I'm just glad it didn't occur to these people to add justices without waiting for a vacancy. 9 justices is not set in the constitution; it's federal law, which I'm sure Rove, Delay, and Frist would have had no trouble changing - my guess is it never occurred to them...

you can't just run around screaming that the world is going to end/doom and gloom forever/endless war/etc.

Why not?

I mean, that type of thinking is almost as offensive as the Second Coming mentality of the Christian Right.

The offensive thing about the Second Coming beliefs of the Christian Right is not that they're not plausible. It's that most of these Fundamentalist lunatics are envisioning an Armageddon-type showdown with the Muslims. According to these fanatics, Jesus is going to come to save our country--our beneficent, family-oriented, freedom-worshipping country--from the hateful Islamic infidels. This is insane. If Jesus did come to Earth at Armageddon, Americans would be the ones shown what's what. These people don't understand our country's position in the world at all.

Do you really think a Theocracy would have sustainable support in this country?
Come on. The consolidation of governmental power that's going on right now scares the pants off of many truly conservative people, too. Just look at how fractured the conservative congress has become; they often don't even support the President on specific issues.

First of all, what makes you think any government--especially one as loaded with military and police power as ours is--needs to rely on the "sustainable support" of its population? The examples are plenty where a military dictatorship has been installed by force against the population; the most obvious recent examples are El Salvador and Nicaragua in the mid-80's. The reason why we haven't been at risk for this type of system is because we have had the Constitution, not because the American populace has forbidden it. And this is the important factor: imagine a chaotic scenario, such as the aftermath of another terrorist attack, when people will be eager to hand over their civil rights for what they see as "protection". Your optimism is, I reassert, simply unfounded.

And let's remember that -- even just after 9/11, when just about every political figure in the country became a war hawk -- sending troops to Iraq was still not a popular move with the American people (remember those marches and petitions?).

Let me take this opportunity to point out that you have just proven my position. The cowardice and stupidity of our Congress in voting almost unanimously to support a criminal war had simply NOTHING TO DO with the wishes of the American public, a large percentage of which are still rational and skeptical.

And now support for the US mideast military involvement is falling rapidly! The American people are not that stupid, and we often vote out Presidents (and congresses) that make bad military decisions. We didn't in 2004, but that was because the democrats didn't set out a platform that was much different than Bush's (and Kerry's stance on the entire Iraq issue was pretty much undefined).
So I doubt that we will see an "endless war." We still live in a representative democracy ... if people get upset enough to get off their ass and vote, things do change (at least a little).

You seem to be overlooking the fact that less than half of our voting-age population actually votes. You also overlook the fact that Kerry's stance WAS defined: he supported the war, just as nearly every Democrat did (at least publicly).

Lastly, those of you that are hard-core super-revolutionaries should be jumping for joy. If all the things we are afraid of happening do happen, people are going to start re-reading Marx, and paying attention this time.

This is simply absurd. People flock to power in times of danger, not to reason; relatively few Americans even read these days, and a VERY tiny percentage of them have what one would call radical or anti-establishment beliefs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that all this fretting doesn't get you anywhere, and it is ultimately tired and counter-productive.

Really? I seem to find that it is lighting a fire under my ass to get things done.

If things are looking grim, really do something about it -- those of us with musical connections can certainly organize benefit shows for our local women's groups or NARAL or any number of organizations.

I am totally in support of these types of benefits, and in consciousness-raising events in general. A feeling of hopelessness doesn't mean one shouldn't continue to work for justice and brotherhood in the time we have left. I think it's beautiful. Just don't have any illusions you're going to have any impact on the global level, which is something completely out of our hands.

Encourage your local scenesters to stop singing about their girlfriends and their tight pants; lend them a Dead Kennedys CD.

Trying to change stupid people's minds almost never works. Especially if they are scenesters singing about tight pants. Such people should be left to their own devices.

Stop buying products from companies that have outsourced their labor to foreign countries.

This is noble. We are agreed on some things!

There are things that we can do here, and as long as those outlets are available, there is hope.

There are always things that we can do about our lives and towards treating with respect and dignity the people we care about; there are never things we can do about the global situation in the twenty first century.

End of motivational speech.[/quote]

lostboy wrote:The American people [...] often vote out Presidents (and congresses) that make bad military decisions.

Please name one time when this has happened.

Please name one time when you can attribute the defeat of an incumbent American president or congressperson to his/her participation in a "bad military decision".

lostboy wrote:Stop buying products from companies that have outsourced their labor to foreign countries.

Please tell me what is inherently evil about international (or "foreign") outsourcing.

I am aware of the horrible Nike sweatshop-type cases, so spare me the specific examples. I want to understand at a conceptual level (i.e., a level informed by something other than pure xenophobia) why international outsourcing is an inherently evil practice.

I'd hit it

You're all looking at this the wrong way. If GWB gets two more Scalias (or, even better, two more Rehnquists) on the court, it'll be that much quicker that some of the more radical among us get the chance to start torching shit. I, for one, am stocking up on kerosene, rags and wine bottles.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I'm just glad it didn't occur to these people to add justices without waiting for a vacancy. 9 justices is not set in the constitution; it's federal law, which I'm sure Rove, Delay, and Frist would have had no trouble changing - my guess is it never occurred to them...

Well, the original Supreme Court was much smaller. Most recent consideration of such action was by FDR, who threatened to pack the court if the justices kept overturning his New Deal legislation. They gave in, no one was added.

At this point, though, it would be very, very hard to do something like that, simply due to historical momentum.

Zach, it does seem that we agree on some larger points; but in my experience, "hope" is necessary if you are going to try to produce some kind of change. If you cannot see the possibility that things will turn out well, there is no reason to engage in any constructive behavior. If you find that a fire has been lit under your ass to "get things done," you obviously retain some kind of hope. That is really all I am trying to say here; in this light, politically nihilistic thinking IS very offensive, because it undermines the efforts of those individuals who are trying to make a difference. I said "ALMOST as offensive" as the Second Coming mindset. And it is. Furthermore, to call hopelessness "beautiful" makes sense to me in an abstract way, but that statement is absolutely repulsive once you take into account the reality of many people's lives. Hearing that statement makes me think you are the one that is disconnected here: such a perspective is a luxury afforded only to the affluent, educated, and powerful. As I said before, I think that you and I agree on some important issues; I think, however, that some facets of your reasoning are internally inconsistent and ultimately self-defeating.

Bradley, about public opinion: I was simply trying to make the point that public opinion does influence public policy decisions. It takes much longer to work than, say, a Presidential pardon or some other top-down effect. But ultimately, our leaders are accountable to us citizens. That is what a representative democracy is, and that is why our governmental structure looks different than Stalin's or Hitler's. And if people OVERWHELMINGLY decide they do not like a particular military decision, that decision is usually reversed. In Vietnam, for example, public opinion played a huge role in the US withdrawl. This is not what led to Nixon's leaving office, of course, but it did change our country's military goals.

Secondly, Bradley, I NEVER said outsourcing is "inherently evil." You are putting words in my mouth. One does not have to think the CONCEPT of international outsourcing is "evil" in order dislike how international trade is being practiced right now. To put it another way: the concept of free trade is a great one; Adam Smith's heart was in the right place, I think, and it is difficult for me to debate this idea on a conceptual level (as you are asking me to do). It is not the concept that is the problem; it is the present practice of that concept. Currently, "free trade" is a misnomer; what many American corporations are practicing should be called something different ... I would submit the phrase "government-subsidized exploitation."

My criticism of outsourcing has nothing to do with "evil," and certainly nothing to do with xenophobia. Are you such an unflinching advocate of our nation's trade policy that you immediately label any criticism of that policy "xenophobic," and -- in a style disturbingly similar to George Bush's -- throw out the term "evil" ... ? Certainly if you understand the specific examples that you site, you can understand how some individuals would want to boycott an exploitative system (this is, unfortunately, how the remarkably sound idea of "free trade" is currently being applied)!!!!

lostboy wrote:Are you such an unflinching advocate of our nation's trade policy that you immediately label any criticism of that policy "xenophobic," and -- in a style disturbingly similar to George Bush's -- throw out the term "evil" ... ?

Go back and reread your post.

You said that all companies who use "foreign" (wtf) outsourcing merited boycott.

Therefore, it is no logical leap to assume that you view such "foreign" outsourcing as evil. Why else would you boycott it? Because it's soft and lovely?

Now once again, explain this blanket statement regarding international outsourcing.

And yes, I am disturbingly similar in style, tone and worldview to George Bush. Love the guy.

Bradley,

"Stop buying products from companies that have outsourced their labor to foreign countries."

This is what I said in my original post. This statement makes perfect sense, and in no way suggests that I think the concept of free trade and/or outsourcing is "inherently evil." I have already sufficiently explained how I think the concept that you are so vigorously defending has so far been misapplied, and how this MISAPPLICATION does, by and large, deserve some very serious critical thinking and -- in many specific cases -- direct action. To say that my position involves either "xenophobia" or something as abstract as "evil" is silly. Mine is a very realistic assessment of the manner in which an interesting and useful concept has been used to justify an official policy of exploitation and injustice.

I think maybe you are confusing free trade as an IDEA with the way it has (so far) been applied in policy and government subsidy decisions. One cannot accurately maintain that the current manifestation of internationalized capitalism is "free trade" as Adam Smith originally conceived the idea. Again, the original concept is not the problem here, and is not what I meant to criticize in the above statement.

However, we have strayed far from the topic at hand. Please have your response, but I don't feel like I need to explain my position any further.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

lostboy wrote:Are you such an unflinching advocate of our nation's trade policy that you immediately label any criticism of that policy "xenophobic," and -- in a style disturbingly similar to George Bush's -- throw out the term "evil" ... ?

Go back and reread your post.

You said that all companies who use "foreign" (wtf) outsourcing merited boycott.

Therefore, it is no logical leap to assume that you view such "foreign" outsourcing as evil. Why else would you boycott it? Because it's soft and lovely?

Now once again, explain this blanket statement regarding international outsourcing.

And yes, I am disturbingly similar in style, tone and worldview to George Bush. Love the guy.

Wait a minute here. I recognize your secret code. I too love the guy.


"Free Trade" is a misnomer as lostboy[not Zach - Edit] has just said. There's nothing inherently wrong with the exchange of goods between nations. This much is obvious. Exchanges should be equitable however and citizens and workers should have more leverage in the process than multinational corporations (and is it not in the interest of capital and capitalists that such populist self-determination be made almost unthinkable?).


Outsourcing is another kettle of fish. The vast majority of America's lumpen proletariat live in China, very much out of sight and mind. China is really the capitalist bread basket insofar as labour is concerned. A relative coterie of capitalists and the(ir) market are given almost total freedom to determine the material circumstances of the billion + proles.

If anyone wants to argue, as at least one of the "independents" on this board has suggested in the past, that a kind of transnational "trickle-down effect" is to be celebrated here as multinationals move from one region of earth to the next raising standards of living piece-meal as they relocate their labour force in search of lower production costs -- Smith's invisible hand* writ large -- I am prepared to offer a counter viewpoint to the Washington Consensus.


As a system capital has only one end, the creation of more capital. In this sense it is an almost flawless system and I can appreciate it in the disinterested manner in which I might appreciate the self-perpetuating vigour of the common cold or Human Immunodeficiency virus, but it is a crappy framework for human relations.

The way this arbitrary system changes human consciousness though its organization of material reality and culture, determining structures of thought and feeling, was the primary philosophical project of the "western Marxists" of the Frankfurt School. Said project has been of much personal interest to me for a while, so I tend bring it up at the slightest provocaton. Apologies if this is common knowledge and/or of no interest.

[/LAD's broken record/disjunctive rant]


P.S. The discussion on this board continues to be excellent. I've missed it.


*I'm pretty sure it was Joseph Stiglitz, discussing his jointly won Nobel Economic work (2001) on 'asymmetric information' (which owes a highly de-politicized debt to Marx's thought), who said 'The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it simply does not exist in reality.'