What's insane is that in John Mearsheimer's book (although I haven't read it, only heard) he doesn't mention the CFR money which is actually much larger than AIPAC. Of course he was once a fellow at the CFR.
Great work! Your point out of inherent contradictions of the "its just money and maybe also a little bit of social access" arguments is insightful. Yes indeed Venezuela -- as currently existing -- could not do what Israel does here with any amount of money.
But I would have a disagreement *IF* the final analysis then over compensates by placing too much weight within a different special interest group, such as the US's MIC; there is constellation of special interest groups, and this constellation is only ever semi coherent, its just that global conditions have allowed for big actions to be taken with consensus, but within those actions, coherence fuzzes and contradictory actions occur, they don't fully decohere because the Empire's extractions methods always make sure that all eat and even when things are going wrong due to their mutual contradictions, such as in Afghanistan, they still all eat until that plays been too screwed up to and their contradictions too pronounced to continue, then they leave and move onto the next one.
And as usual :).... Regarding this passage of yours here:
"The liberal architecture of the state requires clean lines of division between political and economic power that capitalism has rendered implausible. The Marxist / Leninist view that the capitalist state exists to serve the interests of connected capitalists certainly seems to be more descriptively accurate—of the US at any rate, than the liberal theory of a ‘mixed economy.’"
While this passage aptly references the intricate relationship between political and economic power in modern capitalism, it overlooks the historical context and evolution of governance structures in the United States. The paradigm of the USA's Old Republic, characterized by its decentralized governance and robust local democratic engagement, was distinctly different from both Marxist-Leninist and modern liberal architectures. This earlier model ( some of the most important pieces of which were still in almost fully in place (and had been in place for the entirely of the nation's existence) until the late 1970s and partially until the mid 1980s and slightly until ~2000) generated a quite significant degree of local autonomy and citizen participation, in its golden age it had been dramatically expanding who had access to its deliberations and if its hadn't been murdered would be quite a sight to behold today. Its structures enabled a more nuanced and flexible approach to economic and political issues that allowed many people to participate. The huge shift towards centralization since the late 1970s, following the large and slower rolled shift over the late 1970s preceding decades, which has blurred the lines between political and economic power, should be seen as an inherent goal of the liberal architecture's design and is enabled by a deviation from the decentralized principles that once underpinned the republic. And while the Marxist-Leninist critique has descriptively power in the current context, it tends to leave out the potential of a decentralized, participatory model that could address many of the issues attributed to the entanglement of political and economic power. A return to the decentralized governance structures of the Old Republic could reinvigorate democratic engagement and address economic disparities and failings.
Thanks again for the interesting and thoughtful writing!
Thanks for the thoughtful comments Mike. I agree with much of what you write.
I started to write an extended response, but decided to let former US General Smedley Butler do most of the talking (link at bottom).
You seem very knowledgeable, but let me highlight the relevance. Butler led US imperial adventures abroad. He eventually concluded in the early twentieth century that the military adventures he led were conceived by US corporations for their own benefit, not some 'national interest.'
The film The Godfather Part Two features a scene of a meeting in Havana on the eve of the Cuban Revolution of US-based corporations plotting US corporate predations abroad. The scene is a composite of actual historical events. Decades after Butler's War is a Racket was published, the same US-based corporations were having the same foreign governments overthrown for the same reasons.
Discussion of the 'Old Republic' tends to focus on domestic relations without addressing American imperialism. With apologies, this is like characterizing Ted Bundy's relationship with women without mentioning that he murdered thirty or so of them.
Additionally, the Old Republic featured slavery and genocide against the indigenous population. What rich, white, people were doing is one history, what slaves and the indigenous were doing is another. I prefer to combine these histories when considering the Old Republic because the fates of slaves and the indigenous were sealed by rich, whites.
That almost no one in the US knows anything about American history that is true is evidence that liberal values are cumbersome. One thing worse than Americans having been misled about US history is that they don't know that they have been misled. I can't have a simple conversation on current affairs without first providing two hours of background history. And the usual retort is that what I say can't be true because they never heard about it on CNN.
