Nazi America? Chomsky on Healthcare, Foreign Policy and Resistance to American Empire

[Scriptable]

Lots of parallels between the US of today and Germany in the 1920's, and we all know how that turned out.


Noam Chomsky on the Global Economic Crisis, Healthcare, US Foreign Policy and Resistance to American Empire


Take a look at Germany. In the 1920s, Germany was the absolute peak of Western civilization, in the arts and the sciences. It was regarded as a model of democracy and so on. I mean, ten years later, it was the depths of barbarism. That was a quick transition. “The descent into barbarism” it’s sometimes called in the scholarly literature.

Now, if you listen to early Nazi propaganda, you know, end of the Weimar Republic and so on, and you listen to talk radio in the United States, which I often do—it's interesting—there's a resemblance. And in both cases, you have a lot of demagogues appealing to people with real grievances.

Grievances aren't invented. I mean, for the American population, the last thirty years have been some of the worst in economic history. It’s a rich country, but real wages have stagnated or declined, working hours have shot up, benefits have gone down, and people are in real trouble and now in very real trouble after the bubbles burst. And they’re angry. And they want to know,
“What happened to me? You know, I'm a hard-working, white, God-fearing American. You know, how come this is happening to me?”

That's pretty much the Nazi appeal. The grievances were real. And one of the possibilities is what Rush Limbaugh tells you: “Well, it's happening to you because of those bad guys out there.” OK, in the Nazi case, it was the Jews and the Bolsheviks. Here, it's the rich Democrats who run Wall Street and run the media and give everything away to illegal immigrants, and so on and so forth. It sort of peaked during the Sarah Palin period. And it's kind of interesting. It’s been pointed out that of all the candidates, Sarah Palin is the only one who used the phrase “working class.” She was talking to the working people. And yeah, they're the ones who are suffering. So, there are models that are not very attractive.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/13/noam_chomsky_on_the_global_economic

[Cactuar]

I think he is giving the far right wing too much credit. Yes, they do have a following, but I don't believe they will have any real political clout for the next 10 years or perhaps even longer. Although there may be some socio-economic parallels between Pre-WWII Germany and present day America, I don't think we as a nation will turn to racism or any of that anytime soon. Since 9/11, racism and vitrol against arabs has went down (I don't have a source, this is just my perception).

Also he says Obama right now is just a more moderate Bush. I guess I could agree, but after Obama is reelected (which I believe is a certainty), he's going to implement much more liberal policies. Again, this is just a feeling, but we'll see.

[LineDoggie]

Ahhh, Chomsky says were Nazis, and Racists- we therefore must stop all debate, all protest, and prostrate ourselves before Xerxes and accept whatever the Dems give us as Manna.


Nope

[Scriptable]

Ahhh, Chomsky says were Nazis, and Racists- we therefore must stop all debate, all protest, and prostrate ourselves before Xerxes and accept whatever the Dems give us as Manna.


Nope
He says there are parallels and that the present day grievances are real, not invented.

[LineDoggie]

I'm sure one could find parrallels between many phases of History, but Chomsky being the good leftist he is brings up the Nazi bit to attempt to make the Anti-Obama faction into some fascist fringe. The Implication was clear.

[Atlantic Friend]

I'm sure one could find parrallels between many phases of History, but Chomsky being the good leftist he is brings up the Nazi bit to attempt to make the Anti-Obama faction into some fascist fringe. The Implication was clear.

Just like if he were the good Conservative he'd bring up the Commie bit to attempt to make the pro-Obama faction into some Marxist fringe with equally clear implications? ;)

How did American politics become so super-polarized that each side needs to paint the other as a criminal organization Hell-bent on destroying American democracy or/and the American way of life?

[Seek]

Lots of parallels between the US of today and Germany in the 1920's, and we all know how that turned out.

lol that article has more spin than a rifle bullet... Germany in the 20s was a model of democracy?

Parallels? So America has a new government every two weeks? There's fighting between Dems and Reps in the streets?

American whining has reached another peak... :roll:

[cbiwv]

Lots of parallels between the US of today and Germany in the 1920's, and we all know how that turned out.

How do they figure this resembles Nazi Germany? Like the article says they are meeting the needs of those who should not even be in the country. The Nazis took good care of their own. This article is garbage. Two years ago they were claiming the same things about the Republicans and now it's the evil democrats

[seraosha]

How did American politics become so super-polarized that each side needs to paint the other as a criminal organization Hell-bent on destroying American democracy or/and the American way of life?

