Actually, that seems to be the very point of idiotic statements by none other than the President of the United States, shocking I know, referring to the recent Uganda bombings, such as:
“On the one hand, you have a vision of an Africa on the move, an Africa that is unified, an Africa that is modernising and creating opportunities, and on the other hand, you’ve got a vision of al-Qaeda and al-Shabab that is about destruction and death.”
I wonder what Mr. Obama thinks the “vision” is exactly when Ugandan troops randomly — regrettably imprecisely, our man might say — shell Mogadishu neighborhoods in the general direction of those al-Shabaab crazies and blow up children playing (yes!) soccer. Oh but you see, just like Israel killing 10 times more Palestinians than vice versa, not to mention uncountable-fold Lebanese, the Ugandans have a purity of arms insomuch as that they didn’t intentionally target those inconveniently playful kids that they nonetheless turned into sausage filling.
Telling though, this use of the word “vision” to describe Africa, a place which despite his patrilineage does not help to inform the president as to what daily life could possibly be like there. Obama is reduced to having vague “visions” of the dark continent, which is fine, really, because as long as it serves him really well as a talking point — and it does — then for him it’s all good. And if his boys can call al-Qaeda “racist” while this iron is hot, MAN is that ever for the better! To wit:
An administration official went further, saying that the Ugandan attacks show that “al-Qaeda is a racist organisation that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life”.
It almost justifies the billion or so dollars a minute spent trying to make Afghanistan a Jeffersonian democracy and chase out the literal hovel-full of “al-Qaeda” members, doesn’t it?
No.
And anyway, mentioning al-Qaeda when talking about al-Shabaab is so unbelievably far from the real state of things as to expose the president either as a complete moron incapable of reason or a Machiavellian scumbag befitting the ranks of some of history greatest scoundrels. Oh, haha, I know — YES, UNbelievably. I am indeed shocked all the time by these people despite their past idiocies and transgressions upon civilized decency. But back on track here, al-Shabaab is to al-Qaeda as the FARC is to Marx. The former are inspired by the ideals of the latter. That’s the end of this connection, especially considering as mentioned above and elsewhere by none other than the director of the CIA that Classic “al-Qaeda” numbers maybe 100 men. No, there are no zeros left off of this figure. That’s like a billion bucks per year per bad guy, effectively zero of whom US troops have ever captured or confirmed killed.
Where was I? Oh yes, Obama is a goddamned liar and you should laugh at him until he is mercifully out of office and we no longer have to hear from “progressives” that the war is over despite even more people dying all the damn time.
Obama is no Kenyan.
No Chicagoan either.
Nor even Hawaiian or Indonesian.
He seems more and more mostly a product of his mother, who was an anthropologist who worked in microfinance and thought–laughably–small-scale village trade was "proto-Capitalism".
Dorothy may be coffee-colored but from all outward signs he is still in Kansas.
It's really hard to follow the Right Wing and Republican discontent with Obama unless it is strictly a matter of Party and color.
He is a Corporate Fascist Imperialist, and a white racist to boot, isn't he?
And didn't he just push a bill through that would require people to buy health insurance from private, for profit health insurers?
How can you get more Capitalist than that?
“On the one hand, you have a vision of an Africa on the move, an Africa that is unified, an Africa that is modernising and creating opportunities, and on the other hand, you’ve got a vision of al-Qaeda and al-Shabab that is about destruction and death.”
Yeah, right Obammie…al-Shabab, shish kabob…whatever…our rulers will make sure there's always an enemy or multiple enemies somewhere…Oceania has always been at war with….
Obama seems to have forgotten about the wars in the Congo over resources (largely caused by the US, it seems), and about increased poverty in Africa, caused by globalization and 'free' trade, and so on and so on, when he talked about Africa on the Move. But then again, it's so easy for him to forget about the poor and suffering, isn't it? As it is for all Dems and Faux Lefties.
It's Obama who is obessed with Death.
@Costa – What you described there is more corporatism than capitalism. Not the same thing. It's important to remember that.
Please go back to your kindergarten economic textbooks.
You may have something valuable to say by the time you graduate from high school, but that's some time off.
No, E.A., Jacques has it exactly right. Why don't you do a little research yourself using reputable resources before you launch into ad hominem attacks that are characteristic of the Left you purport to ridicule?
Old debater's trick–"reputable sources".
So where do you fellows debate your earth-shaking 19th Century ideas–you all seem too infantile for Starbuck's?
When Condi Rice equated the invasion of Iraq with Ike's sending the 101st to Little Rock, liberals laughed. Now Obama uses the 'R' word to preempt criticism of his AfPak campaign. We'll see how this plays.
