As usual, Pilger's piece is brilliant if biased critical anlaysis is your cup of tea.

Chris Lewis.It all depends upon whose bias has your ear.The truth is slowly emerging and there are big changes germinating in the USA.They are broke and the temptation will be to pursue more wars in an attempt to steal what they cannot create.They have their eyes on the vast reserves of oil and gas in central Asia above Afghanistan.

The banks have doubled the money supply in 12mths and when this filters down to the consumer,the US $ will collapse.John Pilger is right,it could go either way in the US.Congress may get the courage to subdue the military industrial complex financed by the banks,or there could be anarchy.

Obama has the power under the Patriot Act to suspend the constitution and declare martial law.

We must all become more aware,since the madmen will drive us all into really serious wars to shore up their bottom lines.Watch Zimbigniew Brezezinski,he was Bush's foreign policy maker and now Obama's.He openly brags about sucking the Russians into Afghanistan for their Vietnam.He hates them with a passion and sees himself as the grand chess master of geo-politics.

Obama has surrounded himself with the same old Bush baggage for more of the same.

Great piece by Pilger

There are many Americans who speak out about global intervention by their government. They usually receive a caning in the media just as Rosie O'Donnel did after the Iraq comments.

Americans seem more than many to be easy fodder for a manipulative media. The concept of patriotism has been so misconstrued to suit the vested interests of large corporations. The invasion of Iraq so irreconceivably fraught with contradiction and hypocrisy that people still spout the "bringing democracy" line no matter the evidence.

The media does have the power to shape or influence society - throw in fear to the equation and the formula is set. How many times do you see ordinary people being whipped into a frenzy by an eloquent speaker without reading between the lines. I don't know whether it is because people no longer have the time to look between the lines or whether it is massive peer pressure - and patriotism is a big drawcard in the US.

Look at the drivel the Palins, Bushes and Cheneys dished up that was lapped up at the time.

The biggest spin trick ever pulled was to cloak the interests of ruling powers in the cloak of democracy.

Pilger recites the litany of the past misdeeds of the United States and by association blames Obama for them. Obama is tackling problems that previous presidents have ignored and has stopped some bad practices of past presidents. He is concerned with global warming, energy independence, the health care system, nuclear proliferation and the failures in the US education system. One of the great things he has done is to stop the practice of torture. It is just plain wrong. He has cancelled a wasteful missile defense system that the US military did not want. Its purpose was to provide jobs for electoral districts do congressmen can get re-elected. He is also working for peace in the Middle East. In so doing he disagrees with the Israeli government. I think it is necessary to disagree with the current Israeli government if one wants peace.

However, Pilger in a past article criticised Obama for only devoting 17 words to Gaza. It wasn't enough for Pilger that Obama criticised Israel. The criticism wasn't enough. He wanted Obama's Cairo speech to be an exercise in finger pointing rather than a step to peace.

It also is not enough for Pilger that Obama has apologised for past misdeeds of the US. Pilger apparently wants the president of the United States to condemn his country. Unlike Pilger Obama is reasonable and looks to me as though he is doing what he can do to make a better world.

Go for it, Pelican.

However, the trouble is Pilger can never find a way out for this Anglo exceptualism.

Just re-read a book by Paul Kennedy called Preparing for the Twenty First Century.

His page 210 is interestung reading.

He points out how this thrusty Anglo exceptionalism could be the prime cause of the Islamic terrorist problem today.

His long paragraph begins by stating that it is difficult to know whether the reason for the Muslim's world trouble is cultural or historical?

Clearly, as he says, Islam suffers many self-inflicted problems, but the major problem, appears to be the fear of being swallowed up by the West.

He intimates how the former barbarian West was enlightened so much by an Arab Middle East intelligentsia who had first gained so much from Hellenistic Reasoning, feeling generous and diplomatic enough to advise Thomas Aquinas how to help the early Christian West escape from the effects of the earlier Christian Dark Ages.

Professor Kennedy does not openly say it, but it seems the former barbarian West has virtually forced the Arabic Islamics down into their own Dark Ages, hatred for the West, replacing the Enlightening gift that the Early ME Islamics themselves had so generously offered.

I'm not a huge Pilger fan - he's too polemic to carry much oomph - but any reminder that the behaviour of superpowers rarely matches their rhetoric is a good reminder.