I believe it was around 2000 when Gore lost to Bush. You can see it still in the way prominent Democrats talk about that election...


"Our democracy is still evolving. You know we've had all kinds of problems in some of our past elections, as you might remember. In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for president was the governor of the state, so we have our problems too," she said.
-Secretary of State, Hillary ClintonI'd be willing to bet that the Republicans have said equally stupid things about this last election as well. But in my opinion, that was the start of the current cycle of idiocy.

Oh and no one can be surprised that Chomsky is going to try and paint Americans as Nazis...it's pretty much same old same old for his ilk.

[Difool]

Some people should read a book about National Socialism before opening there mouth.
It's not that easy defined.

[cbiwv]

Some people should read a book about National Socialism before opening there mouth.
It's not that easy defined.

It makes them look so stupid. Look at some of the old videos. The German people were in love with the Nazis. I have never seen pride like I see in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAkRzilbLeA&feature=channel_page

[dacanadianbomb]

I believe it was around 2000 when Gore lost to Bush. You can see it still in the way prominent Democrats talk about that election...

I'd be willing to bet that the Republicans have said equally stupid things about this last election as well. But in my opinion, that was the start of the current cycle of idiocy.
Oh and no one can be surprised that Chomsky is going to try and paint Americans as Nazis...it's pretty much same old same old for his ilk.

QFT
I tried to read a bit of a book by Chomsky once, and political beliefs aside, what a load of bollocks.

[Atlantic Friend]

QFT
I tried to read a bit of a book by Chomsky once, and political beliefs aside, what a load of bollocks.

'Failed States' was interesting.

[brainplay]

Take a look at Germany. In the 1920s, Germany was the absolute peak of Western civilization, in the arts and the sciences. It was regarded as a model of democracy and so on. I mean, ten years later, it was the depths of barbarism. That was a quick transition. “The descent into barbarism” it’s sometimes called in the scholarly literature.

Now, if you listen to early Nazi propaganda, you know, end of the Weimar Republic and so on, and you listen to talk radio in the United States, which I often do—it's interesting—there's a resemblance. And in both cases, you have a lot of demagogues appealing to people with real grievances.

Grievances aren't invented. I mean, for the American population, the last thirty years have been some of the worst in economic history. It’s a rich country, but real wages have stagnated or declined, working hours have shot up, benefits have gone down, and people are in real trouble and now in very real trouble after the bubbles burst. And they’re angry. And they want to know,
“What happened to me? You know, I'm a hard-working, black/yellow/brown, Liberal voting American. You know, how come this is happening to me?”

That's pretty much the Nazi appeal. The grievances were real. And one of the possibilities is what Keith Olbermann tells you: “Well, it's happening to you because of those bad guys out there.” OK, in the Nazi case, it was the Jews and the Bolsheviks. Here, it's the rich Republicans who run Wall Street and run the media and give everything away to big corporations, and so on and so forth. It sort of peaked during the Bill Clinton period. And it's kind of interesting. It’s been pointed out that of all the politicians, Bill Clinton is the only one who used the phrase “working class.” He was talking to the working people. And yeah, they're the ones who are suffering. So, there are models that are not very attractive.

The problem with Chomsky is that he's a very narrow minded individual who's focus often misses the forest. Everything he says can be generalized into one side or the other as I've shown above. In most cases its relatively easy to invalidate a majority of his ideology.

[wigon]

I actually agree with Brainplay. As a liberal, I'm sickened by Chomsky's over-generalizations under the guise of academic intellecualism and social theory. He runs his mouth on topics that he is NOT an expert on by any means. Yet, like Rush Limbaugh and other political pundits, he is very charasmatic and knows that many liberals love him and hang on his every word. To me he's just another stupid pundit. Even his more academic critiques are based on very little quantitative data or even sound qualitative research.
I got rid of all my Chomsky books a long time ago. Utter garbage for the most part. He should have stuck to linguistics and stayed out of politics because he gives liberals a bad name.

Wigon

[Mackie]

lol that article has more spin than a rifle bullet... Germany in the 20s was a model of democracy?

I see something similar.
Democracy was as popular as socialism. rofl

[Difool]

The German people were in love with the Nazis. I have never seen pride like I see in this video.
When I see girls going crazy while meeting their idols (Backtreet Boys or whatever it's named) I always think of Hitler and his crying female fans. How replacable some things are...