"We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.
If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.
But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. "
Valdimir Lenin [1916]
You know, if you Right Wingers and Paulistas and "Libertarians" would only read Ricardo, Marx, and Lenin and such, rather than invoking the demons that the Capitalists and Finance Capitalists have provided you with, along with the nonsense of Locke or Smith or the intellectual vaporware of the "Austrians" and such, you might actually learn something rather than jiveassing about with "definitions" like "Capital" and such.
Ricardo defined Classical economics. Marx, following in Ricardo's footsteps, defined Capitalism as an economic system and it is a very precise definition. Marx also advanced Ricardo economically on several points. Lenin made the connection between Capitalism and a new form of imperialism.
Another way to put is is that Marx is Ricardo in motion, while Lenin is Marx expanded to the non-Capitalist world.
Nor one need attribute Lenin prophecy–he happened to know the economics of the Britain, Germany, France, and Austro-Hungary of his day inside out.
And the present US, which is in the final Finance Capitalist stage, quite obviously, is a clear analogue.
Also, please dispense with mindless quotations from the Communist Manifesto.
It was certainly the most important political pamphlet of its time, but it was a political pamphlet, and it is among the least important of Marx's works economically.
Economics in One Easy Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Please read it before you ramble on about something of which you're clearly ignorant. And let me leave you with a most fitting comment from the late, great Murray Rothbard:
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one
that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud
and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
You are a fool, pure and simple–economically at least.
The problem of capitalist monopoly is one of business corporations, which are creations of government. Many often incorrectly apply the term “corporatism” to mean the domination of politics by the interests of business corporations.
Business corporations are a relatively recent phenomenon that only came into being in the nineteenth century when governments started invoking laws that created them, allowing individuals to acquire and employ unlimited capital using business methods that freed them from any personal responsibility for the operation of such government-created entities. In other words, these business corporations are no more than government-created fictions used by sociopaths to avoid responsibility for their crimes.
Er, well, no–and easily established historically and otherwise.
The progression from competition to monopoly is an inherent aspect of Capitalism.
In fact the only competition Capitalists are interested is competition among commoditized labor.
Inherent also is the progression from Capitalism to Finance Capitalism.
In addition the general rule–Capitalists always buy any government that is buyable.
Why wouldn't they?
Hard to figure where you primitives are going to dig up a government that is not buyable with yours and the classic British Liberals' and the Austrians' theories of human motivation.
Other than that you are shit out of luck–got neither the time nor the inclination to argue or debate, nor to instruct you market utopians, especially not free of charge.
And the fees are very steep indeed.
The issue will be settled elsewhere.
Without the benefit of government corporation laws, such entities could not exist. Companies would therefore only exist as sole proprietorships, partnerships in which everyone working in the business has some percentage of partnership, or as cooperatives in which again everyone working in the business has some degree of ownership. Such entities insure that everyone working therein is individually responsible for the actions of the business and since there is no possibility of publicly traded shares in such entities, acquisition and employment of capital on the scale of a monopoly is impossible.
Interestingly, the development of capitalist monopolies by private companies follows very closely the invocation of corporate laws by governments that created such entities for any private business purpose. Of course, such entities always greatly benefit the governments that created them.
Indeed, passed by a government owned lock stock and barrel by the Capitalists.
As for anarchism, Baknunin and Marx, though often often at odds, had a great deal of respect for one another in later years.
What you said above is worthless without a thorough-going deconstruction of "money", "interest", and "property".
"…to expose the president either as a complete moron incapable of reason or a Machiavellian scumbag befitting the ranks of some of history greatest scoundrels."
Well said Jeremy. I was comfortable with a 'dick-wad' comparison. You have expanded and elevated my terms of endearment for President Slappy.
More to the point, Jeremy, Uganda invaded Somalia and its troops are now occupying Somalian territory. Why didn't you mention that in your story? Because violent resistance is a natural response to violent invasion, the facts I mention might give some clue as to what motivated the bombings.
Mr. Costa, consider yourself thoroughly disabused. Messrs liberranter and JacquesStrappe are totally correct. Capitalism is a perfect self-correcting system just requiring the occassional correction from the Magic Hand of the Free Market (TM) when reality gets in the way of fantasy.
Ah yes, the "invisible Hand", haha.
Sadly, both Costa and Andrew show us that man's last faith-based religion (abject faith in government despite its record of mass-murder and poverty-inducing practices) is the most dangerous one to come down the pike — especially as it has no ethical component, even though these were observed more in the breach by the so-called bona fide religions. When will they or their compatriots on the right (equally deluded) realize that they need to evolve out of that miasma.
