Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Sole Superpower in Decline
The Rise of a Multipolar World
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States stood tall -- militarily invincible, economically unrivalled, diplomatically uncontestable, and the dominating force on information channels worldwide. The next century was to be the true "American century," with the rest of the world molding itself in the image of the sole superpower.
Yet, with not even a decade of this century behind us, we are already witnessing the rise of a multipolar world in which new powers are challenging different aspects of American supremacy -- Russia and China in the forefront, with regional powers Venezuela and Iran forming the second rank. These emergent powers are primed to erode American hegemony, not confront it, singly or jointly.
How and why has the world evolved in this way so soon? The Bush administration's debacle in Iraq is certainly a major factor in this transformation, a classic example of an imperialist power, brimming with hubris, over-extending itself. To the relief of many -- in the U. S. and elsewhere -- the Iraq fiasco has demonstrated the striking limitations of power for the globe's highest-tech, most destructive military machine. In Iraq, Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to two U.S. presidents, concedes in a recent op-ed, "We are being wrestled to a draw by opponents who are not even an organized state adversary."
The invasion and subsequent disastrous occupation of Iraq and the mismanaged military campaign in Afghanistan have crippled the credibility of the United States. The scandals at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo in Cuba, along with the widely publicized murders of Iraqi civilians in Haditha, have badly tarnished America's moral self-image. In the latest opinion poll, even in a secular state and member of NATO like Turkey, only 9% of Turks have a "favorable view" of the U.S. (down from 52% just five years ago).
Yet there are other explanations -- unrelated to Washington's glaring misadventures -- for the current transformation in international affairs. These include, above all, the tightening market in oil and natural gas, which has enhanced the power of hydrocarbon-rich nations as never before; the rapid economic expansion of the mega-nations China and India; the transformation of China into the globe's leading manufacturing base; and the end of the Anglo-American duopoly in international television news.
Many Channels, Diverse Perceptions
During the 1991 Gulf War, only CNN and the BBC had correspondents in Baghdad. So the international TV audience, irrespective of its location, saw the conflict through their lenses. Twelve years later, when the Bush administration, backed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, invaded Iraq, Al Jazeera Arabic broke this duopoly. It relayed images -- and facts -- that contradicted the Pentagon's presentation. For the first time in history, the world witnessed two versions of an ongoing war in real time. So credible was the Al Jazeera Arabic version that many television companies outside the Arabic-speaking world -- in Europe, Asia and Latin America -- showed its clips.
Though, in theory, the growth of cable television worldwide raised the prospect of ending the Anglo-American duopoly in 24-hour TV news, not much had happened due to the exorbitant cost of gathering and editing TV news. It was only the arrival of Al Jazeera English, funded by the hydrocarbon-rich emirate of Qatar -- with its declared policy of offering a global perspective from an Arab and Muslim angle -- that, in 2006, finally broke the long-established mold.
Soon France 24 came on the air, broadcasting in English and French from a French viewpoint, followed in mid-2007 by the English-language Press TV, which aimed to provide an Iranian perspective. Russia was next in line for 24-hour TV news in English for the global audience. Meanwhile, spurred by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Telesur, a pan-Latin-American TV channel based in Caracas, began competing with CNN in Spanish for a mass audience.
As with Qatar, so with Russia and Venezuela, the funding for these TV news ventures has come from soaring national hydrocarbon incomes -- a factor draining American hegemony not just in imagery but in reality.
Russia, an Energy Superpower
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has more than recovered from the economic chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. After effectively renationalizing the energy industry through state-controlled corporations, he began deploying its economic clout to further Russia's foreign policy interests.
In 2005, Russia overtook the United States, becoming the second largest oil producer in the world. Its oil income now amounts to $679 million a day. European countries dependent on imported Russian oil now include Hungary, Poland, Germany, and even Britain.
Russia is also the largest producer of natural gas on the planet, with three-fifths of its gas exports going to the 27-member European Union (EU). Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, and Slovakia get 100% of their natural gas from Russia; Turkey, 66%; Poland, 58%; Germany 41%; and France 25%. Gazprom, the biggest natural gas enterprise on Earth, has established stakes in sixteen EU countries. In 2006, the Kremlin's foreign reserves stood at $315 billion, up from a paltry $12 billion in 1999. Little wonder that, in July 2006 on the eve of the G8 summit in St Petersburg, Putin rejected an energy charter proposed by the Western leaders.
Soaring foreign-exchange reserves, new ballistic missiles, and closer links with a prospering China -- with which it conducted joint military exercises on China's Shandong Peninsula in August 2005 -- enabled Putin to deal with his American counterpart, President George W. Bush, as an equal, not mincing his words when appraising American policies.
"One country, the United States, has overstepped its national boundaries in every way," Putin told the 43rd Munich Trans-Atlantic conference on security policy in February 2007. "This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations...This is very dangerous."
Condemning the concept of a "unipolar world," he added: "However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it describes a scenario in which there is one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making...It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And this is pernicious." His views fell on receptive ears in the capitals of most Asian, African, and Latin American countries.
The changing relationship between Moscow and Washington was noted, among others, by analysts and policy-makers in the hydrocarbon-rich Persian Gulf region. Commenting on the visit that Putin paid to long-time U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar after the Munich conference, Abdel Aziz Sagar, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, wrote in the Doha-based newspaper The Peninsula that Russia and Gulf Arab countries, once rivals from opposite ideological camps, had found a common agenda of oil, anti-terrorism, and arms sales. "The altered focus takes place in a milieu where the Gulf countries are signaling their keenness to keep all geopolitical options open, reviewing the utility of the United States as the sole security guarantor, and contemplating a collective security mechanism that involves a host of international players."
In April 2007, the Kremlin issued a major foreign policy document. "The myth about the unipolar world fell apart once and for all in Iraq," it stated. "A strong, more self-confident Russia has become an integral part of positive changes in the world."
The Kremlin's increasingly tense relations with Washington were in tune with Russian popular opinion. A poll taken during the run-up to the 2006 G8 summit revealed that 58% of Russians regarded America as an "unfriendly country." It has proved to be a trend. This July, for instance, Major Gen Alexandr Vladimirov told the mass circulation newspaper Komsolskya Pravada that war with the United States was a "possibility" in the next ten to fifteen years.
Chavez Rides High
Such sentiments resonated with Hugo Chavez. While visiting Moscow in June 2007, he urged Russians to return to the ideas of Vladimir Lenin, especially his anti-imperialism. "The Americans don't want Russia to keep rising," he said. "But Russia has risen again as a center of power, and we, the people of the world, need Russia to become stronger."
Chavez finalized a $1 billion deal to purchase five diesel submarines to defend Venezuela's oil-rich undersea shelf and thwart any possible future economic embargo imposed by Washington. By then, Venezuela had become the second largest buyer of Russian weaponry. (Algeria topped the list, another indication of a growing multipolarity in world affairs.) Venezuela acquired the distinction of being the first country to receive a license from Russia to manufacture the famed AK-47 assault rifle.
By channeling some of his country's oil money to needy Venezuelans, Chavez broadened his base of support. Much to the chagrin of the Bush White House, he trounced his sole political rival, Manuel Rosales, in a December 2006 presidential contest with 61% of the vote. Equally humiliating to the Bush administration, Venezuela was, by then, giving more foreign aid to needy Latin American states than it was.
Following his reelection, Chavez vigorously pursued the concept of forming an anti-imperialist alliance in Latin America as well as globally. He strengthened Venezuela's ties not only with such Latin countries as Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and debt-ridden Argentina, but also with Iran and Belarus.
By the time he arrived in Tehran from Moscow (via Minsk) in June 2007, the 180 economic and political accords his government had signed with Tehran were already yielding tangible results. Iranian-designed cars and tractors were coming off assembly lines in Venezuela. "[The] cooperation of independent countries like Iran and Venezuela has an effective role in defeating the policies of imperialism and saving nations," Chavez declared in Tehran.
Stuck in the quagmire of Iraq and lashed by the gusty winds of rocketing oil prices, the Bush administration finds its area of maneuver woefully limited when dealing with a rising hydrocarbon power. To the insults that Chavez keeps hurling at Bush, the American response has been vapid. The reason is the crippling dependence of the United States on imported petroleum which accounts for 60% of its total consumed. Venezuela is the fourth largest source of U.S. imported oil after Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia; and some refineries in the U.S. are designed specifically to refine heavy Venezuelan oil.
In Chavez's scheme to undermine the "sole superpower," China has an important role. During an August 2006 visit to Beijing, his fourth in seven years, he announced that Venezuela would triple its oil exports to China to 500,000 barrels per day in three years, a jump that suited both sides. Chavez wants to diversify Venezuela's buyer base to reduce its reliance on exports to the U.S., and China's leaders are keen to diversify their hydrocarbon imports away from the Middle East, where American influence remains strong.