[Difool]

I see something similar.
Democracy was as popular as socialism. rofl
Everything 's been more popular than democracy at that time.

[wigon]

Actually believe it or not, 1920's Germany WAS a model of democracy up until Hitler took over. He was able to take over precisely because it was a democracy much as how Islamic extremists have gained enormous influence in Muslim countries that have tried to establish democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic


Wigon

[Mackie]

Actually believe it or not, 1920's Germany WAS a model of democracy up until Hitler was elected. He was able to take over precisely because it was a democracy much as how Islamic extremists have gained enormous influence in Muslim countries that have tried to establish democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic


Wigon

A fragile construction.

BTW: corrected for you

[cbiwv]

When I see girls going crazy while meeting their idols (Backtreet Boys or whatever it's named) I always think of Hitler and his crying female fans. How replacable some things are...

Looks like they felt as strongly about the soldiers.

[wigon]

A fragile construction.

BTW: corrected for you


Thank you, I stand corrected.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Hahahahaha, there goes old Noam again; the pot calling the kettle black.
God does he crack me up at times. Is he just senile, does he really believe the crap he’s spewing or is he simply an artful propagandist demagogue playing to his chosen followers grievances?

In my opinion the US situation bears closer similarities to Italy just before the rise of the winning Mussolini fascists when a corrupt, expensive, inefficient bureaucracy and legislature became too distant from their voters, closer to cronies, falling prey to the fact that true power is in the people who were busily going their own Communist, Fascist, Republican, etc… directions fed up with Italy’s failing government.

It’s nearly the same thing now. DC the party(s) and their propaganda machines are full of themselves, full of hubris. They’ve fallen into the same public disconnect trap Italy did pandering to what appears the winning team taking license from the winning pluralities mandate to benefit themselves and their cronies, while throwing bones of reward to their minions of the losing pluralities wealth.

This is not a healthy Republic. It’s sick and dying. The mouth pieces of talk radio see it, the bastards in DC see it and the Marxists of the left like Noam see it and urge it on like with this latest piece of crap posting, but several million voters can only see as far as their shrinking 401’s and bank accounts blinding them to the fact that their fear is being used by others to rip them off of even more wealth and liberties while the powers in charge take the lions share.

Talk radio is not the Fascists, the netroots and their allied Marxists are. I know that you are so what am I Noam. Right back at you!

[wigon]

So its ok for conservatives to call leftists fascists but not ok for the leftists to call anyone fascists? President Bush and Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain both approved of the bailout before Obama took over if you don't remember.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/story?id=5891721&page=1

Sorry, but you can't just pin this one on Obama or liberals.
Also people against the bailout refuse to look at what would have likely happened if the bailout had NOT happened. Do you use any form of credit? Does your employer use credit in day to day operations? For the vast majority of Americans the answer is a resounding "yes". With the total collapse of our finance system (elimination of most credit), you would have seen a depression that would have made the Great Depression look rather mild in comparison. Wallstreet, I'm afraid had America and the world by the balls on this one.
Sadly, almost NOTHING has changed as far as curbing the excessive and outright fraudulent schemes on Wallstreet that caused this last mess. Its all still going on as if nothing happened.
I don't like Chomsky at all, but one area I have to agree with him, is that by and large, much of the disasterous policies we have seen is in large part due to the basic fact that money talks in our government and we have corruption at the highest levels in both parties. It is simply covered up under legal campaign contribution loopholes, rider bills, private favors, etc.. etc.. along with an army of lobbiests.

If you place your faith in talk radio pundits, the I'm afraid that they're muddying your vision with finger pointing and fear mongoring while ignoring the root issues. It's not liberalism. It's not conservatism. Its plain greed and corruption in both parties and in our financial system that is built on insane economic principles based on unproven theoretical models and ultimately on "faith". Yes...just like religion...good ol' fashion faith.

Wigon

[Bathinus]

Chomsky has alot of retarded opinions, why should this be any different. American Empire :roll:

[vryhpyammoadded]

So its ok for conservatives to call leftists fascists but not ok for the leftists to call anyone fascists? President Bush and Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain both approved of the bailout before Obama took over if you don't remember.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/story?id=5891721&page=1

Sorry, but you can't just pin this one on Obama or liberals.
Also people against the bailout refuse to look at what would have likely happened if the bailout had NOT happened. Do you use any form of credit? Does your employer use credit in day to day operations? For the vast majority of Americans the answer is a resounding "yes". With the total collapse of our finance system (elimination of most credit), you would have seen a depression that would have made the Great Depression look rather mild in comparison. Wallstreet, I'm afraid had America and the world by the balls on this one.