Lawrence–ytu have your head up your ass–where did one mention any "faith in government"?
Now get back to your kindergarten class–recess is over.
…a racist organisation that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life”.
That very well descibes the US government ,its officials,and many of t5he American public.Just compare how much they value the lives of Americans,Europeans,or Israelies compared to others.
"The price is worth it".
Sorry, but I really did not get your point in this blog entry because i dont find any fact or one simple argument to express your point of view.
The arguments are obviously disguised in a special code only those of us with a special decoder ring are able to see. Sorry!
Are Afghan Lives Worth Anything?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/are-afgha…
In cynical efforts to mitigate the backlash surrounding such lethal attacks, the US army has devised a new compensation system that covers deaths, injuries and damage resulting from coalition operations. The Associated Press reports that the death of a child or adult is valued at just $2,500, and serious injuries (including loss of limbs) at $1,500.
That a damaged or destroyed vehicle would fetch $2,500 — the same amount as a dead son or daughter — speaks volumes about the skewed morality of our military campaigns. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/20…
Corr:
That might very well describes the US government and its so called allies when it comes to others that teh empire wish to subjegate.
When a U.S. marine jet hit aerial tramway cables in Italy not too long ago, the U.S. gave close to $2 million to each Italian victim.
Probably happened because the pilot was a smartass who thought it would be cool to fly under the wires or between the towers. Such immature macho-moron mentality is common in the U.S. military. I recall in the Gulf war how various pilots from different countries behaved. The British pilots expressed concern for civilian casualties and were very low-key talking to the media. In contrast the brash American pilots were loudly bragging about how "they had lit up Baghdad like a Christmas tree".
On 29 May 2002, Libya offered up to US$2.7 billion to settle claims by the families of the 270 killed in the Lockerbie bombing, representing US$10 million per family.
I agree that imperialism is the result of government run by capitalists – it is the militarism of exploitation. And what is capitalism absent exploitation.
America and its entourage of colonialists (Great Britain, Israel, etc.) are 19th Century deadenders.
The US is a predatory Capitalist warfare state.
The US is Communism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.
The US is from each according to need, to each according to greed.
"If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the '“risk models' for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis.
In this first decade of the 21st century there has been no increase in the real incomes of working Americans. There has been a sharp decline in their wealth. In the 21st century Americans have suffered two major stock market crashes and the destruction of their real estate wealth.
Some studies have concluded that the real incomes of Americans, except for the financial oligarchy of the super rich, are less today than in the 1980s and even the 1970s. I have not examined these studies of family income to determine whether they are biased by the rise in divorce and percentage of single parent households. However, for the last decade it is clear that real take-home pay has declined.
The main cause of this decline is the offshoring of US high value-added jobs. Both manufacturing jobs and professional services, such as software engineering and information technology work, have been relocated in countries with large and cheap labor forces.
The wipeout of middle class jobs was disguised by the growth in consumer debt. As Americans’ incomes ceased to grow, consumer debt expanded to take the place of income growth and to keep consumer demand rising. Unlike rises in consumer incomes due to productivity growth, there is a limit to debt expansion. When that limit is reached, the economy ceases to grow.
The immiseration of working people has not resulted from worsening crises of over-production of goods and services, but from financial capital’s power to force the relocation of production for domestic markets to foreign shores. Wall Street’s pressures, including pressures from takeovers, forced American manufacturing firms to 'increase shareholders’ earnings.' This was done by substituting cheap foreign labor for American labor…"
Paul Craig Roberts
Now read the Lenin quotation again, mes enfants.
There are fine points over which one might disagree here and there with Mr. Roberts, hardly a member of the Internationale, but an honest broker and master of the numbers.
Pardon, it is altogether too late for the polite spirit of the Tusculan Disputations, even if Calvinist Capitalism in the US had managed anything half as civilized as ancient Tusculum.
Which of course it hasn't.
God you're smart!
Same old,same old.
There are yer "good" Somalians and yer "bad" Somalians.
The first bunch believe in Jesus and love America. the second bunch don't. See?
The problem is how do you tell them apart? For walking aroiund with a Jesus button on, loving America will get you dead in short order. And blending in with the bad Somalians will get you just as dead because the forces of freedom strike without any real guarantees that innocents won't be accidentally hurt.
But when the bad Somalians start targetting innocents in other countries,well then, ya got yer Jihad! Just like the Neocons foretold.
For instance, if trains interest your child, encourage him/her to pick up books from the fiction genre but also non-fiction resembling historical past of trains, design and construction etc. Many mother and father will read (or skim) a e-book themselves to find out if it's acceptable for their youngsters. Art Sibs