Chris Lewis

The word I would use in regard to Pilger is ‘counterbalance’ not ‘bias’.

Arjay and pelican

I agree with both your posts.

I’d also be wary of the massive US-led diplomatic and media attention being thrown at the ‘fake’ stolen-election protests in Iran, compared with the almost complete indifference being shown towards the very real stolen-government protests in Honduras.

When it comes to dealing with countries who fail to show sufficient pro-West loyalty, I fear the US under Obama is just replacing the Bush doctrine of all-out invasion with a return to its old destabilisation ways (not that those ever really went away).

Bushbred

I agree with your analogy about the Islamic Dark Ages.

Civilisations are societies that have become far too complex to keep renewing themselves. They end up having to chase more and more resources for fewer and fewer returns. As a result, they then end up spiralling into a kind of self-implosion.

All civilisations have to go through a Dark Ages at one stage or another and often several times over. At the moment, it’s the pan-Arab/Middle East’s turn – something many of their intellectuals and leaders are acutely aware of.

The US will get its turn - that's a certainty. And, at the rate it's going, probably sooner rather than later. The question is: How many of us will be drawn into it with them?

david.f

I agree that Obama has to tread softly. Unfortunately, he’s following a government that veered into such extreme aggression that it left a major foreign policy vacuum in its wake. I think he’s trying, but is well aware that too much liberal leadership in a neo-feudal nation like the US can get a president assassinated.

SJF,

Sorry, I should have used emphasised the the word 'simplicity' rather than 'biased'.

In his lecture "The Decline and fall of the American Empire" Prof. Johan Galtung quotes an anonymous American Pentagon planner-"the purpose of the US armed forces is to protect American business and our cultural assault,to that lend there will be a fair amount of killing",says it all really.

Dear mac,

I agree that the quote is a good description of much US strategy. However, I think it's too good. I know Galtung and have attended his lectures. I believe the 'anonymous American Pentagon planner' is probably Galtung.

Good article by Pilger. Unbridled capitalism is nothing more than privatised imperialism.
The USA will be truly democratic when it admits that all nations have the same right to self determination as the USA has.

I like John Pilger and mostly support his assessments and views.

Some things call John's assessment into question ... here.

1. His critique of Vietnam conveniently overlooks ... the most basic fact the free voice of the Vietnamese people. Vietnamese people, despite their communist leadership, have overwhelmingly adopted the US characteristic of capitalism.
2. He quotes very generally without reference George Washington. He shows he's never understood, if he's ever read, Washington's farewell speech at the culumnation of his public service. It is an assessment of the US and its future relations with the world. A read would destroy John's argument in an instant. This is the type of generalization Pilger is not noted for and when I read it I was ... warned of and had confirmed later a shallowness in this article.
3. John's assessment of Martin Luther is selective. Luther accepted the American Dream, his point was he wanted 'negro people' (His words not mine) included. King was never anti-US.
4. John criticizes the US treatment of its indigenous peoples and doesn't once look at the ways that the 'wrongs have been attempted to be righted'. He overlooks the US acknowledgement of its role and its responsibilities in this issue.
5. The countries John cites where US 'imperialism' was influential Cuba, Central America and Mexico are shining examples of everything the US isn't. Texas and Texans would of course rather be Mexican than US citizens. Pleaseee John! The Philippines would prefer Chinese or Islamic authoritarian rule than self-governance and independence?
6. Adolph Hitler and the Nazis were the German National SOCIALIST party. They never ever adhered to the principles on which the US is based. Any analogy suggesting such is suspect and does bring into question a writers judgment ...seriously.
7. Bretton Woods, of course the US won the war. Nobody ever denies that and that they gathered the spoils is and was appropriate. That's what wars including those of the freedom fighter, including Vietnam, are all about. Winning. It is wrong of John to suggest it morally reprehensible to accept the spoils of war.

8. John needs to recall John Kerry and his rejection after he claimed Hollywood was the heart and soul of America. US citizens know it isn't and to claim they are anything other than propagandists is stupid and Americans and the world know that. John such comment is really shallow.
9. Suggesting populism will emerge in the future is silly. It emerged with the election of OBama. He is nothing but populist. The US electorate expected him to change things. He was elected on the platform of such reform. It is proving to be totally populist. US is still in Iraq and will stay there. Torture has not been outlawed. It is still statutory active in US law. G'itmo is still open, health care hasn't been reformed, along with all those other things that 'terrible' Bush introduced or used ...with the approval of the still dominated democrat congress.... Obama's populist’s nature is now reflected in US polling where his approval is now below 50% far lower than 'terrible' George at a similar point in either of his 2 terms.