"The support of China is very important [to us] from the political and moral point of view," Chavez declared. Along with a joint refinery project, China agreed to build thirteen oil drilling platforms, supply eighteen oil tankers, and collaborate with the state-owned company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA), in exploring a new oilfield in the Orinoco Basin.
China on a Stratospheric Trajectory
So dramatic has been the growth of the state-run company PetroChina that, in mid-2007, it was second only to Exxon Mobil in its market value among energy corporations. Indeed, that year three Chinese companies made it onto the list of the world's ten most highly valued corporations. Only the U.S. had more with five. China's foreign reserves of over $1 trillion have now surpassed Japan's. With its gross domestic product soaring past Germany's, China ranks number three in the world economy.
In the diplomatic arena, Chinese leaders broke new ground in 1996 by sponsoring the Shanghai Corporation Organization (SCO), consisting of four adjoining countries: Russia and the three former Soviet Socialist republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The SCO started as a cooperative organization with a focus on countering drug-smuggling and terrorism. Later, the SCO invited Uzbekistan to join, even though it does not abut China. In 2003, the SCO broadened its scope by including regional economic cooperation in its charter. That, in turn, led it to grant observer status to Pakistan, India, and Mongolia -- all adjoining China -- and Iran which does not. When the U.S. applied for observer status, it was rejected, an embarrassing setback for Washington, which enjoyed such status at the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
In early August 2007, on the eve of an SCO summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, the group conducted its first joint military exercises, codenamed Peace Mission 2007, in the Russian Ural region of Chelyabinsk. "The SCO is destined to play a vital role in ensuring international security," said Ednan Karabayev, foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan.
In late 2006, as the host of a China-Africa Forum in Beijing attended by leaders of 48 of 53 African nations, China left the U.S. woefully behind in the diplomatic race for that continent (and its hydrocarbon and other resources). In return for Africa's oil, iron ore, copper, and cotton, China sold low-priced goods to Africans, and assisted African counties in building or improving roads, railways, ports, hydro-electric dams, telecommunications systems, and schools. "The western approach of imposing its values and political system on other countries is not acceptable to China," said Africa specialist Wang Hongyi of the China Institute of International Studies. "We focus on mutual development."
To reduce the cost of transporting petroleum from Africa and the Middle East, China began constructing a trans-Burma oil pipeline from the Bay of Bengal to its southern province of Yunan, thereby shortening the delivery distance now traveled by tankers. This undermined Washington's campaign to isolate Myanmar. (Earlier, Sudan, boycotted by Washington, had emerged as a leading supplier of African oil to China.) In addition, Chinese oil companies were competing fiercely with their Western counterparts in getting access to hydrocarbon reserves in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
"China's oil diplomacy is putting the country on a collision course with the U.S. and Western Europe, which have imposed sanctions on some of the countries where China is doing business," comments William Mellor of Bloomberg News. The sentiment is echoed by the other side. "I see China and the U.S. coming into conflict over energy in the years ahead," says Jin Riguang, an oil-and-gas advisor to the Chinese government and a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Council.
China's industrialization and modernization has spurred the modernization of its military as well. The test-firing of the country's first anti-satellite missile, which successfully destroyed a defunct Chinese weather satellite in January 2007, dramatically demonstrated its growing technological prowess. An alarmed Washington had already noted an 18% increase in China's 2007 defense budget. Attributing the rise to extra spending on missiles, electronic warfare, and other high-tech items, Liao Xilong, commander of the People's Liberation Army's general logistics department, said: "The present day world is no longer peaceful and to protect national security, stability and territorial integrity we must suitably increase spending on military modernization."
China's declared budget of $45 billion was a tiny fraction of the Pentagon's $459 billion one. Yet, in May 2007, a Pentagon report noted China's "rapid rise as a regional and economic power with global aspirations" and claimed that it was planning to project military farther afield from the Taiwan Straits into the Asia-Pacific region in preparation for possible conflicts over territory or resources.
The Sole Superpower in the Sweep of History
This disparate challenge to American global primacy stems as much from sharpening conflicts over natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas, as from ideological differences over democracy, American style, or human rights, as conceived and promoted by Western policy-makers. Perceptions about national (and imperial) identity and history are at stake as well.
It is noteworthy that Russian officials applauding the swift rise of post-Soviet Russia refer fondly to the pre-Bolshevik Revolution era when, according to them, Tsarist Russia was a Great Power. Equally, Chinese leaders remain proud of their country's long imperial past as unique among nations.
When viewed globally and in the great stretch of history, the notion of American exceptionalism that drove the neoconservatives to proclaim the Project for the New American Century in the late 20th century -- adopted so wholeheartedly by the Bush administration in this one -- is nothing new. Other superpowers have been there before and they, too, have witnessed the loss of their prime position to rising powers.
No superpower in modern times has maintained its supremacy for more than several generations. And, however exceptional its leaders may have thought themselves, the United States, already clearly past its zenith, has no chance of becoming an exception to this age-old pattern of history.
Dilip Hiro is the author of Secrets and Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and, most recently, Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources, both published by Nation Books.
© 2007 Dilip Hiro
87 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems like China's policy is just smarter. Avoid direct confrontation and do everything they can to undermine U.S. supremacy. It's like the soviet strategy but much more nuanced and smarter. I don't necessarily fear a world with China as the number one global superpower. I think it will change everyone's opinion of politics, wealth, and life in general. China makes no bones about the fact that they don't care what kind of governments they support, at least that is more honest than the United States, who always claim human rights is so core, and support friendly dictators and try to lie and cover for them.
Dutch regarding Chinagate:
See following article showing Scotter Libby up to the same old dirty tricks back when:
Libby & Nuclear Secrets to China
By Robert Parry
November 4, 2005
Excerpt:
"But the reality was that the principal exposure of U.S. nuclear secrets to China appears to have occurred when Beijing obtained U.S. blueprints for the W-88 miniaturized hydrogen bomb, a Chinese intelligence coup in the mid-1980s on the watch of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
The intelligence loss came at a time when the Reagan-Bush administration was secretly collaborating with communist China on arms shipments to the Nicaraguan contra rebels, an operation so sensitive that Congress and the American people were kept in the dark, even as White House aide Oliver North colluded with Chinese agents."
the rest of the article can be accessed here:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/110305.html
Funny how these same bad apples keep popping up isn't it? Seems like Liddy and Bushes have always been in "secret collaborations" with enemies. So, refresh my memory again and tell me whom I am supposed to hate? Now, why should Dutch, the president, and Ollie North not have been hanged as TRAITORS??? Well, maybe Dutch, the president, really did have Alheimer's at the time--kind of in the Twighlight Zone like our current president. Still, there were all of those around him who knew exactly what they were doing.
Our Dutch says: When a sitting president can sell secrets and open our nuclear secrets for the taking because he believes in a multipolar world, and when same president can have extramarital sex in the White House we are in trouble.
So, Dutch, does that mean Reagan was having extramarital sex in the White House while his old lady was consulting the soothsayers???=--They were really a "moral" bunch weren't they??? Sorry, Dutch, couldn't resist that one.
Is Reagan where you get your name "DUTCH"--do you like the guy so much? Yes, he was ohhh so moral as a shill for GE all of those years wasn't he?---going around proudly busting unions. He was so moral that when he named names to the McCarthyites in Washington his first old lady packed his bags and put them on the front porch--seems like she didn't like living with a man who squealed on friends and acquaintances to protect his own place in society.
Oh yes, the Dutch and the old collaboration with the enemies routine. I have to turn on the radio daily to find out whom my government wants me to hate today. Do they want me to hate the Iranians or sell them weapons??? Oh, that's right, today we hate them. Seems like past actions do affect the future doesn't it Dutch?
From Wikipedia:
The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal occurring in 1987 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the profits to continue funding rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua.[1] Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[2][3] The affair is still shrouded in secrecy. After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[4] A week later, however, on November 13, Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.[5] Go to Wikipedia for footnotes.
"He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages?"
As someone has said elsewhere: I never believe a thing true until government officially denies it.
Dutch goes on to say: Everybody points to the extravagent pay of CEOs, but no finger pointing to the extravagent pay of our entertainers(actors and athletes)...
Dutch, movie stars actually fit the definition of capitalism more closely than do CEOs. Afterall, if people do not go to the movies and purchase tickets, the movie star is not signed up for another go around. If he is a box office failure, he is resigned to making B movies. CEOs can be all kinds of incompetent greedy bastards and still collect their HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. If they leave, they leave with a good package deal. There is very little control over these people as their stockholders have about as much clout as a democratic voter had in Dade County, Florida in 2000. But the spin machine likes to blame all of our ills on Hollywood. If you blame Hollywood, then you don't look at the real culprits in Washington and corporate boardrooms. Of course, I am aware that there are plenty of boardrooms in Hollywood. However, these movies stars do not receive millions of dollars in subsidies--even though states do bend over backwards to have movies made within their territories. I still say: no tickie, no movie.