I'm a big fan of nuance, but not when it hides more that it elucidates. There are lots of different ways of explaining US foreign policy. Tying events together through economic relations is concrete. Discussion of personalities and psychology isn't. I'm in no way suggesting that this is what you mean by nuance. But 'follow the money' almost always yields informative results.
> I can't have a simple conversation on current affairs without first providing two hours of background history.
As soon as my interlocutor realizes that I've actually done my homework and that all the evidence is on my side, they simply shut down. Lacking any rebuttal, they resort to scoffs and ridicule. They are right, obviously, because "everybody knows". Heaven help those of us who live outside the Overton Window.
This makes for an incredibly boring life. When I was young I never thought for a moment that I'd be bored to death in my seventh decade. Just never occurred to me. But I am so fucking bored now. And it doesn't help that there is no one with whom to discuss anything. I'd even settle for giving two-hour lectures, if anyone would sit still that long.
BTW, you nailed it on AIPAC. It is a tool used by the beneficiaries (in Congress, the White House, etc.) to keep their colleagues in line. Can't have folks pointing out that the emperor is buck naked! Jamaal Bowman, like Cynthia McKinney and others, just found this out the hard way.
But the idea that the tail could ever wag the dog is preposterous. AIPAC serves the globalist parasite class by keeping their Israel moneymaker going. That's why you don't see a ChiPAC or RussPac, no?
Interesting reply! Yes, I'm familiar with Butler, I also recall his congressional testimony from the 1930s regarding his and others allegations that a cabal consisting of Jp Morgan, Dupont, and others, tried to recruit him to lead a coup.
Sorry, I miswrote, my second paragraph was focused on domestic matters, but I think, as apparently do you, that domestic and foreign policies have inexorable linkages, with some of those linkages being two way streets.
I would say that my point *partially* still stands for the following two reasons along with an accompanying third point. The imperialism of the 19th century (mostly the conquest of the continent) genuinely were in most Americans economic interests and while corruption was abound (strikingly, I found much that quite closely the specifics of the Afghanistan operation when looking for irrupt structures from the US Army's Indian Wars and following initial occupations and settlings) but I think it could be strongly argued that its much less than today; and it has not been in most Americans economic interests*, in fact it has been detrimental to them. Mostly the same with the early twentieth century, then, and this is --I believe quite deliberately -- not commented on in history books, the so called "isolationist" period (it wasn't it, it was very active abroad, imperialist and other wise) was a period where much of what they were (and are still, I'd guess) complaining about was a decline (not an ending, but still less) in the availability to do imperialist like ventures; this was because anti-imperialist types were able to capitalize on the negative feelings re WW1 and the associated attention it gave US FP to use democratic structures, such as the old mass member parties, to influence policy. Also, I truly believe that Vietnam was, up until its time far worse than anything the US had previously done in foreign policy, and the fake humanitarian faced imperialism of recent decades has, despite the far lower amounts of direct killing type stuff, been far more cruel, far more damaging, and indirectly likely caused far more deaths. And in just the last couple of years we may have possibly entered some sort terminal phase that will be truly dark, or maybe not, but wither way I think you can argue that 1) Ukraine morally literally the worst thing our system has done and 2) its the first time where literally, and I meant literally, 100% of its non honestly imperialistic stated purposes are 100% percent lies and in some cases completely contrived by the system thats telling those lies, and also the rare times when it speaks honestly and says its just out to get Russia, the whole thing argument is almost surreally dumb, I mean even in possible conceptualization of their own internal greedy logic, its stull just ultimately self ,defeating and dumb. Also, if the Old Republic had continued on, and it had kept becoming more and more inclusive like it was, either by re-asserting itself after WW2 (because it was only half gone then and until the late 1970s) or (and I think there was some amount of chance this could have happened) reasserted itself in the late 1970s just as they backdoor launched their disguised corporatism state project, while there'd still be lots of F'd up stuff happening in the world, the so called "global south" (I dont like that term, or any other generality for so many places like that) would be alot more advanced and alot more developed than it is today, and billions of talents would expressing themselves, and many scientific breakthroughs would have occurred there, and on and on. In short, democracy works.
Thanks again for the interesting writings and replies! I hope your having a nice afternoon.