10. To expect Obama to change things is not realist and cannot be blamed on his subordinates. The currently mighty US buck stops with him.
11 While he claims Americanism is rooted in 'women’s suffrage, the eight-hour day, graduated income tax and public ownership' he ignores these things also apply in other countries and often originated prior to their advent in the US. John doesn't cast the same aspersions on these other countries.
12. Anti Americanism is not what John and others portray. US citizens when they change things are the epitome of not anti-American but of the American Dream. I cannot think of anywhere in the world where these actions wouldn't be loved and embraced ... including the US.

Sorry John I think you've allowed some socialist idea to produce bias here and you must acknowledge the US government is always the will of the US people.

david f,

I agree that there's no way of knowing whether the quote is genuine,however it is accurate!

Keith is good at moral/ethical equivocation.It is alright to take the spoils of war even under the false pretense of freeing people from what we perceive to be tyranny.It is alright then to take the oil in Iraq after invading them on false pretenses.

The corporates now control the USA and Obama is just their puppet.Clinton and even Bush did not want to go into Pakistan.Now Obama is there doing the unthinkable.Obama was going to rescind the Patriot Act but now refuses.

The War on Terror is just a ruse for the USA to expand it's empire.

What Pilger and his ilk never accept is:

the sort of left wing despotism, which he and the other ratbags who attend functions like "Socialism 2009" surreptitiously endorse, would not allow him to speak out against the government in the way he badmouths USA...

In the leftwing "workers utopia" he would have been lead away to a psychiatyric unit for re-education or worse.

Potty mouth Pilger is the architypical malcontent, happy to accept the kudos of his western economic sponsored position of privilege and even happier to bite the hand which feeds him.

Hypocrisy comes in many forms..

Pilger is just another one of them.

On reflection Pilger's attitude to Obama in connecting him with all the past misdeeds of the United States is like blaming Angela Merkel for Hitler.

It is not OK to hate Aborigines, Muslims, Jews, homosexuals or any of the other usual targets of bigotry. It is also not OK to hate the United States. The United Nations and other international organisations which now condemn the United States would not exist had it not been for the United States. The United States populated mainly by white Protestants has elected a black president and a Catholic vice president.

As the only superpower in today's world the United States has stepped on a lot of toes. However, its opponents for the big banana have been Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. In my opinion they would be a lot worse. The United States is far from perfection, but I think it is about as good as you can reasonably expect for the sole superpower.

What I find most entertaining about reactions to Pilger's work is that despite the frequent howls of bias and hypocrisy, nobody ever seems to challenge him on the facts themselves.

It may be nothing more than gratuitous criticism to many but that doesn't mean it can't be true, no matter how much you don't want to hear it.

How much "balance" does it take to make a wrong into a right?

Historically, America is a nation addicted to war - both economically and socially, from it's "Manifest Destiny" origins through the Cold War and up to the New World Order.

Should they have the right to control the destiny of other countries for their own profit? Should their miltary complex (which takes about half of every tax dollar) be allowed to hold controlling shares in their popular media corporations?

I am currently writing a response to Pilger which hopefully will be published On Line opinion if good enough.

The US does deserve some defence as suggested by a couple of comments to Pilger's article which I shall also take up.

Col
With respect, you always manage to reduce issues to right/left wing ideology. It is a legitimate question to ask - does another nation have the right to intervene in the affairs of others under false pretences?

The irony is while you reduce everything in purely ideological terms, the US has often supported corrupt dictatorships and totalitarian regimes with not a skerrick of democracy to be seen.

Venezuela is one example where socialism and democracy have been retained and yet still came under fire from the US who sought to protect their interests. Democracy is the least of the US concerns internationally unless it serves an economic purpose.

Pelican “The irony is while you reduce everything in purely ideological terms, the US has often supported corrupt dictatorships and totalitarian regimes with not a skerrick of democracy to be seen.”