Oh, Dutch, Dutch, Dutch. You are just a little propaganda spitting machine, aren't you?
....these extravagent jury awards...
This is such a vague assertion that one hardly knows how to counteract, but let's try anyway. My response goes like this:
That's right, Dutch, as the Republicans crap on the Constitution, one of the things they REALLY hate is one's right to a trial by jury. They love to talk about extrvagant jury awards yet never explain why a jury sometimes punishes a corporation for flagrantly disregarding the safety of others. They don't want you to have all the facts, just theirs. In the famous case of the woman who spilled coffee between her legs, the jury said that McDonald's corporate management testified that they were aware that their coffee was hotter than most, and that yes it could cause severe burns if it were consumed immediately or spilled on the person--and they saw no need to warn customers because the burn cases were insignificant. This after jurors had just looked at photographs of all the burns on the plaintiff's body. This after management conceded that they received burn complaits, but that the numbers were too insignificant to get them to change their behavior. I mean, business is war and ya gotta expect some collateral damage, right? What did the bad old jury do--they awarded the plaintiff 2 days worth of coffee sales at McDonald's, and the judge reduced that amount significantly. In most cases, the judges do reduce the amounts of awards--taking the sting out of a message the jury is trying to send. The jury found the plaintiff 20% responsibile for spilling the coffee on herself, but they reasoned if the coffee hadn't been so hot in the first place, it would not have caused such damage. This information came from the Wall Street Journal--hardly seen as a plaintiff's best friend--less so now that Murdoch is acquiring it. Did this award bankrupt McDonald's? Hardly. They did lower the heat of their coffee to be more in line with other fast food joints. McDonald's later settled out of court with the plaintiff for an undisclosed amount--but common sense tells you in was for less than the already reduced award.
And so it goes. Yes, Dutch. Go ahead and shill for the right-wingers. Go ahead and get rid of the trial by jury which the founding fathers put in the Constitution to protect the population as a whole from excessive corporate and governmental criminal behavior. In Doublespeak terms, call it "tort reform"-- reforming yourself right out of a right to a trial by jury. Go ahead. Force people into fascist-controlled "arbitration." Sounds like a great idea--until you want your day in court, that is. You're like ole Trent Lott who spoke of "frivilous law suits" until his house was blown away by Katrina and his insurance company refused to pay. He sued the insurance company. Your suit is frivilous--his is his Constitutional right.
Dutch continues:Take a look at how our young girls are dressed; they will do anything to be "popular," have a "boyfriend." They are imitating what they see on TV. Our divorce rate is at record levels while we kill the unborn at record levels. I could go on and on.
Yes, Dutch you could go on and on with those Limbaugh and right winger sound bites--but it takes a lot of typing and space on CD to address these soundbites with facts. But again, let's try:
Those horrible women have been our problem since Eve took a bite out of the apple--or pomagrante. Pathetic thing that she was, having no reasoning skills, she fell for the lies of the serpent. Because of this, Woman needs to be kept in check; her sexuality needs to be controlled by the state--if the state and Catholic Church say no birth control, then by golly she should have none. If she wears suggestive clothing, like Eve her mother, she is just asking for it. Put the little bitches in Berkas and make sure only their husbands see them--afterall, men are wild animals who can't control their lust. If she gets pregnant, make her bear the child--oh, and revise the arguments of the previous century when doctors were castigated for providing anethesia for labor. Doesn't the Bible say she shall bring forth children in sorrow to pay for Eve's mistakes? Don't give her any anesthetic for thereby you will be thwarting the laws of God's just retribution. Yes, indeed, if 16 year old girls would stop dressing like sluts, crime would disappear...yada, yada..yada. As Dutch says, he could go on and on. Divorce and abortions--sounds like Eve problems to me.
Yes, children do imitate what they see on TV, Dutch. They do try to be in style and dress like their peers or carry their dress to extravagant means in order to prove how different they are? All kids go through rites of passages in dress, belief systems. Did it ever occur to you that maybe some of these girls are like adults, seeking ways to overcome alienation? Eric Fromm wrote a great deal about this--the desire to overcome existential alienation--why some people turn to sex, other to booze, and others to drugs, still others to power (sometimes in business/sometimes sexual such as sadomasochism) and some to religion. Is it a girl's suggestive dress that leads to such behavior as premarital sex or unwanted pregnancy? If so, wouldn't most tribes who shun clothing have a lot of rape, incest, and other sexual predatory crimes? I haven't seen proof of that in the anthropology books I have read. Women in "primitive" tribes go around half naked and yet the men of the tribe don't feel like they have the right to push them in the bushes every few minutes. So it can't be suggestive clothing or no clothing at all, Dutch. It has to be our attitute to suggestive clothing or no clothing at all. I'm open to suggestions but could it be that a misinterpretation of the Bible has plagued western man for a long time--some say since Augustine? The story goes likes this: Adam and Eve ate of the apple and SUDDENLY THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE NAKED. This is what has been drummed into us in the Judeo/Christian tradition. NAKED! JUST THINK NAKED! Breasts and penises and vaginas--ohhhh, nasty, nasty stuff. Cover it up! Cover it all up!
Yet, is it possible that this isn't what the Bible is trying to convey at all? When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from each other and the universe--suddenly they were not like the animal kingdom at all--they were different. Fromm in The Art of Loving points out that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge and did indeed become "as gods" knowing good and evil. They also looked around and realized that they were only half a person--think of it as ying and yang looking eye to eye. This is the way wikipedia explains Fromm's take on it:
"When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from nature while still being part of it. This is why they felt "naked" and "ashamed": they had evolved into human beings, conscious of themselves, their own mortality, and their powerlessness before the forces of nature and society, and no longer united with the universe as they were in their instinctive, pre-human existence as animals. According to Fromm, the awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one's uniquely human powers of love and reason. However, Fromm so distinguished his concept of love from popular notions of love that his reference to this concept was virtually paradoxical."
As I recall his book, Fromm spoke of the psychological angst or existential vacuum as Frankl might say, that all humans possess. This angst might be thought of as a panic attack and worded something like this: I am alone in the universe, I came into the world alone, I will die alone, as the acts of birth and death for me are solitary and lonely. I am seperated from mother at birth, and I wish it were not so. We, then, according to Fromm, spend the rest of our lives trying to ease that existenstial angst--that loneliness. If we are joined sexually with another human being with love and caring, for a short time, we overcome that feeling. When we are no longer "the beast with two backs" as Shakespeare's Iago termed it, then we return to our alienated state. Many people try to reach it without the love and caring, and they find it empty, but human nature is such that they keep on trying. They attempt to find a release of the pain in booze and try various and different forms of self-medication, both legal and illegal--all of this to avoid pain and reach for some sort of relief, some feeling of completion.
How do we overcome it, then? Well, according to Fromm, by the Art of Loving--love as an art must be practiced like any other skill--it must become the most important thing in the world to you--you must invest time in it, put your resources into it, give it your all. While we may not agree completely with Fromm's idea of "love", I think he is pointing us in the right direction.
Whee!! I don't know what to say about Ron Brown, Dutch. Looks like you may be on to something there--except I see little evidence that he was selling secrets to China. Hell, our businessmen have been doing that for ages. China used to couldn't get a rocket off the launchpad--they blew up everytime, but after they blew up several millions of dollars worth of western sattelites, those who owned the satellites made sure they could get a rocket into space by providing them the technology. Now, thanks to that, they can deliver the war heads that they already had. Used to, they could make the bomb, but they couldn't deliver it.
Dutch says: Yes, we are in for it, but as is the way with humans, we will come back to our roots after a major catastrophy strikes. We will seek out long lost family members. Get involved in our local community and truly share with the less fortunate members of our society. Last, but not least, we will seek our Creator.
Good point about sharing, Dutch. But as for seeking out family memebers: I'm like Woody Allen on this--everyone needs a great big extended family--living in another city. But hey, if an extended family eases your own "existential angst", I say go for it.
THOMAS MOORE. I happen to love my country and having served in seven foreign country's over an eleven year period of time, I was always delighted to return to America.
The bitch I have now is, it is not the America it could or should be. Our government is not a democarcy, the word is a sham now. We are a fascist form of government where big businees controls the government, and if any don't beleive that they are lying to themselves. Our president has also trashed our Constitution and spits on it. Our rights have been taken from us and our congress will not impeach the president as they are directed to do by the supreme law of the land.
As far as a war with China goes, our militaary IS broken and if we get into another war in the near future with anyone, we are in serious trouble. We are in trouble now with this mess in Iraq. A nuclear war of course would be a different matter with all losing their ass.