What's insane is that in John Mearsheimer's book (although I haven't read it, only heard) he doesn't mention the CFR money which is actually much larger than AIPAC. Of course he was once a fellow at the CFR.
Great work! Your point out of inherent contradictions of the "its just money and maybe also a little bit of social access" arguments is insightful. Yes indeed Venezuela -- as currently existing -- could not do what Israel does here with any amount of money.
But I would have a disagreement *IF* the final analysis then over compensates by placing too much weight within a different special interest group, such as the US's MIC; there is constellation of special interest groups, and this constellation is only ever semi coherent, its just that global conditions have allowed for big actions to be taken with consensus, but within those actions, coherence fuzzes and contradictory actions occur, they don't fully decohere because the Empire's extractions methods always make sure that all eat and even when things are going wrong due to their mutual contradictions, such as in Afghanistan, they still all eat until that plays been too screwed up to and their contradictions too pronounced to continue, then they leave and move onto the next one.
And as usual :).... Regarding this passage of yours here:
"The liberal architecture of the state requires clean lines of division between political and economic power that capitalism has rendered implausible. The Marxist / Leninist view that the capitalist state exists to serve the interests of connected capitalists certainly seems to be more descriptively accurate—of the US at any rate, than the liberal theory of a ‘mixed economy.’"
While this passage aptly references the intricate relationship between political and economic power in modern capitalism, it overlooks the historical context and evolution of governance structures in the United States. The paradigm of the USA's Old Republic, characterized by its decentralized governance and robust local democratic engagement, was distinctly different from both Marxist-Leninist and modern liberal architectures. This earlier model ( some of the most important pieces of which were still in almost fully in place (and had been in place for the entirely of the nation's existence) until the late 1970s and partially until the mid 1980s and slightly until ~2000) generated a quite significant degree of local autonomy and citizen participation, in its golden age it had been dramatically expanding who had access to its deliberations and if its hadn't been murdered would be quite a sight to behold today. Its structures enabled a more nuanced and flexible approach to economic and political issues that allowed many people to participate. The huge shift towards centralization since the late 1970s, following the large and slower rolled shift over the late 1970s preceding decades, which has blurred the lines between political and economic power, should be seen as an inherent goal of the liberal architecture's design and is enabled by a deviation from the decentralized principles that once underpinned the republic. And while the Marxist-Leninist critique has descriptively power in the current context, it tends to leave out the potential of a decentralized, participatory model that could address many of the issues attributed to the entanglement of political and economic power. A return to the decentralized governance structures of the Old Republic could reinvigorate democratic engagement and address economic disparities and failings.
Thanks again for the interesting and thoughtful writing!
---Mike
Thanks for the thoughtful comments Mike. I agree with much of what you write.
I started to write an extended response, but decided to let former US General Smedley Butler do most of the talking (link at bottom).
You seem very knowledgeable, but let me highlight the relevance. Butler led US imperial adventures abroad. He eventually concluded in the early twentieth century that the military adventures he led were conceived by US corporations for their own benefit, not some 'national interest.'
The film The Godfather Part Two features a scene of a meeting in Havana on the eve of the Cuban Revolution of US-based corporations plotting US corporate predations abroad. The scene is a composite of actual historical events. Decades after Butler's War is a Racket was published, the same US-based corporations were having the same foreign governments overthrown for the same reasons.
Discussion of the 'Old Republic' tends to focus on domestic relations without addressing American imperialism. With apologies, this is like characterizing Ted Bundy's relationship with women without mentioning that he murdered thirty or so of them.
Additionally, the Old Republic featured slavery and genocide against the indigenous population. What rich, white, people were doing is one history, what slaves and the indigenous were doing is another. I prefer to combine these histories when considering the Old Republic because the fates of slaves and the indigenous were sealed by rich, whites.
That almost no one in the US knows anything about American history that is true is evidence that liberal values are cumbersome. One thing worse than Americans having been misled about US history is that they don't know that they have been misled. I can't have a simple conversation on current affairs without first providing two hours of background history. And the usual retort is that what I say can't be true because they never heard about it on CNN.