Maybe you could identify, from my post on this thread, where I have attempted to defend the position of USA on anything, except the vitriolic and biased attack of an individual who seems to have forgotten about the system which supports his privileged lifestyle.

That I criticize the socialist side of politics is my personal right, regardless of the position of USA.

Even if USA was run by a bunch of corrupt lefties (oh tautology) I would still criticize Pilger as an example of rank hypocrisy.

As for the US support of corrupt regimes.. politics is not a clean game… sometimes the choices are not clear or apparent and not all the cards are laid out for all to see…. Like the corruption at the heart of Venezuela and sometimes it is a simple choice to merely support the lesser of two evils…. Stalin over Hitler for instance.

From my comment I see very little to suggest I have offered support for USA, other than remind some folk of some of the realities of recent history and the lies and despicable attitudes of the left side of politics, against whom I will always protest because, under the style of politics I support, I am allowed to.

Where as, if they (the leftwing swill) ever prevailed I would be denied my right to complain

Col
I will always support your right to argue against socialism but, while we read the same article, I could not see the relevance. But fire away by all means.

According to some on OLO we are already under the threat of socialist government with our illustrious PM and your rights to free speech are still preserved.

I think you will find that extreme right wing 'swill' as with all corrupt and extreme regimes would deny you the right of free speech in exactly the same way.

Many thanks, SJF, must admit that my analogy is simply from the philosophies of history, as taught in Mature Age studies.

Unfortunately many modernians now tend to sling off at history, saying it's better to look ahead than behind.

But back in the 1930's there came a saying - one thing about motor vehicles, they do have a rear vision mirror, which unfortunately you do not have in a horse-drawn wagon.

Certainly you would think that such modernity would have given even politicians more commonsense but the way the world is going it does not look much like it?

So it seems the more modern we get unfortunately, the less we take lessons from history, just as my grandkids tell me -

Granpa you are just lost in the past!

Col,

How does telling the truth make Pilger a hypocrite?

A hypocrite would be promoting all the good things while knowing them to be false or deliberately avoiding all those things that are bad.

Even Pilger doesn't suggest that only one side of politics is corrupt.

A healthy democracy demands that citizens stay vigilant and expose the truth about their leaders, good and bad.

Maybe taking the money and keeping quiet absolves you of the need for honesty?

Right is right even if nobody's doing it, just as wrong is still wrong even if everybody's doing it.

We can not blame Obama for what Bush or other American presidents did. Also we can not expect from Obama deep changes without to create huge problems to his country. He is not very lucky because he found his country with many problems, two wars , huge financial problems plus very bad relations with the international comunity.
I think it is better to give to Obama more time and recognize that he made some steps to the right direction. For me President Obama is one from most progresive American Presidents and I hope he will support the International Criminal Court.
I think Bush was the worst American president not only for the international comunity but for the American people too.
When USA president's steps are to the right direction we encourage and support him for more and bigger steps and we do not blame him for what happened in the past.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

I hope you don't mind me agreeing with me. I also hope that Obama will support the International Criminal Court. At the Nuremberg trials after WW2 the American prosecutor hoped the trials would be a precedent by which all nations including his own should be judged for crimes. Bush not only refused to ratify the ICC but also tried to keep other nations from ratifying. I hope Obama will also support the Law of the Sea and other international instruments disregarded or opposed by Bush.

I am thrilled that Obama is addressing health, energy and education - all things that Bush neglected. I think he genuinely wants peace, and part of it is reducing the massive military budget.

He has cancelled the F-22, missile defense and other military programs. Even his own party is fighting him in Congress because military industry jobs help politicians to get elected. There is not the rigid party discipline that there is in Australia where the government is part of the legislature.

In the US you lose your job you lose your health insurance when you may need it the most. Many Americans have no insurance at all since there is no national scheme like Medicare. The insurance companies and the doctors lobby are fighting his efforts to change that.

In Cairo he admitted that the US has done wrong in the past. That’s a significant departure from American triumphalism.

He has cancelled the directives that allowed torture and may even bring the torturers to justice. However, by doing so he will get Republican opposition and jeopardise the rest of his program.

Through his efforts the US Congress has passed the first bill dealing with climate change. Bush ignored the problem completely. He has made a deal with Russia to cut down nuclear armaments - a problem that other presidents neglected. He has worked with poor people as a community organiser. No previous president has had that background. He is trying to make the US energy independent. I think he is the best the US has had for a long time.