China is not going to invade our country, but if they supported Iran for example, as they did North Korea in 1949, they would kick our ass. Anyway, they don't have to fight a war with us to take us out, we are killing ourselves with our leaders stupidity.
Novusordo -
We need some concrete solutions instead of endless analysis and you seem to offer something concrete.
But remember that full public financing of election campaigns will be akin getting the meow out of the cat. It's possible, but only by slow steps or sudden death.
Granted, if private, corporate, or special interest money no longer bought elections, candidates' ideas would be forced to compete on a more-level playing field. Assuming that additional constitutional problems with public funding of entry candidates and primaries will also be resolved, we might actually begin to elect presidents and federal lawmakers who represented broader, saner citizen interests.
More than a few of us lawyer types are working in this direction, and a decent nucleus of already-sitting congresspersons is agreeable to re-test congressional waters in 2008. We also asssume the public will be more open to public campaign financing by 08' than at any time in living memory.
If there is even limited statutory success on this reform in the next few years, the (good) results for average people might enable further political support for yet further transformation of the corrupt election system. Short of killing the cat, its meow can't disappear overnight. But with enough public support it can be made to grow increasingly faint over time.
I'm not bashing China, we are the ones who have outscourced millions of our jobs to them. I'm bashing us for being so damn stupid to allow our country to fall. Some smart people in America are learnng the Chinese language, Donald Trump for one.
With all the China bashing going on in the above posts it is important to remember that the average American still consumes 20 times the resources of the average Chinese. Enough with the "yellow peril," already!
Americans should worry less about China, Russia, etc. and more about replacing the current administration and incompetent politicians with individuals that will promote the good of the country.
We had no enemies, only conjecture on the part of our political
parties to enhance the military/industrial complex and profiteers.
Hi All,
Many great observations in the posts to this piece, as they describe the decline from various points of reference.
Those who care to become activist by taking their concerns to the public at large are to be commended...those like Michael Moore and others.
Last evening, I was lucky enough to see "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo. Very well put together, it begins with facts that come from early in the 20th century that started a process that has snowballed into what we are seeing today, a further erosion of our freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution. It is indeed about money, greed and control.
As many regular posters of comments to Common Dreams have noted, the Democratic Party is just a half step off of the Republican Party because the corporate control influences both to the detriment of The People. I consider myself to be progressive, lean Democratic, but realize that government is broken...and it matters not which party is in the White House. However, it is blatantly obvious that George W. Bush is a puppet of those in power, and the worst president we have ever had. Embarrassing and horrifying.
Either find a theater showing this wonderful explanation of the history of our country's decline into the hands of the few, or rent the DVD, or buy DVD's and give them to your friends. I checked and Netflix has it, so Blockbuster probably does too. Here's the site to buy online:
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/downloads/dvd.php
Thanks for all your comments, you guys! They are as enlightening and important to read as the original piece.
PAX
When the Russians and Chinese see how uninformed, superstitious, and suggestable the average American is(see, for example, Dutch's post above)they know they will have little trouble overtaking us by just about every measure you could possibly imagine.
Look at the high proportion of Americans who deny evolution and global warming. Or the numbers of Americans who voted for Bush not just once, but even a second time. Or the numbers of Americans who continue to believe that Saddam was somehow implicated in 9/11.
The Russians and Chinese see a US government that is incapable of rebuilding one of its major cities and cultural centers two years after it was demolished. They see a legislature immobilized and intimidated by would-be dictator, and a passive, apathetic populace that is likely to remain so as long as the price of gas doesn't go too high.
"When we start acting like we have some self-respect.."
I think that the expression might be "respect for others". Bullies have NO respect for others, they think that what they say goes and that is it.
Bush declares the U.N. irrelevant when they do not see things his way and then they are OK when they vote for what he wants.
There are SO many examples of Bush's mania. One of his favorite phrases is "don't put me on a couch", meaning do not analyze him. Well somebody should have analyzed him before he was allowed to steal the office of the Presidency.
He shows so many signs of imbalance that the principle that only balanced people get into positions of power should be an absolute from here on out.
bligh - you forgot to mention that corporations exist to make a profit - by any means necessary.
Kivals - As I said, corporations exist to make a profit. Thanks for the link.
bligh,
It is the structure of the corporation that makes the individuals involved act in the interests of greed. As currently constituted, US corporations must act in the interests of shareholder profit and with no other purpose. That structure shapes the motives, expectations, and behavior of the people working for the corporation and determines the corporate behavior.
Robert C. Hinkley is an experienced and well-respected corporate attorney who developed a Code for Corporate Citizenship, that means to address the problems deriving from the profit-only model of corporations. Here is a link to a talk with Mr. Hinkley discussing this issue:
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/533/
Personal greed is at the heart of "corporate greed". Corporations are a legal entity, not a physical one. They are made up of management, workers, and shareholders. Sitting on the boards of these corporations are living, breathing, men and women. They are responsible to the shareholders, and the only reason they exist is to turn a profit. A money losing corporation will not long be in business (unless the government bales them out). These men and women in upper management are rewarded with extravigant riches if they are succesful in making the corporation turn a higher profit. As are the shareholders .Unfortunatly, management is many times rewarded for mediocre performance. With performance bases bonuses and incentive stock options, there is a strong bias to do ANYTHING to increase profits and push the stock price up.
So it DOES boil down to personal greed, for the management, the shareholders and for the consumers. (how many of you go to the MART to save a few bucks rather than use local busineses?
Thenihilist,
I think you are mostly right but Dutch is not completely wrong. Our whole economic/social system is rotten to the core and Dutch sees some aspects of it and you see others. This whole experiment has failed. I just hope that as the US goes down as a dying giant it does not flail away at others and take the whole world with it. Now the only real positive the US can contribute to the human condition is to serve as an example of what not to do.
It seems that the point of social rules, which are often described as morals, is to serve to benefit the welfare of the group that the rules apply to. The US has long since ceased to live under a healthy set of rules as the aftermath of WWII allowed it to become parasitic and cannibalistic, twisting and warping the former rules (which were not that healthy to begin with as they formed under conditions of genocide and slavery), and now that the host (the rest of the world) is vigorously resisting this warped set of rules is leading to self-destruction.
The biggest thing is the loss of our manufacturing base. To me that is the engine that drives a country. It is like a painter selling all of his brushes and wondering why his paintings seem to be getting worse than all the other painters around. Or the hen that laid the golden eggs. So unless American leaders are crack head selling all they own to get the next fix(which I wouldn't doubt). We have to face the fact that this has all been manipulated to happen. It is not greed or moral decay. These are merely symptoms of the real problem which is the elitist desire for a one world government. For this
goal to be accomplished all nations must be molded to fit in this OWG. There sovereignty must be crushed, these economies collapsed or restructured,and the population brainwashed enough through mass media to except all of this.
"Dutch," please quit using the adjective for an honorable, tolerant country to describe yourself. You are no doubt American, so lay off the good people of the Netherlands.
"It is not only corporate greed, but personal greed, and collectively personal greed is doing as much harm as corporate greed, if not more."
What a bunch of crap. Hard to believe that someone able to read or operate a computer falls for this. Guess what _ the reason there ~is~ so much "personal greed" in the States is that it's being actively, deliberately engendered by your corporate overlords. Deliberately engineered to make people with fatuous minds spout the kind of nonsense above, to hate kindness and tolerance, which are of course the real morality. What are you thinking, talking about how young girls dress? That's not morality. Morality is not sacrificing your children in the name of some barbaric, delusory idea of honor.
I'm glad were getting our ass kicked! Of course I'm not glad our young men and women are getting killed.
I think you are frankly. I remember Jane coming over to see us and what nice things she had to say about us.You need to be in Anwar and lets see how you cheer the Iraqui you traitor.
I'm sick of seeing this trash. Childlike opinions of its imperialism, bushs war,Americas evil, etc. By the way Chuckie.....don't see that many people trying to break into Canada. We don't have a provence (state) that wants to break away from the country. Ain't bi-lingalism great!
I'd give anything to see you and the rest of the America haters on point. Just once. You'd run at the first shot and leave your mates to perish.
The thing that confuses me is why you folks stay in such a place. Go on over, see how much fun it is to live in one of your admired countries. Live under one of your admired regimes or political philosophies. You'd miss the freedoms you hate pretty quick.
As to our demise, wishful thinking at this point....as far as China kicking our ass, you obviously know nothing about military power or its use. Viewing China as you used to view Russia should tell you that its the same mistake. We always knew we could kick Russias ass in a shooting war just as now we could kick Chinas ass big time. We can't occupy China just as we can't occupy Iraq.
One of the few true things said here is that thisd was a war of choice, a choice made by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,Perle and others. Another bunch that never put it on the line.
