Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Collapse of Globalization
The uprisings in the Middle East, the unrest that is tearing apart nations such as the Ivory Coast, the bubbling discontent in Greece, Ireland and Britain and the labor disputes in states such as Wisconsin and Ohio presage the collapse of globalization. They presage a world where vital resources, including food and water, jobs and security, are becoming scarcer and harder to obtain. They presage growing misery for hundreds of millions of people who find themselves trapped in failed states, suffering escalating violence and crippling poverty. They presage increasingly draconian controls and force—take a look at what is being done to Pfc. Bradley Manning—used to protect the corporate elite who are orchestrating our demise.
Demonstrators carry an effigy of Ronald McDonald. (AP / Jacques Brinon)
We must embrace, and embrace rapidly, a radical new ethic of simplicity and rigorous protection of our ecosystem—especially the climate—or we will all be holding on to life by our fingertips. We must rebuild radical socialist movements that demand that the resources of the state and the nation provide for the welfare of all citizens and the heavy hand of state power be employed to prohibit the plunder by the corporate power elite. We must view the corporate capitalists who have seized control of our money, our food, our energy, our education, our press, our health care system and our governance as mortal enemies to be vanquished.
Adequate food, clean water and basic security are already beyond the reach of perhaps half the world’s population. Food prices have risen 61 percent globally since December 2008, according to the International Monetary Fund. The price of wheat has exploded, more than doubling in the last eight months to $8.56 a bushel. When half of your income is spent on food, as it is in countries such as Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia and the Ivory Coast, price increases of this magnitude bring with them malnutrition and starvation. Food prices in the United States have risen over the past three months at an annualized rate of 5 percent. There are some 40 million poor in the United States who devote 35 percent of their after-tax incomes to pay for food. As the cost of fossil fuel climbs, as climate change continues to disrupt agricultural production and as populations and unemployment swell, we will find ourselves convulsed in more global and domestic unrest. Food riots and political protests will be inevitable. But it will not necessarily mean more democracy.
The refusal by all of our liberal institutions, including the press, universities, labor and the Democratic Party, to challenge the utopian assumptions that the marketplace should determine human behavior permits corporations and investment firms to continue their assault, including speculating on commodities to drive up food prices. It permits coal, oil and natural gas corporations to stymie alternative energy and emit deadly levels of greenhouse gases. It permits agribusinesses to divert corn and soybeans to ethanol production and crush systems of local, sustainable agriculture. It permits the war industry to drain half of all state expenditures, generate trillions in deficits, and profit from conflicts in the Middle East we have no chance of winning. It permits corporations to evade the most basic controls and regulations to cement into place a global neo-feudalism. The last people who should be in charge of our food supply or our social and political life, not to mention the welfare of sick children, are corporate capitalists and Wall Street speculators. But none of this is going to change until we turn our backs on the Democratic Party, denounce the orthodoxies peddled in our universities and in the press by corporate apologists and construct our opposition to the corporate state from the ground up. It will not be easy. It will take time. And it will require us to accept the status of social and political pariahs, especially as the lunatic fringe of our political establishment steadily gains power. The corporate state has nothing to offer the left or the right but fear. It uses fear—fear of secular humanism or fear of Christian fascists—to turn the population into passive accomplices. As long as we remain afraid nothing will change.
Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, two of the major architects for unregulated capitalism, should never have been taken seriously. But the wonders of corporate propaganda and corporate funding turned these fringe figures into revered prophets in our universities, think tanks, the press, legislative bodies, courts and corporate boardrooms. We still endure the cant of their discredited economic theories even as Wall Street sucks the U.S. Treasury dry and engages once again in the speculation that has to date evaporated some $40 trillion in global wealth. We are taught by all systems of information to chant the mantra that the market knows best.
It does not matter, as writers such as John Ralston Saul have pointed out, that every one of globalism’s promises has turned out to be a lie. It does not matter that economic inequality has gotten worse and that most of the world’s wealth has became concentrated in a few hands. It does not matter that the middle class—the beating heart of any democracy—is disappearing and that the rights and wages of the working class have fallen into precipitous decline as labor regulations, protection of our manufacturing base and labor unions have been demolished. It does not matter that corporations have used the destruction of trade barriers as a mechanism for massive tax evasion, a technique that allows conglomerates such as General Electric to avoid paying any taxes. It does not matter that corporations are exploiting and killing the ecosystem on which the human species depends for life. The steady barrage of illusions disseminated by corporate systems of propaganda, in which words are often replaced with music and images, are impervious to truth. Faith in the marketplace replaces for many faith in an omnipresent God. And those who dissent—from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky—are banished as heretics.
The aim of the corporate state is not to feed, clothe or house the masses, but to shift all economic, social and political power and wealth into the hands of the tiny corporate elite. It is to create a world where the heads of corporations make $900,000 an hour and four-job families struggle to survive. The corporate elite achieves its aims of greater and greater profit by weakening and dismantling government agencies and taking over or destroying public institutions. Charter schools, mercenary armies, a for-profit health insurance industry and outsourcing every facet of government work, from clerical tasks to intelligence, feed the corporate beast at our expense. The decimation of labor unions, the twisting of education into mindless vocational training and the slashing of social services leave us ever more enslaved to the whims of corporations. The intrusion of corporations into the public sphere destroys the concept of the common good. It erases the lines between public and private interests. It creates a world that is defined exclusively by naked self-interest.