David, I agree Obama is -or appears to be- a vast improvement on Bush. He is still however working within the American paradigm of world's policeman; and I still agree with me (good line, that) that imperialism is a natural amplification of Capitalism.
The most tiresome argument from conservatives (of both sides, if you accept a more literal definition of the word) is that which demonstrates their complete lack of imagination: If you don't endorse A, then you must endorse B.
"C? what C? What the heck is a C?"
I've always thought the whole point of discussions like this is to try and find that alternative solution; that 'C'.
Otherwise, all we have is a yelling match.

Very interesting comments, mates, but make sure you all keep your minds on history, as any academic tutor worth his salt will tell you.

Regards, BB, WA.

Dear Grim,

I don't agree that imperialism is a natural amplification of Capitalism. “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” (1916) by Vladimir Lenin is a classic Marxist theoretical treatise on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism. The treatise is a propaganda exercise that blames capitalism for imperialism. Marxist theory also blames capitalism for racism. It is obviously false since both racism and imperialism predate capitalism. Corporations, insurance companies, stock markets and the other features of capitalism only developed in the last several hundred years. "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism," is a bit of Marxist propaganda which has become an article of belief by many. It was nonsense even under Lenin’s definition. Lenin defined imperialism as the export of capital. A study of the movement of capital at the time shows that the greatest capital export was not to the colonies but between the developed countries to each other.

If the Soviet Union had been able to win the Cold War and become the dominant superpower I think the oppression would have been worse. In a nation state system such as we have currently on this planet the superpower/s are going to be oppressive regardless of the nature of the economic system. The Roman Empire that dominated a large park of the globe was a pre-capitalist entity. Imperium means authority or power and is the origin of the word, imperialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

The United States is the dominant nation state and acts in consequence of that position. Its actions might be someone different if it was not capitalist, but imperialism is merely the consequence of being the dominant or a major power in a nation state system.

With the growth of the European Union and other international entities the nation state system is changing, and we may have a new system. National boundaries are beginning to mean less than they used to.

The C in this case is the replacement of the nation state system.

I sincerely hope not, David. As I have said on other posts, I do not consider myself a socialist, but I really don't see how working for a global corporation is any better than working for a -democratic- socialist state.
One person one vote is infinitely preferable to one share, one vote.
As to Capitalism/imperialism, both are pretty much a natural continuation or evolution of the feudal system, where the barons owned the 'capital'; and as such has deep historical roots. The system existed long before the name. Certainly 'the marketplace' has been around for a very long time. Capitalism as currently played pretty much demands growth and is constantly looking for new markets. Think East India Company.
Even with your dual citizenship, you appear to be a man capable of objective analysis. Would you not agree that many of the little wars the US has involved itself in since WW2 have been in defense of capitalism, rather than internal democracy? It seems to me, the US has always shown a total disregard for the wishes of the majority in the countries they have 'helped'.
While I don't agree Capitalism is necessarily racist, I do believe Capitalism is inherently discriminatory. I have posted an article on the subject here:
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/

Dear Grim,

Thanks for the flattery.

I read your article and questioned its premises. It is tremendously unfair to buy a painting of an Aborigine’s painting for $300 and sell it for much more. Capitalism allows that. However, whenever there is a transaction whether capitalist or not where one party has better information or more power than the other there is the potential for exploitation. Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav communist, wrote a book called “The New Class” where he pointed out that members of the sole party had the ability to exploit others and did so. Capitalism is inherently discriminatory, but so is any other system where there are inequities. I know of no system that eliminates inequities.

Since capitalism is the only system most of us know we tend to think that its evils are unique to capitalism.

However, what we think is a natural outgrowth may simply be because one system follows another. Capitalism/imperialism followed the feudal system in Europe. It did not in China. In 200 BC the Chinese developed blast furnaces. This succeeded in arming mass armies which ended the feudal system maintained by the armoured knights. Armour was no longer expensive. Europeans got blast furnaces around1500. This also eliminated the armoured knights, and capitalism followed. It did not follow in China because of the class structure. The Chinese class structure had Mandarins at the top followed by peasants, merchants and artisans in that order with artisans above bandits. Inventions by clever artisans were adapted for use by the governing mandarinate. A Chinese counterpart of James Watt could not get financing to do anything. He could only turn his invention over to the mandarinate and get a pension or other reward.

One can make the case that the industrial revolution would not have happened if capitalism had not already started to develop.

In the Manifesto Marx recognized the productive nature of capitalism and assumed that this could be transferred to the workers, and production could be devoted to need rather than to profit. As we know from the former USSR it doesn’t work that way.

David, I certainly don't believe capitalism is the root of all evil; but I think there is a connection.
The wonderful thing about the feedback mechanism of blogging is learning about how other people read the things you write, or at least how the background of the reader must play a decisive part in what they take from your writing. I have found it remarkable how often a reader will latch on to a point I thought rather trivial, and just as often overlook a point I thought fairly crucial.
The point of the article (which I probably should have emphasized more strongly), and what struck me forcibly when I spoke to the gentleman in question, was how he felt justifiably proud of his profit margin.
I believe Friedman made the point that the only moral obligation a business has, is to ensure the best outcome for the shareholders.
A true blue Capitalist would have to think a markup 10 times the purchase price was pretty good.
Wasn't that the basic rationale for colonialism/imperialism?
Isn't that why Australia doesn't have much of a manufacturing sector?
Why pay your own workers, when you can get 'them' to do it for a bowl of rice.
With regard to the current article David, you didn't address the question of America's motives for 'helping' so many countries onto the path of free enterprise.

Grim

I also read your article.

"The point of the article....., and what struck me forcibly when I spoke to the gentleman in question, was how he felt justifiably proud of his profit margin."

Chilling isn't it? Like being at a party enjoying a conversation when someone makes a point that is the complete antithesis of your entire moral code, they continue on, blithely unaware that your are edging away. They may even read articles like yours and never even include themselves as exploiters. There is always the justification "well at least they're (workers) earning something".

Fair reward for a fair day's work does not have to conflict with energy from competitive capitalism. However, the default position for capitalism is exploitation unless there is reasonable regulation. Such as limiting monopolies and in the case of indigenous painters. Your acquaintance is incapable of discerning 'fair'. He would still have made profit if he had paid the artists more, there is no way to convince this type of personality that s/he has done anything wrong.

The group of American men who created the New American Century Project believed that if it was good for them, then it must be good for everyone - that is how they manage to sleep at night.

To explain the differences between a normal Christian and a philosophical Christian.

The wonderful tale of the young Jesus, expressed so much in the Sermon on the Mount, but finishing humanly so sadly, yet so gloriously religiously in the Spiritual Outcome beyond the Crucifixion.

To be sure in philosophy we tend to follow history and the early growth of Christianity with minds mixed somewhat between legend and spiritual reasoning, mindful of the Thou Shalts of the disciples, heartful of the cruelty of the pagan Romans against the Christians, as well as experiencing a mixture of historicism and religiosity as the Roman emperor Constantine never himself a Christian, not only gave the order to treat the Christians as normal citizens, but also took control over the Council of Nicea in which Christianity was declared not only spiritually powerful by Constantine but politically powerful.

However, as Christianity became more political, it was realised that the young Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount never talked about doing down or killing off the unbelievers, but even putting ourselves in the position of the so-called enemy, as was said to try and Understand our Enemies.

It is also interesting that it was that St Thomas Aquinas was also a philosopher, having not only gained a Sainthood as well as accepting Hellenistic Reasoning from early Islamics as a way to release early Christianity from the Dark Ages.

Aquinas was also the philosopher who organised the study which became the forerunner of all Western universities.

It is well to also remind that it was not long before the Thousandth Year after the Death of Jesus, it was decided to fake a document giving the now dead but Spiritual Constantine the gift giving Christianity the right to declare war, a document still held by the Catholic Church.

As every political historian should know, the fake document since known as the Donation of Constantine, also gave the illegal right for Christian nations to practice the colonialism that has made Anglo nations in particular so strong ever since, and people like our own Aborigines so helpless.

Regards, BB, WA

Bushbred, you stated

As every political historian should know, the fake document since known as the Donation of Constantine, also gave the illegal right for Christian nations to practice the colonialism that has made Anglo nations in particular so strong ever since, and people like our own Aborigines so helpless.

What's your point. Would another dominant nation/entity behaved any differently?

Do I really have to bring up atrocities by other political entities?

It is all to easy to blame the dominant power of the day and drwam of if only...

Dear Grim,

Imperialism predates capitalism so capitalism cannot be the cause of imperialism. If capitalism were the basic rationale for colonialism/imperialism, colonialism/imperialism would not predate capitalism.

The US favours countries adopting a capitalist system because it benefits the US. Since capital can move across national boundaries much easier than labour can countries adopting capitalism will be places where enterprises in the developed world can more easily exploit labour. However, this will not be a permanent situation if there is democracy. Workers can organise, form unions and can withhold labour to force the employer to pay better wages. Unfortunately union organisers can be driven away, tortured or murdered. CIA or CIA sponsored death squads have done this many times. In 1987 a meeting of former CIA men in Switzerland estimated that 6,000,000 people had been killed in this manner. Cooperative boards, schoolteachers etc. anybody challenging the status quo.

However, the problem is deeper than capitalism. It is industrialisation and corporatism. A worker by him or herself is helpless against the power of the corporation. Whether the corporation is privately owned as in capitalism or state owned as in socialism is immaterial. After Lenin took over the USSR the power of the unions which was severely limited under the tsars disappeared completely as they were converted into transmission lines for party propaganda. The workers were told the factories now belonged to them. They were exploited worse than in the capitalist countries as there were no longer effective unions to stand up for their rights.

In the late 60s a bunch of us working or studying at the University of Pennsylvania used to get together every Thursday for lunch. One of the group was a Soviet engineer studying management at the U of P. The Soviet managers avoided giving raises except as a last resort. They thought it would encourage more demands for wages. They adopted distractions such as painting the cafeteria to deal with worker unrest since workers might be happier with a change of scene.

We need strong democratic unions whose leaders cannot be bought off & an aggressive work force.

David, once again I agree with more than 90% of your post. As to the chronology of colonialism/capitalism/imperialism, this still relates back to (the question of) -European- feudalism.
As Spencer pointed out, Capitalism is is eminently comparable to evolution. What hasn't been adequately discussed, I feel, is the evolution of Capitalism.
Old age does none of us any favours, and Capitalism is I think, becoming more 'decadent'.
Fractelle, you're starting to scare me. Perfect understanding is almost an invasion of privacy.
Bush Bred, that was curly. For the first nine tenths, I thought you had mistakenly posted to the wrong thread. You've prompted me to study.
cheers, grim.

Many Thanks, Grim.

As one going on 89, and originally poorly schooled but lucky to have gained a Post-Grad since retired, have tried to show by my thread how much we owe to our universities, which do try to instill in us the philosophical facts behind the mistakes in our history -

- not to repeat them again and again!

Certainly it seems just going by my years with OLO, that us ourselves could still learn a lot from academic reasoning.

Cheers, BB, WA

Must ask if the viewpoint of the following religo'\ historical backed essay fits in with what is now okay for our discussion?

Must say as historical philosophers we tend to follow history and the early growth of Christianity with minds mixed somewhat between legend and spiritual reasoning.

The wonderful tale of the young Jesus if true, expresses in background so much in the Sermon on the Mount, a tale again if true, finishing humanly so sadly, yet so gloriously religiously in the Spiritual Outcome beyond the Crucifixion.

While mindful of the Thou Shalts of the disciples, heartful of the cruelty of the pagan Romans against the battling Christians, as well as experiencing a mixture of historicism and religiosity as the Roman emperor Constantine though never himself a Christian, not only gave the order to treat the Christians as normal citizens, but also took control over the Council of Nicea in which Christianity was declared not only spiritually powerful by Constantine but politically powerful.

However, as Christianity became more political, it was realised that the young Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount had never talked about doing down or killing off the unbelievers, but even putting oneself in the position of the so-called enemy, as was said to try and offer love and friendship to our enemies.

And so it was not long before the Thousandth Year after the Death of Jesus, it was decided to fake a document giving the now dead but possibly Spiritual Constantine the gift giving Christianity the right to declare war.

As every political historian should know, this document since known as the Donation of Constantine, has also given the right for Christian nations to practice the somewhat illegal colonialism that has made Anglo nations in particular so strong to this very day, yet making what is left of conquered natives so disillusioned.

Certainly the above proves Immanuel Kant's philosophy about global rulership.