I'm a big fan of nuance, but not when it hides more that it elucidates. There are lots of different ways of explaining US foreign policy. Tying events together through economic relations is concrete. Discussion of personalities and psychology isn't. I'm in no way suggesting that this is what you mean by nuance. But 'follow the money' almost always yields informative results.
Thanks again for the comments.
Rob
Link to War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
> I can't have a simple conversation on current affairs without first providing two hours of background history.
As soon as my interlocutor realizes that I've actually done my homework and that all the evidence is on my side, they simply shut down. Lacking any rebuttal, they resort to scoffs and ridicule. They are right, obviously, because "everybody knows". Heaven help those of us who live outside the Overton Window.
This makes for an incredibly boring life. When I was young I never thought for a moment that I'd be bored to death in my seventh decade. Just never occurred to me. But I am so fucking bored now. And it doesn't help that there is no one with whom to discuss anything. I'd even settle for giving two-hour lectures, if anyone would sit still that long.
BTW, you nailed it on AIPAC. It is a tool used by the beneficiaries (in Congress, the White House, etc.) to keep their colleagues in line. Can't have folks pointing out that the emperor is buck naked! Jamaal Bowman, like Cynthia McKinney and others, just found this out the hard way.
But the idea that the tail could ever wag the dog is preposterous. AIPAC serves the globalist parasite class by keeping their Israel moneymaker going. That's why you don't see a ChiPAC or RussPac, no?
Interesting reply! Yes, I'm familiar with Butler, I also recall his congressional testimony from the 1930s regarding his and others allegations that a cabal consisting of Jp Morgan, Dupont, and others, tried to recruit him to lead a coup.
Sorry, I miswrote, my second paragraph was focused on domestic matters, but I think, as apparently do you, that domestic and foreign policies have inexorable linkages, with some of those linkages being two way streets.
I would say that my point *partially* still stands for the following two reasons along with an accompanying third point. The imperialism of the 19th century (mostly the conquest of the continent) genuinely were in most Americans economic interests and while corruption was abound (strikingly, I found much that quite closely the specifics of the Afghanistan operation when looking for irrupt structures from the US Army's Indian Wars and following initial occupations and settlings) but I think it could be strongly argued that its much less than today; and it has not been in most Americans economic interests*, in fact it has been detrimental to them. Mostly the same with the early twentieth century, then, and this is --I believe quite deliberately -- not commented on in history books, the so called "isolationist" period (it wasn't it, it was very active abroad, imperialist and other wise) was a period where much of what they were (and are still, I'd guess) complaining about was a decline (not an ending, but still less) in the availability to do imperialist like ventures; this was because anti-imperialist types were able to capitalize on the negative feelings re WW1 and the associated attention it gave US FP to use democratic structures, such as the old mass member parties, to influence policy. Also, I truly believe that Vietnam was, up until its time far worse than anything the US had previously done in foreign policy, and the fake humanitarian faced imperialism of recent decades has, despite the far lower amounts of direct killing type stuff, been far more cruel, far more damaging, and indirectly likely caused far more deaths. And in just the last couple of years we may have possibly entered some sort terminal phase that will be truly dark, or maybe not, but wither way I think you can argue that 1) Ukraine morally literally the worst thing our system has done and 2) its the first time where literally, and I meant literally, 100% of its non honestly imperialistic stated purposes are 100% percent lies and in some cases completely contrived by the system thats telling those lies, and also the rare times when it speaks honestly and says its just out to get Russia, the whole thing argument is almost surreally dumb, I mean even in possible conceptualization of their own internal greedy logic, its stull just ultimately self ,defeating and dumb. Also, if the Old Republic had continued on, and it had kept becoming more and more inclusive like it was, either by re-asserting itself after WW2 (because it was only half gone then and until the late 1970s) or (and I think there was some amount of chance this could have happened) reasserted itself in the late 1970s just as they backdoor launched their disguised corporatism state project, while there'd still be lots of F'd up stuff happening in the world, the so called "global south" (I dont like that term, or any other generality for so many places like that) would be alot more advanced and alot more developed than it is today, and billions of talents would expressing themselves, and many scientific breakthroughs would have occurred there, and on and on. In short, democracy works.
Thanks again for the interesting writings and replies! I hope your having a nice afternoon.
---Mike