The ideological proponents of globalism—Thomas Friedman, Daniel Yergin, Ben Bernanke and Anthony Giddens—are stunted products of the self-satisfied, materialistic power elite. They use the utopian ideology of globalism as a moral justification for their own comfort, self-absorption and privilege. They do not question the imperial projects of the nation, the widening disparities in wealth and security between themselves as members of the world’s industrialized elite and the rest of the planet. They embrace globalism because it, like most philosophical and theological ideologies, justifies their privilege and power. They believe that globalism is not an ideology but an expression of an incontrovertible truth. And because the truth has been uncovered, all competing economic and political visions are dismissed from public debate before they are even heard.
The defense of globalism marks a disturbing rupture in American intellectual life. The collapse of the global economy in 1929 discredited the proponents of deregulated markets. It permitted alternative visions, many of them products of the socialist, anarchist and communist movements that once existed in the United States, to be heard. We adjusted to economic and political reality. The capacity to be critical of political and economic assumptions resulted in the New Deal, the dismantling of corporate monopolies and heavy government regulation of banks and corporations. But this time around, because corporations control the organs of mass communication, and because thousands of economists, business school professors, financial analysts, journalists and corporate managers have staked their credibility on the utopianism of globalism, we speak to each other in gibberish. We continue to heed the advice of Alan Greenspan, who believed the third-rate novelist Ayn Rand was an economic prophet, or Larry Summers, whose deregulation of our banks as treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton helped snuff out some $17 trillion in wages, retirement benefits and personal savings. We are assured by presidential candidates like Mitt Romney that more tax breaks for corporations would entice them to move their overseas profits back to the United States to create new jobs. This idea comes from a former hedge fund manager whose personal fortune was amassed largely by firing workers, and only illustrates how rational political discourse has descended into mindless sound bites.
We are seduced by this childish happy talk. Who wants to hear that we are advancing not toward a paradise of happy consumption and personal prosperity but a disaster? Who wants to confront a future in which the rapacious and greedy appetites of our global elite, who have failed to protect the planet, threaten to produce widespread anarchy, famine, environmental catastrophe, nuclear terrorism and wars for diminishing resources? Who wants to shatter the myth that the human race is evolving morally, that it can continue its giddy plundering of non-renewable resources and its profligate levels of consumption, that capitalist expansion is eternal and will never cease?
Dying civilizations often prefer hope, even absurd hope, to truth. It makes life easier to bear. It lets them turn away from the hard choices ahead to bask in a comforting certitude that God or science or the market will be their salvation. This is why these apologists for globalism continue to find a following. And their systems of propaganda have built a vast, global Potemkin village to entertain us. The tens of millions of impoverished Americans, whose lives and struggles rarely make it onto television, are invisible. So are most of the world’s billions of poor, crowded into fetid slums. We do not see those who die from drinking contaminated water or being unable to afford medical care. We do not see those being foreclosed from their homes. We do not see the children who go to bed hungry. We busy ourselves with the absurd. We invest our emotional life in reality shows that celebrate excess, hedonism and wealth. We are tempted by the opulent life enjoyed by the American oligarchy, 1 percent of whom control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.
The celebrities and reality television stars whose foibles we know intimately live indolent, self-centered lives in sprawling mansions or exclusive Manhattan apartments. They parade their sculpted and surgically enhanced bodies before us in designer clothes. They devote their lives to self-promotion and personal advancement, consumption, parties and the making of money. They celebrate the cult of the self. And when they have meltdowns we watch with gruesome fascination. This empty existence is the one we are taught to admire and emulate. This is the life, we are told, we can all have. The perversion of values has created a landscape where corporate management by sleazy figures like Donald Trump is confused with leadership and where the ability to accumulate vast sums of money is confused with intelligence. And when we do glimpse the poor or working class on our screens, they are ridiculed and taunted. They are objects of contempt, whether on “The Jerry Springer Show” or “Jersey Shore.”
The incessant chasing after status, personal advancement and wealth has plunged most of the country into unmanageable debt. Families, whose real wages have dropped over the past three decades, live in oversized houses financed by mortgages they often cannot repay. They seek identity through products. They occupy their leisure time in malls buying things they do not need. Those of working age spend their weekdays in little cubicles, if they still have steady jobs, under the heels of corporations that have disempowered American workers and taken control of the state and can lay them off on a whim. It is a desperate scramble. No one wants to be left behind.
The propagandists for globalism are the natural outgrowth of this image-based and culturally illiterate world. They speak about economic and political theory in empty clichés. They cater to our subliminal and irrational desires. They select a few facts and isolated data and use them to dismiss historical, economic, political and cultural realities. They tell us what we want to believe about ourselves. They assure us that we are exceptional as individuals and as a nation. They champion our ignorance as knowledge. They tell us that there is no reason to investigate other ways of organizing and governing our society. Our way of life is the best. Capitalism has made us great. They peddle the self-delusional dream of inevitable human progress. They assure us we will be saved by science, technology and rationality and that humanity is moving inexorably forward.
None of this is true. It is a message that defies human nature and human history. But it is what many desperately want to believe. And until we awake from our collective self-delusion, until we carry out sustained acts of civil disobedience against the corporate state and sever ourselves from the liberal institutions that serve the corporate juggernaut—especially the Democratic Party—we will continue to be rocketed toward a global catastrophe.


167 Comments so far
Show AllAnother insightful post by Chris Hedges. While it is a shame that this essay only appears on TruthDig and CommonDreams, whose readers by and large share Hedges' concerns, it is anyway highly unlikely that it would be read in its entirety, let alone understood, were it to appear somewhere in the MSM.
Hedges's piece will never see the light of day in the corporate media because it decries all that they stand for. Back in the days of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid, before the news media became totally subservient to corporate profits, a Micheal Hedges would have been allowed to give a two-minute editorial on the CBS network. Now we have the fake news doled out by Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of corporate media. Unfortunately, as early as 1958 Murrow could read the handwriting on the wall when he said, "During the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live."
i agree - i'm generally onside with most of this piece but when chris states:
"The refusal by all of our liberal institutions, including the press, universities, labor and the Democratic Party, to challenge the utopian assumptions..." I gotta laugh
- the press is not nor ever has been liberal - that is just bullshit - the press are the public relations wing of the military - chomsky has reviewed this notion and refuted it many times
- universities are totally subservient to corporations - which is why amerikan education slides further and further down the rankings of education in the world
and the democratic party - puhlease....
chris says we should dump them and he is correct there
there are NO liberals in amerika to speak of, there are these things called progressives who like to imagine a parallel universe where none of the fascism that has ruined our country has taken place
let's throw the libs out with hope you can believe in and do, as chris says, what we need to do which is to re-assemble behind a new and serious goal of standing down the corporations and the globalists
let's stop the wars-for-oil. let's stop killing the planet
all of that is good
RE: the press is not nor ever has been liberal ... chomsky has reviewed this notion and refuted it many times...
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Most of the target of Chomsky's (and Herman's) seminal "Manufacturing Consent" (published in 1988) was liberal media, not "so called liberal media" but real liberal media (like the NYT). If you are arguing that the press has never been liberal, then your version of liberalism is divorced from history. And, your conception of liberalism is your very own fantasy. It never ceases to amaze me that it is liberals who know the least about the actual consequences of real world liberalism.
It might be useful to discuss which "liberalism" you're talking about. It is not only that there are different and contradictory versions that are common usage in the US vs the UK, but highly inconsistent usage within the US.
Chomsky generally insists in his formal writing on an older usage with a longer documentary history. But when he speaks of "liberals," he sometimes seems to also refer to a more popular Americanized usage in which a person in favor of social programs and against war but not in favor of violent revolution in his or her own country might be considered liberal.
I can't say I have managed to do it, but I suspect we would all be better off just dropping "liberal" and "left" and probably also "progressive" from any text in which we do not have time to define terms. It seems the lot of these terms have become so contaminated by deliberate distortion and casual misuse that people are as likely as not to use them as something like their opposites.
It seems there are two principles that get referred to by all these terms. Perhaps a third should be introduced. The two function in some sort of tandem but are not coterminous, and different parts of the political spectrum differ widely as to the nature of the relationship. One pole is coercion | liberty; the other is ownership | sharing-cooperation-equality. When we level these into a single factor that people wind up arguing over absurdities like whether Chomsky is like Ron Paul or Fidel Castro, whether Castro is like Chomsky or Mussolini, or whether RReagan was like Mussolini or Ron Paul.
Considering the essay's succinct and scathing description of our media brainwashed society, your comment touches on a very important issue. The re-branding of the words "liberal" and "left" are a PR challenge that a nation over-blessed with PR experts should be able to overcome. No?
Read Hedges' latest book, Death of the Liberal Class, to understand how he means the press and the Democratic Party functioned as part of the liberal class.
By the same token, the effort is like building a new house. Each brick, each element of construction has to be gathered and fit into place. It has to be reiterated, unflaggingly, gaining each time. The dynamics continually exposing economic treason, the unsustainability, the alternatives do not appear like the MSM sound bites but are like mycelium, they must be true, resilient and nurtured. Stay in for the long haul.
sounds good
Excellent post. Kudos!
Every lie that is refuted is like putting another straw on the camel's back. It matters not whether it is in the MSM or a backwater site. Information spreads and the day will come when we put the straw on that causes the break. Being aware of what the cause was prior is as important as the catastrophe itself.
"Conditioning is like an egg. Once incubated, the life within bursts through the shell. When conditioning cracks, there is a sense of relief. Conditioning can crack with awareness or without awareness. When conditioning cracks without awareness the result is a shock. It has such power it can even destroy part of the memory."
- World Teacher Maitreya through an associate as reported by Share International
Good point. Hedges is preaching to the choir. I heard a comment recently that blogsites such as this are the new church, as in a meeting place where people can gather, commiserate and give each other moral uplift.
To overcome this lack of exposure, we should relay these articles to as many people as possible. It's the least we can do.
"Hedges is preaching to the choir. I heard a comment recently that blogsites such as this are the new church, as in a meeting place where people can gather, commiserate and give each other moral uplift."
Preaching to the choir in a solipsistic, left-leaning echo chamber.
Yet it compelled you to feel as if you should respond, so something is registering even if only slightly. The "solipsistic left" deserve to have an echo chamber too; the right wing has such an effective one. That's the whole "marketplace of ideas" concept. Say stuff and what's worthy may eventually be paid attention to.
http://i.imgur.com/NbQZS.jpg
Great piece. Chris Hedges may rightly be accused of nihilism, but unfortunately, I think his analysis is spot on. The two-party corporatocracy is a perpetual shell game, a grand illusion in which we are promised change every two or four years, only to discover that the only thing that changes is the level of depravity and deterioration.
There is simply no hope for the future under global capitalism. Everything will continue to deteriorate as long as the world is run by a handful of elites whose only guiding principle is the accumulation of wealth. It must be recognized that they have no right to their ill-gotten gains, which they accumulated through theft.
If it is to survive, the planet must adopt socialism. It is truly the only long-term solution.
Anyone accusing Hedges of nihilism doesn't understand the term. He stands in complete oppposition to nihilism, which is essentially his critique of gloablization and corporatism.
His framework is grim, which is probably what you're saying here. But that's not the same thing.
Well, I think that if you believe in U.S. electoral politics and "representative democracy", which a great many Americans still do, you might find his rejection of the two parties as nihilistic. Those who believe in voting as a way to effect change seem to believe voting for one of the two parties is essential, even if you do not particularly agree with either of the candidates' perspectives. Not voting or voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away", which is essentially nihilistic.
What I think Hedges believes is that it is the two-party capitalist system that is nihilistic, which is also what I believe.
While a high percentage of people here, and among liberal and progressive intellectuals in general, believe in U.S. electoral politics and "representative democracy," that is not the case with the general public. Half or more of the potential voters do not vote.
2A: I responded to your post of last Wednesday. I would appreciate it if you would reply to mine. Thanks, Tom
Find it here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/23-3
Rejecting false choices is not nihilism. Chris suggests an alternative, which a nihilist cannot or will not do. Folks who think our only choices are to vote D or R in general elections are missing so much it's hard to know where to begin explaining it. I thought Chris did a very good job here.
Your last sentence, btw, is correct. It is the capitalist party with its twin heads, that is ultimately and fatally nihilistic.
Many think as you do that trying to affect change through electoral politics can't work I agree that it's unlikely to succeed, but so is every other approach I've heard about including insurrection and vociferous demonstrations. If people want to try any of these ways, I will tell them I hope it works.
The two party system is indeed a corrupt scam. Real democracy would require more. It isn't team sports though many U.S. citizens relate to it that way.
Electoral politics has never caused social and political change. The lever in the voting both is not a way to control those in power, it is a way for those in power to control us. I would not say that electoral politics are unlikely to work - they work just fine at pacifying and deluding the working class. But for the task of political and social change, electoral politics is a tool that will never work, never has worked.
"Vociferous demonstrations" and "insurrection" are not necessarily being proposed by anyone. The alternative to electoral politics is to organize outside of the ruling class arena, electoral politics. The likelihood of that succeeding is high.
I have to believe that you do not take the scope and depth of the crisis very seriously, or you could not talk about "trying" things or say you "hope" something works, nor about "vociferous demonstrations." This is dead serious. Reality is coming at us like a freight train, and it is coming regardless of what our feelings or opinions might be. Electoral politics and "vociferous demonstrations" are about personal feelings and opinions, and not about reality. Presenting violent revolution or insurrection as the only imaginable alternative to approaches that involve feelings and opinions suggests a lack of understanding of the crisis, as well. If you do not see that this is life and death, then of course that would influence your ideas as to what the best course might be and you would favor safe and mild responses and fear anything serious as a response. If you think that the specter of "insurrection" is scarier than the specter of electoral politics, then I would suggest you are not looking seriously at the reality of the situation we face. The promotion of and reliance upon electoral politics - which is rampant here - is far scarier and more dangerous than any other imagined course of action.
I shall "agree to disagree" with you again even though, after following your posts for some time and agreeing with many of them, my impression is that you would never even consider the possibility that you could be wrong. It is not up to you to decide how seriously I should take things or what approaches I think would work best. You are good at pointing out that we're barking up the wrong tree but I have yet to see any indication of where the right tree might be.
What faint hopes I have for saving things lie with coalitions and bringing people together. Can't look to someone like you for that. You don't even want to reach out to liberals and progressives except to tell us that we're "dangerously deluded." I certainly agree that reality is coming at us like a freight train. I have my doubts that anything can stop it, but I'm ready to let anyone try anything to try.
And your writing style isn't designed to appeal to regular folks many of whom don't get stuff like "arguably" and "false dichotomy." Sounds like one of those crazy intellectuals.
Paranoid Pessimist,
I won't go that far, but agree overall. I have followed AA for sometime. At first I could not make head or tail. AA never takes a stand. I finally came to the conclusion (I hope I am right). He wants to organize and protest, leaning with the unions. Without saying it and the Democrat party, well-oiled machineries. I tried pointing out that these organizations are crooked and corrupted. I respect AA for his honesty, no insult and willing to debate with you on the same level playing field, in spite of my poor command of English. He may be right, but I doubt it. Especially with Bill Daley as Obama Chief of crook and Immelt in Obama's inner circle. I have gone so far as to vote for Palin in 2012. What have I got to lose?
Sorry, DC-CPH, but I don't think it's such a "Great piece" --- because of Hedges's lack of clear language.
I was quite disappointed in Chris's column this week --- it was weak in language, weak in logic, and weak in revolution.
Although his column more than amply details all the 'symptom problems'; wars, economic oppression, domestic tyranny, etc., there is no effective nor revolution-inspiring focus on the causal cancer which is actually hiding behind a facade and creating all these global 'symptom problems' or 'identity issues'.
Hedges drags out the old characterization of 'globalism', 'globalization', and 'oligarchy' as the only things to hang his hat on --- and the only things for people to "hang for" if they listen to his misdirected call for revolution.
It amazes me that Hedges, after his perfect diagnosis of the real causal cancer deceptively hiding behind all problems in "Empire of Illusion", did not make the clear and obvious point that his confusing language of "globalism", "globalization", and "oligarchy" are nothing but the polite and non-threatening terms that the illusionists of corporate capitalism use to PREVENT the masses from understanding, and effectively revolting "Against Empire". That the numbing term "globalism" is nothing but a disguise and dis-empowering illusion for "global EMPIRE".
My God, Chris, if you want to empower, rather than dis-empower, people to revolt against a clear and deadly present danger, why not arm people with the seminal truth that that universal, seminal, single, and global cancerous present danger is global Empire??
Calling out global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE as the signal evil to be revolted against is the essential starting point to any responsible and serious call for any revolution for liberty and democracy "Against Empire" --- anything less smacks of aiding the very "Empire of Illusion" that Chris himself so clearly, previously, and compellingly identified as the heart of all our problems.
Surely Hedges must understand that the masses, the working/middle-classes here and around the world, the very "Multitude", will not be empowered by calling for a global revolt against the vague and confusing concepts of 'globalism', 'globalization' and 'oligarchy' ---- since these terms are either mis-understood, vague, or worse --- actually used by the corporate/financial illusionists (like Friedman) themselves to hide the real Empire itself to make "globalism" sound beneficial, forward-leaning, and exciting.
Any serious student of cognitive science and language persuasion, like George Lakoff (who Hedges loves) and Frank Luntz (who Hedges hates), should know that you don't accept and try to re-use the Empire's own code word against the hidden Empire, particularly without even shouting out that Empire is the enemy --- but rather that a successful people's revolution must de-power the propaganda language that the Empire invented, and has been successfully using for more than ten years to hide EMPIRE under the more vague and polite sounding word, 'globalism', of their Empire's own invention.
And particularly when the American public, unlike Michele Bachmann, already KNOWS that the first American Revolution was "Against EMPIRE", and that all Americans have an innate distrust, dislike, and built-in hatred of EMPIRE.
Chris need to get a grip and use both the natural, logical, understandable, and EFFECTIVE language of revolution "Against EMPIRE" --- doing anything less is just accidentally 'feeding word confusion' or unintentionally aiding the very "Empire of Illusion" with more illusions.
The ONLY word that the hidden global EMPIRE does NOT want people to knowingly call it is EMPIRE --- and thus a global EMPIRE is precisely the word that we must use!
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty over violent empire --
People's Party 2012
Democracy over violent empire -- People's Party 2012
This seems a very long way to get to a criticism over a single word; one that Hedges uses repeatedly in any other analysis. His last book had the word 'Empire' in its title. Strange morning on here. I feel like I missed out on the local crack sale.
drone, are you threatened by the word 'Empire'?
Do you feel that the use of the word 'Empire' might be a Predator to the global Empire itself.
Certainly, if we look seriously and honestly at the behavior of the hidden global Empire, in terms of its absolute control of the corporatist media, we have to admit to ourselves, drone, that the Empire's media avoids "like the plague" any use of the word 'Empire' to describe the US government, any ruling-elite that is part of the 'Empire', and all allowances of media pundits, spokespeople, guests, and all others from EVER using the word 'Empire' on any mass media TV, radio, print, etc. --- almost as if the use of the word 'Empire' is more taboo than all 12 of the merely obscene words which are never allowed to be broadcast to the public.
It certainly seems to me that this particular word 'Empire' is very very sensitive and threatening to the hidden Empire that now almost totally controls our former country by hiding behind the facade its bought and owned TWO-Party "Vichy" sham of faux-democracy that is vastly more sophisticated and effective than Hitler would ever have dreamed possible when his Nazi Empire used a crude, first-generation, single-party "Vichy" disguise to try to fool the people of occupied France during WWII.
I hate to drone on, drone, but just try to imagine how much time, money, aberrant psychology research, and sophisticated propaganda resources the global Empire has invested since WWII in trying to insure that the general population would never guess that they are living under the quiet blanket of an expertly designed and impenetrable fog of illusion --- while allowing a hidden global Empire to evolve beyond sight or sound for these 60+ years toward the current level of world domination and control?
Boy, drone, it would be one hell of a dangerous situation for such a successful global Empire now, just before they really have a complete lock on the world, to have some dummy playing with some kind of video 'word game' on a PC to accidentally launch a virtual 'Predator drone' of language-war that set-off a global revolution "Against Empire" by accidentally starting some kind of 'chain-reaction' where half the people on earth started to ask themselves and others questions like; "What's a global Empire, and could there be some hidden Empire that is behind all of this awful shit-storm that is hitting us all over the world?"
Nah, drone.
Any such global Empire, if there even is such a thing, would be just as concerned if lots of people just continued to distractedly protest lots of what they perceived to be separate, unrelated, distractive, and divided stuff like all today's 'symptom issues', and march around in circles saying "protect the whales", "gay rights", "save the forests", "Free Huey", and "stop torture", and if people just continued to debate on CD whether 'oligarchy', 'plutocracy', 'corporatism', or 'autocracy' is really the problem --- oh, and BTW, WTF do those words really mean?
No, drone, I think that the hidden global Empire is feeling just fine and honky donky today about the status-quo of very few people even using the word 'Empire' (as evidenced by how few times the word appears even in CD posts) --- and as the wonderful Obama said, that nobody and nothing is "running that ol OKie Doke" on them --- most certainly not a still hidden global Empire.
Oh, drone, BTW, have you ever heard Obama say anything about 'Empire' --- or any US politician say anything about 'Empire'? They sure seem to want to avoid that word like the plague, eh?
Best,
Alan
PS. drone, BTW2, please feel free to send me a note if you think there is any "crack" (as you say) in my logic.
Sweet baby Jesus, of course the US is behaving like an empire. My point is that you were sort of making a long speech to yourself. I mean, I understand that some folks need to 'let 'er rip' and all, but it's almost as if you didn't actually read the essay or my own pithy little response.
Heck, there are plenty of right wingers who'll admit this is an empire--although they're proud of it.
This was just surreal. I'll leave you be.
Good response, drone.
I don't see any under-use of the term "Empire" anywhere in recent times. Certainly not in left-leaning media, but not even cautious use in MSM. The term "Empire" may actually be antiquated, eh? Historically, "Empire" entails some kind of nation state at its core, and I submit that there isn't one anymore. Chris' point, seems to me, is to reframe the beast as international and corporate. It could sure be argued that the U.S. has lost or sold out it's nation-ality to worldwide corporate power... or globalization, to name the process rather than the entity.
Read David Korten, "When Corporations Rule the World."
The amazing thing is one can actually trace the roots of the present-day, now-gone-global, empire. It is the 4th incarnation of the roman empire, via the dark-age owner/operators of the collapsed western roman empire retreating to the swamps of venice. Fromthere they plotted & schemed to undermine the 2nd incarnation of the roman empire (their eastern brethren of the eastern roman empire, "grecofied" into the byzantine empire) in order to "bring them to heel" and under their financial control. AT THIS POINT, the medieval empire of (old roman) venice (3rd roman empire), OBSOLETED the "nation-state at its' core"-model of empire. All you need is a mafia-like cabal of financiers to control the "money power" and you can bribe/seduce/blackmail enough kings, queens, princes, barons, counts, dukes, religious orders,etc... to be the "territory & muscle" of your empire, OR get them to fight each other, to remove pesky competitors. Later on (after their asses were kicked by the league of cambrai, AND they saw greater opportunity to expand world-wide from an ocean port) some of these venetians relocated their families and their fortunes to the netherlands, historically known as the "new venetian party" 4th roman empire). they crossed the channel, eventually establishing a central bank & the east india trading company (4th roman empire; against which we fought). NOW it is "globalized" with HQ's in cityoflondon, wallstreet, bostonvault, chicago xchange, hong kong xchange, all the financial districts of the world (and yes STILL in venice too). These same family lines from dark-age (old roman) venice, along with some "new blood" mentored in, are running their same old empire game on us.
Do you have any references for this POV?
It's interesting historically, but I would need a more in depth analysis in order to form an opinion.
On the down side, it sounds a bit like the Rothschilds Run the World!, which seems always short on facts and long on rhetoric.
Nice encapsulation of Empire. And thanks to amacd (and all) who promote that name, Empire, for what ails the world right now. It has been the handle that has initiated conversations with "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying teabaggers, disillusioned youth, Native Americans, undocumented workers to points where common ground to act is found. As he says, all self-respecting persons have an innate hatred of Empire and if they don't, well then you know who you're dealing with. It is the name we can no longer be afraid to speak out loud: Empire.
Well, if we want to pick nits over the words used to describe the common plague leading to all the 'symptom problems' on this planet, I would actually say that both you and Hedges get it wrong. It is in fact global capitalism, not 'globalization' or 'globalism', that we must overcome.
If I may, it is a special stage of capitalism; Imperialism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
chapter VII
Perhaps, but it is a globalist variety of imperialism, not a nationalist variety. Those who call the shots are not necessarily US capitalists, but the global elite -- who have no national allegiances -- meeting in global forums like the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission. The militarism of the US/NATO is simply the organized violence of the global capitalists, who are also the ones who pillage the planet, poison the oceans, pollute the air, and prevent the development of clean, renewable energy.
Absolute agreement. Governments and the concomitant militaries are tools used by the capitalists to further their agendas. Flags and nations mean nothing to them, just like me. The difference between them and myself is I don't pretend to care about flags. Their loyalty is to themselves. Mine is to Life.
That can turn around and bite you, Life like a jack-booted corporate thug, out to take your home and toss out your family, into the snow?
Some life is best served, dead. this comes from long painful expirence.
>^^<
Let's take a second to clear this up, although this will probably get lost on this thread given the level of thought degeneracy already.
Imperialism is tied to the nation state. Period. You can't have imperialism on a global level. That doesn't mean that the US isn't an empire or that it doesn't behave as an empire.
The reality is that there is still a struggle ongoing between two dominant right wing factions: corporatists and imperialists. In most cases, the neo-cons represent the latter and neo-liberals represent the former. There is considerable bleed over between the two camps--especially on free market fetishism, the core of both ideologies.
Liberal interventionism is more about corporatism--paving the way for global capital to oeprate freely for its own gain without regard to nation-state glory or status. Resource wars ae generally imperial projects.
For a leftist, it's important to know the difference, because we're fighting two different enemies even as they skirmish with each other in the forms of the GOP and Democratic parties, and it's those skirmishes that still lead many people to believe there's a "difference" between the two parties. Well, there sort of is, if by difference you mean Lucifer and Beelzebub.
Even elites are occasionally split along these lines, although corporatism is at this point dominant among them.
Let's try really hard as a community to not make this analytically harder than it is, because we should really be spending time attacking corporate power in either case.
Nation states are not mandatory in Imperialism.
The word comes from the Latin word imperare.
It means "to command".
It could be territory, culture, religion, etc.
In today's case, it is economic,
just as Lenin predicted.
Yes, they are in the era of the nation state. The reality of empire has been nationally grounded since 1648. It's not a dictionary game show, Buck, and the only reason that I even brought it up is because the distinction is important for analytical reasons. Equating global corporatism with imperialism conflates two different opposition groups that it's wiser to keep separated. Sort of like the whole "It's a Republic, not a Democracy!" schtick.
Good points, but I still think that when a distinction is drawn between corporatism and imperialism, the underlying problem of capitalism is being glossed over. These two camps -- corporatist and imperialist -- might describe the U.S. factions well, but how would you describe the Indonesian factory owner, or the African diamond miner, or the Japanese whaler? These billionaires couldn't care less about nation-states, ideology, national greatness, or imperialism, what they care about is maintaining the status quo (of global capitalism) which allows them to continue plundering, exploiting and killing for profit.
Corporatism and imperialism are obsolete terms in many respects. It goes without saying that the U.S. government is both corporatist and imperialist (and I might add fascist). But when we are talking about the plague that is destroying planet earth and keeping billions of people in poverty and oppression, what we are talking about is global capitalism.
Obviously you must have missed the theme to that commonly-referred-to commercial entertainment, Star Wars. Maybe the concept of empire has expanded since you last studied it formally? I mean around here when one goes to buy new cars, about 25% of the offerings are tied to the commercial empire of a Mr. Berstrom. And I live in Wisconsin, where a timber baron,Jim Sensenbrenner has managed to become a so-called functionary of government by the Koch, for the Koch. What would you call the various holdings of that set of siblings? Can I get a "what, what" for vast financial empire? Try on the new meaning, I think you'll find it useful.
Fantastic verbal performance that must be circulated among those of us still able to do the work of reading and comprehend the large vision Chris Hedges presents.
Every hermeneut must engage. Forget the brainwashed. If we all unite we will become an overpowering force of change. Look at the small groups of fanatics such as anti-abortionists and tea partiers who have taken over our local, state, and national discourse by simply being united in their hysteria.
It's difficult for individualists to become groupies, but we must sacrifice for the greater good. It requires fearlessness akin to that of real heroes who have shown the way, Gandhi, King, Franz Jägerstätter, and Bradley Manning, but it can be done. It must be done if Earth is to avoid become another cinder orbiting in this highly-blessed solar system.
"Forget the brainwashed."
Words to the wise - I believe I waste more time ignoring this advice than on many other endeavors. So, how do we who are still able to think and perceive clearly, organize and unite?
You know what CD needs? A "general forum" - a place for discourse that is not exclusively tied to any given article. This would be extremely simple to implement, and very powerful in its effects, I believe. How might we go about geting this created here?
Agree! the way we go one item at a time can be more distracting than helpful. >^^<
Because of unplanned urban sprawl, a public transportation life in our own towns becomes our duty. Casting off for the intrepid enterprise of harvesting deep Gulf of Mexico domestic oil, I once fought the menace of environmental ambivalence when my young contemporaries were dutifully fighting in Pentagon uniformed military adventures.
Now, sometimes our thoughts soar—especially in despondent moments—to the mock heroic. Chris soars. You soar. You may be sure this is happening to you when your literate sensibilities impel you, simultaneously, into Jeremiad and Rodney-Kingism Pull it back a step or two. Don’t underestimate the perspicacity of objective vantages. Never let your words, published or trashed, contain ridiculous echoes of some dilettante Robert Browning in this Post-Romantic world. Edit out despondency and laugh a moment, both at yourself and ourselves.
Remember all the while, we North Americans filled our gas-guzzler tanks a few times since the Energy Crises of 1973 and 1979 when last things in our public-at-large got truly ugly. Sovereign Debt may always be restructured. Study the Debtors Cartel era and how velvety it managed some appalling hardship in, say, Mexico, Argentina. Don’t be too triumphal in your grasp at some Brook Farm experiment or some New Harmony Indiana (see Elizabeth Barret B’s friends Robert Owen and Elihu Wright). The Romantics’ protest of an early global Industrial Age had once just begun it’s far and wide 19th c. soar to culminate in a 20th c. Hubble Telescope and the first Earth Day.
Our problem today is the whiplash of mass hypocrisy, but let that not now become mass hysteria as happened in the late nineteen seventies. It’s an accident of history that the USA came about just as Europeans first spied Niagra Falls in all it’s pristine majesty. It’s maybe the most exquisite of ironies for an expansive 21st century country containing a very picayune 20th century personal history. To live small with dignity is as challenging as to be out schelpping around in a wilderness (i.e., Hudson’s Bay Company outposts seeking furs homesteading among savages and yet unable to look around). To “live with much well” is a modest ambition of everyone with friends, family and acquaintances to manage. It’s a God-given appetite as surely deflating as, say, man’s sexual appetite.
What’s the difference between a conservationist and an environmentalist? The former already has his place at the lake, and probably puts his money where his mouth is by buying duck-tags and deer-tags.
We wanna both abuse and use Nature. Admit it. We don’t need to deify it, under Gaia’s benevolent protection, on this fragile cosmic blue marble.
Of course all of us wake up at different times and are sensitized by different things. I became incensed when Leslie Stahl interviewed Cisco's John Chambers about the offshoring of company profits and jobs to Ireland. In very calm measured tones he spoke about doing what was best for his shareholders as though we should all understand that this is how a corporation should behave. Leslie understood only too well. Were her nods of approval also those of the audience or are some of us waking up. Wait a minute, this man has no concern for his country, for the society it is embedded in, for the workers, even for the customers. How shallow, how empty and self promoting he looked, even in his well tailored suit.. How insulated and removed both he and Leslie are from the consequences of any of his decisions. They are the living dead. Indifferent to humanitie's fate, ready to chew the rest of us up as fodder. I must still be alive because I feel loathing and contempt for both of them.
"They are the living dead."
Good God, I cannot even begin to relate how much pleasure it gives me to see other people verbalize this exact sentiment.
This selfsame idea of reality hit me about a year or so ago, ironically after playing a video game which requires one to battle a highly organized and structured army of undead opponents. It hit me all at once - we in the United States ARE the living dead - zombies are the consumer class, mindlessly devouring anything in their path; skeletons are the desperate, starving poor, doing battle even in their terrible, frail form; vampires are the bankers and corporatists, wealthy, powerful, indolent, feeding off of the energy of the millions beneath them.
I could go on but I will resist the tempation. I beg forgiveness for such a seemingly puerile post; I do in fact believe this idea has a terrible relevance and seriousness, in spite of its apparent juvenalia.
(FYI, here's the list I was drawing from, if anyone is even remotely interested. Again, with apologies.)
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com/heroes5/necropolis_creatures.shtml
Toward broader understanding that is shared by those beyond our own borders, the concept of the 'nation state' seems to trump US self-identity in terms of consensus. Mix in a notion of corporate criminal economic treason, as being addressed by the UNCUT magnet, drawing folks who are teachers, firefighters, police, etc... the awakening from the parasitic disease is experiencing a beautiful, healthy, global immune response.
I'd agree with other posters who call for awareness of alternative ways of describimg and defining. Looking to other peoples who are going through the same process and paying attention yo language being used is one of the first steps in nurturing solidarity.
To kick-off: 'Another world is not only possible but necessary' a phrase knwon throughout South America and Africa, coming out of the World Social Forum; another is Living Well, Bem Viver, Sumak Kawsay. Keeping an eye toward the peoples who are literally under the gun of transnationals for there lands is part of the awareness of where a lot of this economic treason originates. Find out how, even if just with signing petitions and writing letters, to Strengthen those who are facing the struggle at jump street and you begin to lay the foundation for strength from the bottom up formerly called grass roots.
One link for action: http://intercontinentalcry.org/category/petitions/