We aren't close to the best we could be, but we are far better than the alternatives you espouse or the political alternatives you prefer.
How do I know? The empirical data is in. History shows that the social and political systems you prefer have and are failing. Every single time. One example please of success?
There called representatives!!! Our forefathers knew the aveage guy couldn't or wouldn't participate in government thats why we have a form of representation in the form of congressman,etc. It's not our fault these guys become corrupted and complicit and start listening to the corporations more than the voters who put them in office. If you want to blame some thing blame campaign financing and the corrosive effects of lobbyists not us poor saps who vote and hope and get screwed in the long run!!!! Hell we all want Bush and Cheney to be impeached,wtc but is that happening is that once again OUR FAULT?
curmudgeon99: We need to be careful, though, not to blame the victim. Nobody deserves to be constantly lied to either.
The Boomers were the first -- and only -- generation to have grown up entirely on the teat of corporate TV propaganda. Perhaps some are being weaned, in the modern internet age, but they really see the world in incredibly different ways. The Me Generation has actually benefitted in the past decade or so by some benchmarks, at the gross expense of the elderly and X-Gen.
I used to joke that they'll find a way to "take it with them" when they pass away, but I don't think it's a laughing matter any more. I think they'll hand it over to the banks before any of it goes to the X- or Y-Gen. They've been born & nurtured to be easy marks.
tbonez is absolutely right.
In fact there is an old Islamic saying "People get the government they deserve.
While not agreeing with everything Dutch said, morals are real and are important. Without some inward moral compass, how can you tell between right and wrong?
Dutch,
I find it ironic that people like you, who love to preach about our decline in morals don't have the slightest clue as to what the word means. Basically, it's latin for the passing down of cultural mores. To believe the past was superior to the present because people more closely adhered to the traditions of their ancestors is laughable (no seriously I chortle as I write this). That is, in a nutshell, what "morals" are. What YOU are referring to is the my-lifestyle-is-right-and-yours-is-wrong in-group bias, topped with a healthy failure to recognize cultural engineering via the mass media. You look at it as:
the evil decadent people have went astray (stangely it's has an Old Testment YHWH blame the people for wanting to fit in feel
Reality:
people are purposefully kept ignorant so they can be easily manipulated and led astray for the sake of profit...In order to maintain the consummerist itch coporations must promote a hollow existance. This has nothing to do with abortion or divorce rates. The institution of marriage in the 21st century is questionable at best anyways and last time I checked we have 6 billion people on this planet...how choosing to not bring a few more on board is related to the decline of civilization is beyond me.
We do have to bare some of the responsibility for the demise of this Once great nation. Look at it like this you and a few of your close friends(the founders) start a company(US) the company starts off small but than starts growing creating more and more wealth and prosperity. The company changes leadership through out the years but follows it's upward momentum because the people who work there are really motivated and involved in the functioning of the company. Years of great progress with a few bumps in the road. Then on day the people working there start to get lazy . They are off doing other things and not so involved in the company. They figure we have had good management all these years so lets just let them run the show, and we can go off and do our own thing. Then the company started to change. Things started to go missing. the budgeting for company picnics and enrichment programs got re invested in company security and alarm systems. A card access system was installed and only certain people were allowed access to the company. Workers who came back and said "hey what happened to our company" were denied access and if they resisted were arrested for trespassing. Like relationships, democracy takes work, commitment and constant involvement or it is lost. This company is America and we are the outcast workers
Who else are we supposed to blame? Were supposed to blame the apathetic populace who voted for Bush. Have you seen Bush's poll ratings? He duped the American public through lies and secrecy. Thats the publics fault? No way! This is Bush and Company's fault! Don't blame the average working stiff whose working 2 jobs to make the mortgage and has no health insurance. You sound like the oil companies that blame the consumer for high prices! Let the blame fall where it belongs on Bush and the complicit Congress!! Our systems broke the people have no voice its not our damn fault!!
Why Blame Bush?
The unprecedented atrocities by this arrogant zealot and his henchmen, include stolen elections, disastrous war on our environment through manipulation of science, intimidation of congress with unprecedented character assassinations (ie branding a triple amputee Viet Vet for supporting an inquiry into the causes of 9/11), a grossly misguided war, & the list goes on.
Blame falls mainly on the apathetic populace who voted for Bush, and then stood by while his team inflected more damage on our republic, and the world, than any administration in our history.
I cried when I watched some of the takes on the French, British, and Canadian healthcare systems in "Sicko." I've never been to France or Canada. All I really know is the US. I've been brainwashed by all this hype of our being the greatest nation on earth, with a medical system second to none. All these years I've been fed a lot of crap -- especially in the last decade or so when we've squandered whatever political and moral capital we once had.
In Sicko what particularly moved me was the humility, compassion, lack of greed, and sense of common purpose these foreigners had. It was obvious to me that their moral and social sensibilities were born in a culture very different to that of 2007 USA.
In the USA, if you watch TV, you are taught: to be self-righteous, to shout at people you disagree with, to brand people who are different from you as alien or terrorist; to swagger and preen in front of the mirror; to be fat (and damn proud of it); and to feel a religious affinity for football franchises and SUVs.
I think our collective ugly stupid swagger is a product of the corporate media -- the end result of a values system where being a consumer is the highest achievement an American citizen can hope to realize.
I wonder, as some posters like dcbeltway and Siouxrose have mused, whether remaining in the US is the best option for me. Is it worth it to remain here and fight for our common dreams while the fundie-neocon-repug-hatemongering-insentient-disgusting base picks us off one by one. Or will we come out of the other side of this in okay shape 20 years from now? Will any countries be spared? As Naomi Klein discussed, in countries like Poland, where IMF austerities have been forced upon them, homophobia and violence against women and minorities rise. Will any country be able to stand up against the corporations and the WTO? Maybe it'll be Venezuela for me. Chavez seems to have avoided the beast's wrath for the moment. Or maybe I should just remain on the "left" coast.
It's strange. I've played "avoidance" with the media for the last 20 years. I thought that by being careful with what I watched that I'd be a better person. I kind of just hoped that this alternate MSM universe would just go away. But it hasn't. It has jumped out of the tube to coopt my physical circumstances. It is impossible to ignore the lies, the greed, and the self-delusion any more. It's staring at me in the form of ME and worldwide carnage in the name of my country's "global war on terror."
What I am doing is contributing fairly sizably to a dozen good activist NGOs like the ACLU, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Common Cause, FAIR, etc. I'm the treasurer for my teachers union, which involves stirring the membership's political consciousness once in a while. And I am beginning to give time to the local chapter of the League of Women's Voters.
I wish the US didn't work its people to the bone. It is hard to find the time to be active politically. But you just do it because what's the alternative?
RichM "A good bet that Bligh doesn't know the first thing about Lenin and couldn't write a coherent paragraph about Lenin's presumed policy errors". Sorry to offend an apparent fan but yes I do, and yes I can.
A funny thing happened in 1991. The Soviet Union imploded, and the Soviet Archives became available for the first time ever.
We can now read what Lenin actually wrote and what he actually did, not thru some western propaganda nor thru the simplistic prism of Western apologists for him (Stalin Bad, Lenin Good)but what the soviet state actually recorded.
Lenin, while apparently personally modest and kind to friends, conceived and ruthlessly implemented the first modern Totalitarian State. (copied later by Hitler, an admirer), and used force to implement his Utopian view of a new society. One that would have no room for individual freedoms. In fact, any freedoms were to be ruthlessly repressed.The state was to be "all" the individual "nothing".
Most everything that we think of "Stalinist" repressions originated with Lenin. Lenin originated the Cheka or secret police, and authorized them with power far beyond the old Tsarist police. Lenin created the first camps, which 20-30 million died in over the next 60 years. Lenin crushed any movement for a free press,free anything for that matter. His economic policies led directly to forced collectivisation and the death of 5-10 million civilians. (Didn't work either, 40% of crops grown on 2% private land-wonder why)He was the first to use famine as a political weapon. Lenin implemented the first soviet "show trials" to kill or imprison any dissenters. The bolsheviks ordered the wholesale massacre of ethnic minorities (don cossacks 1919 )He did away with any pretense to democracy and closed the Constituent Assembly after the bolsheviks only garnered 22% of the vote. The list goes on.
Not true? Let's hear what Lenin himself had to say.
1. Freedom of the press -"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organiser of the masses." or " He who now talks of freedom of the press goes backward and halts our headlong course towards socialism."or "Literature must become only party literature all other must be eliminated". Lenin 1919
2. Famine (state caused) "Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligencia. " Lenin 1922
3. Politics of cynicism - " To rely on upon conviction, devotion,and excellent spiritual qualities: that is not to be taken seriously in Politics." or "there are no morals in politics, only experience". Lenin
4.Terror- "We stand for organized Terror, this should be frankly admitted"- Felix Dzerzhinsky (Lenin's handpicked chief of the secret police) "We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination as the immediate task of the coming revolution". Lenin 1919
Or Mikhail Gorbachev, who always identified himself as a confirmed Leninist. " I can only say that cruelty was the main problem with Lenin".
