charlie Parker Quintet which at the time included Max Roach but not J. B. Gillespie or Miles. Anyway.

I said that to say what? Maybe it’s partly that when you start talking about “Imperialism” to me, you’re talking to somebody who has done a little homework on the subject. Oh yes, I did check out Hobson too.

Sidebar: I forgot to mention Mao’s “On Contradiction”, which is v. short, compact, simple & clear, & should be v. useful to anyone trying to understand historical processes, shifts in the balance of power etc.

So when in 1982 I was confronted with the fact that when the State of Israel launched its naked aggression into Lebanon, the “left” was unanimously silent. So I looked around for others who might be into protesting it.
Before that invasion, I had a general sense that “Israel” was up to no good; after all the UN itself had declared Zionism to be racism in the now revoked resolution. I’d been reading the old National Guardian since early Vietnam days; the editor then was Irwin Silber who was then a big fan of George Habash, and was pushing a book by a guy named Hilton Obenzinger called “Neither this year or the next will I ever be in Jerusalem”. But I didnt then see Palestine or the Middle East or Zionism as anything to do with me. I was into Central America, Free Mandela, trying to come to terms with Wallerstein & “World Systems Theory”, deciding what to accept or reject of Althusser, Foucault, de Beauvoir, Alexandra Kollontai. But Sabra & Shattilla upset my applecart.
So eventually I met some Palestinians, who gave me some books to read. Israel Shahak; Rabbi Elmer Berger. Rashid Khalidi, Walid Khalidi. Louise Cainkar. Ibrahim Abu Lughod. I went to the county library and read everything in it that mentioned Zionism, Palestine, Israel, Herzl, Weissman, Ben Gurion. Curiously there was nothing in the card catalog about Jabotinsky, but by a lucky chance I ran into Lenni Brenner & got to listen to him rap for about an hour. Hehe, the car was full of Middle East Experts, (I was the dummy along for the ride:) and Lenni talked nonstop from SF State to where some lady was putting him up in the Berkeley Hills. Nobody interrupted, not once. A walking encyclopedia of all aspects.\
So I made it a pt to read and reread the three books he had out then. In the third, “Jews in America Today” (IE 1985) he provided a long list of wealthy US Jews, excluding any he had reason to believe might not be wholehearted supporters of the Zionist project. He also engaged in some “informed speculation” about the overall level of affluence then enjoyed by US Jews in general, estimating the magnitude of the space within the overall Imperialist edifice occupied by the US Zionism supporters.
I checked his figures with those available in “mainline” US Jewish sociological work at the time; his estimates did not seem out of line.
Ohoh, I forgot to mention Wm Domhoff’s “Who Rules America” which for a long time was the accepted version of the sociology of US Capitalism. Domhoff identified what he called “the Jewish financial group” as one among over a dozen same, the largest/most signif being the Rockefeller and the JP Morgan financial groups, then the Mellons, Duponts, & various regional financial grps, based in Cleveland, Chicago, SF, Weyerhauser in Seattle. The “Jewish Fin. Grp” was described as being, like Cleveland and SF, of minor significance.
Domhoff, in spite of his chosen subject matter, was no flaming radical, being more into appearing at cocktail parties in a tuxedo than hanging out with the unwashed. But for decades his was the last word on the subject among radical activists. It was only later that I began to doubt his total objectivity:) Of course if you haven’t read his stuff you need to, along with Cleveland Amory; also visit Prof Val Burris “Power Structure Research” site hosted by U of Oregon Eugene. See if you can find back issues of the original “Insurgent Sociologist” journal published in mid/late seventies. Others hijacked the name later, they’re fakes, ignore them.

Let me post this much now, before I have an accident and erase it all:)
To be continued: