Chalmers Johnson; Blowback and the Sorrows of Empire

[Cadmium77]

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/glob...t/cj_int1.html

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/glob...t/cj_int2.html

This is the best description I've ever read of what the USA has become in the last 30 years...

[internationalist]

Is his stuff good? I've seen it time and again at the bookstore, but never gotten it.

[Sargon Of Akkad]

Did you read the article? Well from reading the article it seems pretty interesting, although it isnt entirely something i havent heard before the fact its coming from a former CIA analyst does give a certain weight to it (at least suggesting he has fair idea of he military industrial complex he refers to).

[Major.Stupidity]

Chalmers Johnson = Hack enough said god i remember reading his evidence this year in debate blah

[Bovril]

Chalmers Johnson = Hack enough said god i remember reading his evidence this year in debate blah

You wanna back that up with some substansive argument?

[SonofSparta]

i Read the Whole interview ,incredible stuff ,it's a shame that his book's are still regarded as underground material ,i'd definitely be worried if i was american right now , specificly in regards to how quickly the soviet union fell into tatter's...the way the U.S. is going with it's Military industrial complex..their economy simply is not sustainable and it's eventually going to go ...*POP*

[Bovril]

Its really a question of how long people keep faith with the dollar. He doesn't mention the importance of having OPEC use the dollar in his argument, but its the same sort of situation as East Asian investors.

[Caelius]

I'm in agreement with the major, from reading the article it seems like he's trying to point to the US' military industrial complex as signs of empire, US imperialism, and all that jazz. Or that the switch to the all volunteer military was just one more sign of imperial ambitions when today just about every major country has either done so or trying to. None of his arguments really seem to be all that substantial given how he conventiently leaves out some of the more important factors tied to them.

[Gunfighter34]

"Left-wing kook whines about American might and "empire"." Yeah, there's big news.

[internationalist]

"Left-wing kook whines about American might and "empire"." Yeah, there's big news.

right wing crazy points fingers at left wing "kook" saying that the left is always complaining about American "might and empire"
Yea
Theres big news

[Gunfighter34]

The left is always whining about American "might and empire". You're a perfect example, and you're not even old enough to shave yet. At least this Chalmers kook is educated.

[Major.Stupidity]

well atleast chalmers isnt as bad as Nome Chomsky (sp?)

[dgoodman]

I reead part of sorrows, not that great but his views are accurate. However, He puts too much negative spin on it by saying it is bad when it is probaly better and more benevolent than the alternative past British empire and, god forbid, the Roman one. He is on the mark about the massive amount of us military spending and bases worldwide. My friends we do have an empire but it isnt alll that bad.

[internationalist]

The left is always whining about American "might and empire". You're a perfect example, and you're not even old enough to shave yet. At least this Chalmers kook is educated.

Thats an incredible assumption to make considering you dont even know me.
I'm not even going to stoop to the level of personal insults with you, its not worth it.

[Iaius Statius Laurentius]

There is nothing wrong with imperialism. It's a noble goal and a necessary step in the task of universalization.

The United States, of course, is going about this all wrong. This is due more to a fundamental problem with the US society rather than the government in general.

[Tom Paine]

There is nothing wrong with imperialism. It's a noble goal and a necessary step in the task of universalization.

The United States, of course, is going about this all wrong. This is due more to a fundamental problem with the US society rather than the government in general.

There is everything wrong with imperialism, empire, and universalisation (globalism? I don't know, but assume so). I think of the world as having a plethora of different values and cultures; globalism removes these and replaces them with a single value, and a single culture; MONEY. A world where globalization has won is a world in which the rich can abuse the poor with no fear of repercussion, a world in which everyone is the same, a world in which the only value on a human life is in dollars. That is not a world I would like to live in. Yes, this is taken a little to the extreme, but not far; it is what is already happening, in the many sweatchops across the 3rd world and the Orient. Empire only speeds the proccss of globalization up, to horrible ends. So yes, I am against globalization and empire.
And yes, I am a socialist and proud of it.

[dgoodman]

There is everything wrong with imperialism, empire, and universalisation (globalism? I don't know, but assume so). I think of the world as having a plethora of different values and cultures; globalism removes these and replaces them with a single value, and a single culture; MONEY. A world where globalization has won is a world in which the rich can abuse the poor with no fear of repercussion, a world in which everyone is the same, a world in which the only value on a human life is in dollars. That is not a world I would like to live in. Yes, this is taken a little to the extreme, but not far; it is what is already happening, in the many sweatchops across the 3rd world and the Orient. Empire only speeds the proccss of globalization up, to horrible ends. So yes, I am against globalization and empire.
And yes, I am a socialist and proud of it.

You do realize that untill globalization came around, those people in the "Orient" were practicaly slaves and were unfairly not allowed to compete with our markets. Once trade barriers have been lifted this will become untrue and the living standards in many developing countries will rise dramaically. While this may unite the world economically, I doublt it will erase different cultures. If nations can not oppenly trade with each other, they have lless of an incentive to be peaceful. The world you wish to remember is one of terrible violence and ignorance. What globalization brings is eventual equality, peace, and ore power to the inividual.

[Tom Paine]

So you are saying that those people working in factories, paid just enough to subsist on, are now well-off? And that we will all get more power and equality? The fact is that globalization consolidates money into the hands of the fewm, and the same with power. The multinationals end up with more power than the governments; and the individual, except for the CEOs, has no power, except a choice of which multinational (s)he gives money to. Now thats real power, isn't it? With money consolidated in fewer and fewer hands over the last century, half of the world's hundred largest economies being corporations already, one man being worth more than the GNP of 9 countries combined, eight corporations controlling more wealth than half the world's population, and the richest fifth of the world consuming about 82.7% of its resources, while the poorest 1/5 has around 1.4%, we have less equality through globalization, not more, I am afraid. So your argument does not match the figures (from 2002).

[Iaius Statius Laurentius]

Ah, a socialist. They're always fun to tango with. Very well, then, my leftist friend: shall we dance?

Do kindly point out to me any socialist system that has been fully functional and flourishing for any considerable number of years. Hard empirical fact would be preferable, ideological postulates can be bandied about by the simplest of demagogues.

Universalism does not equate to multinational corporations taking control of all markets. That is, indeed, a false assumption. Universalism speaks of a progressive leap forward in the cultural ideal. One asserts that this will cause numerous cultures to vanish? This is a ridiculous argument. Does our socialist friend disapprove of immigration? Integration? How about racial marriages? All three of these ideas were once posited to destroy different cultures and create a meaningless blend or assimilation. This is not the case.

Culture is not so simple to eradicate.

Empire does nothing of the sort, sir. Empires--historically--concentrate themselves on the interest of the masses rather than of the élite few. Empires enrich the resources and status of their citizenry by causing an inflow of resources and outflow of civic improvements. A closed system would be more appropriate for strengthening the few because it would allow for the aggrandizement of resources. Mr. Marx claimed imperialism was the highest form of capitalism, but he neglected to mention that most empires are populist movements.

Does our socialist friend disapprove of populism? Does he dislike civic improvements? Is incentive something that is unnecessary in society?

I am most certainly curious, then. I have pointed out what I feel would be an improvement for civilization--the more advanced nations of the world helping to modernize third world nations. This does not, however, mean that the earlier examples of modernization (such as in Latin America) are to be allowed. Corporations should not be granted power in these projects, it ought to be strictly done by national governments--the only entities that can be trusted not to abuse other nations for profit.

So, what answer does the proud socialist have? How will we save the world from itself? Will we simply redistribute wealth? Will we remove the need from money in general? What is your answer, I do wonder.

[Tom Paine]

Let me see. 1) Has any truly socialist system ever existed? I mean a truly socialist system, rather than a dictatorship hiding behind communism like the USSR.
2) Universalism may not equate to that, but that is in terms of ideals. Think about how socialist ideals are never truly put into practice.
3) I approve of immigration. People actually keep their culture; they bring it with them. But both their own, and their new country's, cultures are altered slightly by this. British culture has changed significantly over the past century, partially thanks to immigration. Same for the other two.
3) Empires concentrate on the betterment of the rulers. The British Empire cared nothing about the natives, so long as they did what they weer told to a degree, and made money for the rulers (both local and overall). And I like cvivic improvements; but many empires are brought about more by the rulers than anyone else, especially the Roman, although the p[opulace supported it to an extent.
3) a) Corporations ARE given a hand in this developement though, as taey are some of the greatest sources of money. High ideals, sir, but no practicality.
b) So governments do not abuse each other for money? What about Iraq? What about the EU - that abuses the member states, to an extent, to get money! Governments are constantly abusing each other for money, along with their own people. Nice idea, my friend, but also naive.
4) My ideal solution would be, yes, to remove money from the equation and equally redistribute world resources. Impractical, and nigh-on impossible, I know. But one must always have hope.
5) And overall, thank you for not insulting my beliefs. While you may disagree with them (and stated as much), you did not insult them. Very kind.