Or finally, the people of Leningrad. They voted overwhelmingly to change the name back to St. Petersburg in 1991. Said the ex-soviet state poet " We would rather name it after a Saint than after a devil"
I didn't really want to get into a discussion of Lenin, and I don't want to bust you guys bubble, but the guy practically invented the totalitarian state, copied by such
notables as Hitler, Kim, Pol Pot, Mao,Csausescu,Hoxha,ect. He was an evil genius, unconcerned with the suffering that he caused.
I find it ironic that his great supporters take for granted their ability to criticize the government. Should you have tried this in the Soviet Union in Lenin's day, you would find yourself and your entire family in a slave labor camp or awaiting execution in prison.
He did say one thing that I agree with." Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to Professors, it is lost."
Best regards
Kem,
Don't fret to much over China. Our homegrown pimps in power sold us out to China. Many "American" companies now rely on the Chinese statist economy, quasi-slave labor, Chinese security (and by extension their police, miliary, etc.) that any threat to China would be a threat to the US' own interests. China/US are top trading partners. And, so, our destinies are now intertwined.
The problem is the heterogeneous "our" on both sides. The American laborer should look to the Chinese laborer to see his own future. And the Chinese elite should start writing checks out to JP Morgan, Chase-Manhattan, Goldman-Sachs, etc. right now.
Someone mentioned that it took centuries for Rome to fall. Well, that was before the jet age. The beginning of the end for Rome was their vain attempts to control Mesopotamia. Bush didn't do well in school or he may have realized that if we tried to control Mesopotamia or any part of it,(Iraq) it could turn out very bad for us in so many ways, militarily, financially, and morally for only three prime examples.
Rebel Farmer hit it, China owns us, in a conventional war, China would kick our ass now, because our military IS broken, thanks to Bush, Rummy and Cheney. But that aside, they don't have to, all they have to do is cash in their American bonds and let us self destruct in the ensuing depression.
They will do that soon, our purchasing power of their goods is steadily dwindling now as more and more lose jobs and the costs of necessities for the middle and poor class of Americans continue their dramatic rise. Just check the sales for Wal-Mart and the many other companies that stock mainly Chinese manufactured goods. China doesn't need us, if fact they would be far better off if we didn't exist. If we invade or bomb Iran, they won't have long to wait.___ Neither will we.
From sole superpower to world pariah in one presidency. I hear Bu$h the inferior is worrying about his legacy.
He can stop worrying. He has a unique position among the presidents. He is in a class all by himself.
I'm glad were getting our ass kicked! Of course I'm not glad our young men and women are getting killed. But I'm so disgusted with this bully attitude the U.S. has that its like the bully picking on the smaller guy and finding out that the little guy has a hell of a lot more spunk than the bully thought he did. This Iraq war or occupation if you prefer has now lasted longer than the second world war! hard to believe and what United States is finding out that when they rolled into Baghdad thinking they had won the war the Iraqis merely stepped back and decided to fight on their own terms. The fact I would almost and I say almost cheer for someone other than the home team shows what a disgusting,immoral war this is. Go Iraqis!! Fight! Fight! Fight for your country fight for what is right!
All you have to do is look at our expenditures to see just how unbalanced as a nation we are. Bulk is spent on military defence and law enforcement, hardly anything spent on social and humanitarian programs. If this was an individual they would be very unhealthy with a lot of guns in their house but no friends or spiritual connection make ya think??
you think people get the government they deserve?
As Pogo said many years ago in the same named comoic strip - and I repeat
"We have met the enemy and he is us!"
Work to get Big Money out of politics.
Demand public financing of elections, and any US Constitutional amendments needed to bring it about.
It's the only meaningful step. And if achieved - even roughly by degrees - it will tend to affect all public policy for the better, by such degrees.
Not because legitimately-made money, and the individual generation of wealth through decent initiative, is the root of all evil. It obviously isn't the evil socialists make it.
Just ask anyone who's fled a socialist paradise.
But because, in a formally-open democratic republic, huge accumulations of money that can buy the political process means no democracy at all; means plutocracy; means oligarchy; means plundering wars; means ultimately supression of free dissent to even displace the tyranny.
Democracy (representative or direct) is no guarantee of decent human conduct (study the history of Old Iceland -- free, democratic, and internally murderous.)
Nonetheless, democractic election of government policy makers (presidents and legislators), sans influence of stacked election capital, is the best guarantee of human Power's accountable use.
The folks who founded the US Constituion should've known this.
They didn't.
But we do now; now more than ever.
Bush had to be "installed" in America to destroy it. This is the only logical explanation for the sheer incompetance of this administration. I mean we are talking about failure beyond the scope here.Every institution in America has been crippled by this administration. All that is left is the military. It used to be called the "military industrial complex", but now even industry has left. All the stench of an empire on the way out. Repel of posse commatitus which made it illegal for the military to engage in domestic law enforcement.Ancient Rome ceasar crossed the rubicon marking the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. History repeats my friends and those who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat it. Bush must have cut history class LOL. In my opinion all of this blundering is strategically planned, as they say "nothing in politics happens by chance". All these blunders are really just small steps toward the true goal which is a one world government. The EU was the first leg created from the collapse of Europe due to WWI&II. "Global War on Terror"is taking down America so people will be crying for something to be done and Wella!!! Here comes the NAU and the Amero to make everything ok!! Later on to Russia and finally China
"And it could have been so different. Had the Americans emphasized global cooperation, sincerely fought world poverty, been neutral in the Middle East, embraced a revised and more humane capitalism, not tried to shove their values down the throats of others, abandoned uninvited interference in the affairs of others, and shown some humility in its relations with the rest of the world, they could have been leaders for a long, long time. "
"We should change our nation so it is not the bully it is and it becomes a gentle and caring giant instead."
Couldn't agree with you more .
But it was , is and will continue to be , a non -starter . Simply because it goes against the grain.
It's a law of nature - for every force there is an equal and opposite force.
When the Soviet Union stepped down I had hoped that the U.S. would also step down. A final end to the Great War for Civilization. We could use the energy for fixing our roads and water and healthcare.
But no, greed and hubrus had their way with us. We waste our labors making weapons while our children languish. We make laws and walls to keep out farmworkers and then complain about the quality of imported foods. We make things in foreign lands for excessive corporate profits and wonder why our former working class can't buy what they need. Neither can the foreign workers. Talk about selling our birthright for a bowl of porrage! All of our troubles can be found in a mirror.
How the Gods must be laughing. They made that law of nature - for every force there is an equal and opposite force - and we are destroying ourself to make it so.
They tell us that the anti missile nuke shield is going to work, yet they can not prevent tiles from falling off the space shuttle. After twenty years they still are unable to fix it, no wonder the super power is in decline.
It's probably a false assumption in Western history to even conclude that the US/USSR were at one time, "the two" super-powers. India and China have always been there. And although the Brits enjoyed a despotic rule over India for awhile, it ultimately proved to be the same limit that Alexander encountered.
The West hasn't yet figured that exporting despotism doesn't really qualify as the epitome of civilization.
Galen:
I like your theory, but it'll require some physical space to squat on. So long as they can muster an army of strongarms, they'll force you off your farms, gardens, etc. however small. Ultimately, I picture a world of derelict asphalt parking lots, weeds growing in the cracks, abandoned strip malls, overgrown but fertile farm fields, and people renting in squalor. Billionaires based in undisclosed locations with private armies at their command, and invertebrate civil servants.
All the foreign powers have to do is sit back and watch as the U.S. destroy's itself with G. Bush at the helm. From my perspective it is as if someone figured out the best way to destroy America was not through some military assault but to get elected and then ruin it from the inside. Are these people even working on our behalf? Not in my opinion.
If we had charged Bush with the job of destroying this country in the fastest and most efficient way possible I would have to say he's doing a wonderfull job.
Gloom and doom, I have heard it all before. To be sure America has issues, but it did not start with the Bush Presidency. Seems everybody is concerned about China, well maybe more should read on "Chinagate." We sold practically all of their military Technology for political contributions. Ron Brown, the Commerce secretary was the main front man for these dealings. Then the Senate began investigating these dealings, and suddenly poor Ron Brown died in a plane crash.
"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war."
I believe America is in a decline, but that will end when we get spanked real hard. The decline is fundamentally in our morals. When a sitting president can sell secrets and open our nuclear secrets for the taking because he believes in a multipolar world, and when same president can have extramarital sex in the White House we are in trouble. Everybody points to the extravagent pay of CEOs, but no finger pointing to the extravagent pay of our entertainers(actors and athletes)or how about these extravagent jury awards. We charge on our credit cards for the latest gadgets; we refinance our houses to buy that new car, pay-off credit cards, and whatnot.
It is not only corporate greed, but personal greed, and collectively personal greed is doing as much harm as corporate greed, if not more.
Take a look at how our young girls are dressed; they will do anything to be "popular," have a "boyfriend." They are imitating what they see on TV. Our divorce rate is at record levels while we kill the unborn at record levels. I could go on and on.
Yes, we are in for it, but as is the way with humans, we will come back to our roots after a major catastrophy strikes. We will seek out long lost family members. Get involved in our local community and truly share with the less fortunate members of our society. Last, but not least, we will seek our Creator.
Dutch
Frank1569, "And then a catastrophic global climate change tipping point was crossed, and suddenly playing king of the hill didn't matter as much anymore…"
I HOPE so ... As they say, every cloud has a silver lining. Is it too much to hope for that the end of oil might have that effect also. If no-one can afford the oil to run war planes, or passenger planes, the world might eventually become a big place once again. Nah, the world has too much coal. We will somehow find a way to keep the machinary going until climate catastrophe or atmospheric and oceanic poisoning.
Galen, "The future is not 'Star Trek'… it is 'Little House on the Prairie'".
That would be nice - a sustainable future.
Go back and read the science-fiction genre posited by William Gibson called cyberpunk. Almost everything he predicted from ecological collapse to rampant corporate dominated government has come true.
I look to the future and all I see are empty cities, abandoned cars, and small subsistance farming. The future is not 'Star Trek'... it is 'Little House on the Prairie'.
As Gandhi said of Imperialism..
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
The US is currently engaging in the third stage of it's ultimate decline. Why can't it learn the lessons of Imperial history from England, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Russia, etc, etc.
Been there, done that, doesn't work.
As James Bond might have told the neocons, "World domination...same old dream".
"It's sadly typical that even after the fiasco of these last 7 years (not to mention the Hiro article above), an American would try to dismiss Lenin with a casual one-sentence flip-off"
Publishers continue to churn out hagiographies of Churchill, Savior of Democracy, and he's always hailed for his 'vision' in starting promoting the war against the USSR immediately after its birth & baptizing the Cold War.
Lenin knew the ruling class & its instruments would never surrender their grip, that the populations of the world would have to be pried out of their cold, dead hands.
The US and all Americans need to be humbled. We think we are entitled to all the worlds wealth. Funny that conservatives rail against "entitlement" programs when they are the ones that have rigged the system because they feel they have some divine right to rule the world.
This article is excellent. I knew most of the finer points, but couldn't put it all together. This was very helpful.
I also think, like most of the other posters here, that the evolving world political scene is only part of the puzzle. Historically we have no benchmarks to guage the impact of these changes in a globalized economy. The one thing that no one has brought up is the global financial situation.
China already "owns" the US because it funds the majority of our debt. The only thing that keeps it from cashing in is because it needs America to remain economically healthy so that they have a vast market for their goods. Think WalMart. However, if the US becomes a threat to China, or their access to resources like oil, then all bets are off. I don't know how long it would take for China to cash in and destroy the American economy, but I would guess it would take less than a month.
The last straw for Russia seems to have been BushCo's negotiations to put missiles in Russia's back yard. I mean get real! What would the US do if Russia negotiated with Canada or Mexico to put missiles across our borders? Europe better wake up to the fact that they had better become actively involved in stopping the US from provoking another arms race.
I don't think a nuclear holocost is inevitable. There are just too many variables. But one thing is for sure. The American people had better wake up. FAST!!!
When I look at the political landscape in the US, it's pretty clear that the Repugs and most Dumb's are part of the problem. Kucinich and a few others are the only ones making any sense.
This is all so depressing....I think I'll e-mail this article to Bill Moyers. Maybe he can help more people understand what a mess this is.
Instead of putting down the USA every way we could, why not try to make it a Superpower that everyone really likes ?
How about changing our government, making this land a powerful progressive nation ?
Rome disappeared but it took centuries for that to happen and nothing much better than that replaced it anyway (Inquisition, dark ages, slavery, you name it).
We should change our nation so it is not the bully it is and it becomes a gentle and caring giant instead.
After all it is a greedy tiny percent of the population here that controls everything and it is causing all the problems. That is the root of all the complaints, domestic and international that we have.
August 20th, 6:45 pm, Eastern Standard Time: CNN just reported that 1/3rd of the the CIA is "contracted help"!
The Superpower has become the CORPORATE POWER.
Right you are, Frank1569.
RichM ,
Very good post.
I am concerned about the religious belief in the complete free market and so called 'the invisible hand". The belief in non-existing free market is what brought us to this mess.
But some people still want to give it second ,third , fourth.. endless chances.
And then a catastrophic global climate change tipping point was crossed, and suddenly playing king of the hill didn't matter as much anymore...
Glide: "Like it or not, in 25 years, China will be the reigning Super power. They will dominate Africa, then South America and ultimately the U.S. or what's left of it."
One thing we know about the future is that it is never what we expect. Many things could happen with China. If communism falls suddenly, we could see a big internal mess (and don't forget there are so many millions more men than women ...a social crisis to worsen the situation). There's global warming, which might hit China hard (hit everybody hard is more like it). Africa and S. America? What happened to the Europe that dominated Africa and South America? Internal warfare and collapse. China is no more the future than is India or Russia or the EU. Even the United States, for all it's current backwardness, is not about to be marched upon by China. Curb the hyperbole. Everything's still up in the air.
'bligh' writes (3:57 pm ) "Let's hope that Putin doesn't take Chavez's advice and go back to the "ways of Lenin". Didn't work the first time, won't work now."
It's sadly typical that even after the fiasco of these last 7 years (not to mention the Hiro article above), an American would try to dismiss Lenin with a casual one-sentence flip-off. It's a good bet that Mr bligh doesn't know the first thing about Lenin (apart from the lies & distortions all Americans are bombarded with from birth), & couldn't write a coherent paragraph about Lenin's presumed policy errors. Would Mr bligh have preferred to see the Czarist system continue? To see the Provisional Government retain power in 1917? Does Mr bligh have any thoughts about the role that Western capitalist nations played, in causing the USSR to adopt the course it eventually followed?
Just to show how dumb it sounds, let's try out this same kind of "analysis" on the USA. Is it worth anyone's breath to look at what the USA has become -- a monstrous warmongering aggressor ruled by Wall Street, the military-industrial complex & religious fundamentalists, while stuffing its stupid face on junk food and listening to endless garbage & disinformation on the TeeVee -- and to simply say of the former United States, Didn't work the first time, won't work now.?
Nobody likes a bully.
When we start acting like we have some self-respect we will start to earn respect. When we set a positive example then others will follow.
We are declining because we have no honor.
Paul from Texas-
The problem with that theory is the assumption that the rest of the world would not intervene in a Sino-American war. A lot of the world still does not like China, and would definitely view the US as a "lesser of two evils" (though my personal motto is still "the lesser of two evils is still evil"). I think what would be more likely to happen is that the rest of the world would bank on the hope that the war would cripple both the US and China, and do everything to speed forward that hope.
jspkim-
Very good point. But I can't bring myself to work with warmongers. I hate the Democrats as much as I hate the Republicans. I am officially leaving the Communist Party USA until they cease to back the Democratic Party.
bligh-
The only reason it did not work the first time was that the USSR was constantly harassed by the western world of capitalism. This led to the rise of Soviet dictators like Stalin and later Breshnev. Had the capitalists not interfered, perhaps there would have been an intermediate leader more like Trotsky who would have then facilitated the path to the Permanent Revolution.
Let's hope that Putin doesn't take Chavez's advice and go back to the "ways of Lenin". Didn't work the first time, won't work now.
ARA Charleston ,
I believe that the fundamentals of KM should be our guidelines. But we also need to work with less than perfect people or situations.
That does NOT mean that we should work with a complete sold-out pro-war party like the Demos.
Bush Sr. talked about a "new world order", but he never said what that was. Now we are beginning to find out and I do not think this is what he had in mind....at least I hope not.
The imperial American mlitary is much too large for national defense but much too small to support the empire they are attempting to build and control. And at present we are going into debt to the tune of $3 Billion a week. Time for a new plan. Why not put the military to work building electric cars and solar electric energy farms ?
It's interesting that this article sketches out the counter-hegemony that is evolving. If the US hadn't taken the darker road after 9/11, global dynamics would have been quite different. However, now the PNAC crowd can point to this as their casus belli for the imperial turn in US politics. Yet their empire will have a hard landing, and the US won't relinquish it's hegemony easily -- rather it will go out in a blaze of atomic glory, rained down by orbiting weapons platforms against all enemies.
Actually it's not China's population that is scary; it's its massive industrial capacity. They could stomp America in a world war right now.
And what other nations would be offended if they did? The US is a global pariah.
The neo-cons in BOTH political parties continue to push the US relentlessly toward a global war that cannot be won. Unless the citizens of the US can tear themselves away from their cable TV and their junk food culture and rise up to reform the system, America is doomed.
You may note that I do not refer to the USA using an editorial "we". I honestly no longer consider it to be my country.
Thenihilist-
You're right, I keep seeing through that damned American filter. It's all the bad press that Chavez keeps getting that just instinctively paints this bad picture of him. In addition, there is that instinct that makes me think that we need a leader because a capitalist society demands it. I like Chavez, as he is an excellent intermediate stage between capitalism and worldwide socialism.
Putin is better for Russia than Bush is for the United States. Any time one nation tries to dominate the world, it only stands to reason that other nations will sooner or later band together to try and stop them. I had a discussion witha freind back in the early 90's. He was so happy that the USSR had broken up and that the nuclear threat was no more. I told him that we hadn't spent all that money on those nukes just to have them rot in their silos. I said that at some point in our lifetimes we would see them used. Sure hope I'm wrong.
Why is Chavez a far cry from a socialist leader?
True socialism doesn't need a leader anyway and if Chavez suceeds in his goals he will render himself a figurehead of the Bolivarian Movement, which runs counter to US claims that he is power hungry and a tyrant. A tyrant doesn't enact policies that run counter to the interests of tyrrany, does he?
Sorry, I realize I poorly worded my third point in my last post. What I should've said was "Putin is just as staunchly capitalist/fascist as Bush. Chavez needs to get out of the "anybody but America" coalition."
I like Chavez. He's the closest thing we have right now to a socialist leader (though still a far cry). Remember - hasta la victoria siempre.
You all can thank George W. for breaking the US Empire -- probably his only worthy accomplishment though at an unspeakably high price. Russia, India and China will be the most powerful alliance of the near future,(assuming that civilization as we no it does not entirely collapse do to ecological catastrophe) with the EU having infuence as well. Hopefully we will see a prgressive unity forged in South and Central America too.
You may not like Putin, Chavez, or HuzinTao (spelling) but they are still a way better than any politicians in the US.
I like the spirit of this article and agree with most of its points. However,
1) US oil production began to decline in the 1970s. It's been awhile since we've been near the top.
2) I strongly dislike China's policy of "looking the other way" with the actions of some African governments. Especially with the Sudan, in which a government is facilitating genocide.
3) Putin is just as staunchly capitalist/fascist as Bush and Chavez needs to get out of the "anybody but America" coalition. The only reason I don't like this kind of mindset is because it puts good revolutionary leaders with fascist murderers like Putin.
Other than that, it's intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that yes, the US is declining. Anybody who studies history can see all the signs.
webwalk,
Totally agree. Cheney and the neocons are willing to risk worldwide thermonuclear war and human extinction in order to fulfill their dreams of unprecedented power and dominance. They find it to be a good gamble from their perspective, and so it is critical that as many other people as possible are informed because it is a horrible gamble for virtually all other Americans (little to gain and everything to lose) and all other people on earth (nothing to gain and everything to lose).
The only objection I have to this aritcle is the classification of the US having Economic Hegemony in 1991. That's not even close to accurate. In 1973 the "world economy" was recognized as being tri-polar (The US, Europe, Asia). That's why the Trilateral Commmission was created in the first place.
This back-story - about the obvious and inevitable decline of "the sole superpower" - has been clear to honest policy analysts in the CIA for a long time. It has been clear to the neo-con cabal as well, as one can understand when you actually read their documents. They see this point in history as a moment when the United States can stave off this inevitable decline, and create a world in which no rival can even begin to rise.
This opportunity is due to the United States having an overwhelming military dominance over the entire world.
This overwhelming military dominance is due to our massive investment in nuclear and high-tech weapons. The plan is (you can look it up) to expand this nuclear and high-tech dominance into outer space, from where the United States will be able to permanently and unopposably dominate the Earth militarily.
Since this perceived opportunity to create permanent dominance is based on our current overwhelming advantage in nuclear and high-tech weaponry, if push comes to shove as we assert our right to dominate the globe (as there will inevitably be resistance) this scenario only works if the leaders are actually willing to use the nuclear and high-tech military advantage.
This is the reason the current gang in the White House, led by Cheney, is moving toward nuking Iran, escalating global war against potential rivals in Russia and China. They are gamblers, and this is their only chance to win the entire pot, clear the table, and rule everything forever.
United States policy throughout the nuclear age has included the attempt to create the perception of a "credible threat" to use nuclear weapons. The current gang in the White House plans to carry through to the end point of this game. Since, as the above article demonstrates, otherwise, the United States faces a decline into a multi-polar world of shared power and diplomacy among rival powers, these gamblers are - and long have been, you can still look up their documents on the Internet - planning to push for global war. They are convinced the United States will "win" this war, and emerge even more globally dominant than after WWII.
Anyone attempting to understand US policy under this gang in the White House needs to understand this basic truth. They are playing for keeps, for their dream of permanent global domination. You can look it up.
Google "Space 2020", "High Frontier", PNAC, and go to the site of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Get their documentary "Arsenal of Hypocrisy".
Good overview:
One thing I 'd like to add is the big change taking place in Japan. The ruling party of Japan lost the upper chamber ( comparable to the the senate in US) election lat month, the first loss in its history ( since the end of the 2nd world war).
Now the main opposition party ( considered more liberal) and other small parties ( the socialists party , communist party, independent) can form an alliance and control a majority in the upper chamber.
This is a good news.
This will be a big break on remilitalization of Japan and Japan will keep a distance from US .
Once again, I will say the new world order will be based on multi-polar, multi-nation world.
Given the war profiteering in the U.S.( example: the avg.private security employee earning in a month what a soldier earns in a year, or 12X),I doubt there is much NET difference in the $45 billion the Chinese invest in their military to our $459 billion.
Also, the xenophobic propaganda of the right-wing, racist Old South in wanting to marginalize and deport undocumented Latinos instead of legalizing and assimilating, may come back to bite us ALL in the posterior at a time when we will need more friends and allies.
Well guess that's what happens when you sell WMDs to your future enemies just to make a buck (or Trillions of bucks).. now you are gonna have to use those weapons, and they're gonna wanna use those weapons, and now you have a nice lil world war on your hands. Stupid humans.
so there is PetrolChina and peak oil. and also Blessed Unrest and The Great Turning. revolution has and always will come from nature. lets have fun with this one people. take up concrete streets and plant food forests. build tree houses. put living machines in all schools, be creative in the redesign, in the building of our ecological economies/communities...
I opined yesterday relative to colony collapse disorder among bees that the human colony was experiencng the same decline. As the article above indicates this is especially true for the United States. (See Paul Sheehan's "Eerie Saga of the Vanishing Bees" 8/20/07
And it could have been so different. Had the Americans emphasized global cooperation, sincerely fought world poverty, been neutral in the Middle East, embraced a revised and more humane capitalism, not tried to shove their values down the throats of others, abandoned uninvited interference in the affairs of others, and shown some humility in its relations with the rest of the world, they could have been leaders for a long, long time. I mean, there is a fundamental attractiveness to what America stands for. But it was perverted by its leaders and now America's time is coming to an end. Americans, get used to it!
Maybe we should just surrender to China now and get it over with. I wonder if Mr. Hu, sitting in the White House, would be more or less of a despot than the current occupant? Hmmm....close call...
The first myth of power is power itself.
Power is an illusion...
You can put a gun to my head and kill off my entire family and STILL NEVER CHANGE the IDEAS of FREEDOM I hold dear and teach to others.
To think one can hold power at all is the ultimate arrogance of a fool
Its never a good thing for one country to be dominate--it will always go to its head(s).
China is scary because of its population, its lack of democratic policy(not just politically but culturally), and its speed to westernize. Its pollution is scary enough. Just the fact that one leader says Chinese should drink milk and there is a global spike in prices.
But--the West is to blame since it sent its work overseas. if it wasnt for that--China would not be the next superpower.
But because of its water shortage and pollution i think its reign will be shortlived and very messy.
The first sign of an empire's decline is arrogance...And the US is at the peak of its arrogance....
What's tragic is that there are so many Americans, with their elitist "I've got mine, screw you" attitude that they are too ignorant to realize they're hastening their own demise.
I don't see a total demise in 25 years, and I don't see that they will need a military to march through our towns, as they will have the economic muscle to determine where our future lies.
Like it or not, in 25 years, China will be the reigning Super power. They will dominate Africa, then South America and ultimately the U.S. or what's left of it. Glad I won't be here to see the Red army march through town.