Sadly, almost NOTHING has changed as far as curbing the excessive and outright fraudulent schemes on Wallstreet that caused this last mess. Its all still going on as if nothing happened.

I don't like Chomsky at all, but one area I have to agree with him, is that by and large, much of the disasterous policies we have seen is in large part due to the basic fact that money talks in our government and we have corruption at the highest levels in both parties. It is simply covered up under legal campaign contribution loopholes, rider bills, private favors, etc.. etc.. along with an army of lobbiests.

If you place your faith in talk radio pundits, the I'm afraid that they're muddying your vision with finger pointing and fear mongoring while ignoring the root issues. It's not liberalism. It's not conservatism. Its plain greed and corruption in both parties and in our financial system that is built on insane economic principles based on unproven theoretical models and ultimately on "faith". Yes...just like religion...good ol' fashion faith.

Wigon
I guess I was too obtuse again thinking what I wrote before the “Talk radio is not the Fascists, the netroots and their allied Marxists are. I know that you are so what am I Noam. Right back at you!” would highlight that it was pure sarcastic vitriol. I have the flu. My blog empathy is set to cranky today.

My gripe is that it appears that the primary factions ruling DC right now are rife with deceitful demagogues more bent on taking people to the philosophical/economic cleaners than to discuss all options. This includes Obama’s faction, the Hills factions, all of them currently in power. I see a lot of Marxist/Fascist; any lie goes to win mentality with hardly anyone offering rational fixes for our problems. It’s not even hard sell, it’s simply my way or the highway and worse, no one in DC, and hardly anywhere else but talk radio, is pointing out the massive elephant in the room labeled, TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT, TOO MUCH CORRUPTION!

For decades I’ve observed and analyzed this Federal monster on my own and finally a small minority of likeminded, disenfranchised, people have caught up and gained enough voice to make this point heard. Sure there will be crooks looking to take advantage and gain control over this faction but I say they are less a driver of this faction than the popular culture is led to think.

Don’t go jump the gun making assumptions that I’m a Rush ditto head. Leftists should realize that I am much more frightening than some pin head entertainer could ever be having come up with similar, less government is more, reasoning “on my own through years of exhaustive study” before talk radio ever hit it big. Rush, Beck, Hannity, Coulter may or may not have other agendas or be tools of some nefarious party/faction assault on the left, I don’t care. They make excellent weapons to serve my purpose helping to potentially reign in this run away, out of control, corrupt, government.

Note: I have yet to use Republican or Democrat, Obama or Bush. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I pin this on everyone! There’s plenty of blame to go around to every voter, every politician, every pundit that supported big, corrupt DC being their bully boy to fill their pockets with other people’s money. The only reason I sound like I blame Obama or the Democrats is because they are the tip of the spear pushing big government at the moment.

Now to answer your bit about suffering…

I have never refused to look at what would have happened should the bailout never occur. In fact I was staring it in the eye about two decades before along with a bunch of others noticing the all too familiar historical patterns emerging. Did the politicians listen, to address this monster before it grew, no. In fact, they did the opposite pouring gas on the economic conflagration with even more stimulus, shipping work overseas and courting the debt culture and continue to do so.

Wall Street and DC are one; the CEO’s bought pet legislators (republicans and Democrats) to unlock the regulatory vaults. It wasn’t deregulation that brought this but BAD regulation. The politicians do not work for you; they only throw bones with the leash hidden behind their backs to nab your liberties when you take the handout.

They wanted this, planned for it and everyone is still falling for it. People brought what’s coming on themselves.

I saw the writing on the wall years ago and prepared through hard work, saving and investing wisely without taking advantage of anyone. I warned others who also prepared and caught hell from those who saw this as weakness to take advantage. I sacrificed and suffered a lot following my path to some modicum of economic independence to survive what I knew was coming. Because of this, I see every extra dollar printed, every tax hike, every meddling bill designed to manipulate "MY" hard earned money as an assault on "MY" families future. I could care less for those who spent it on spinning gold hubcaps and plasma TVs. Sorry but they're runaway debt is there problem, not mine.

Others should have listened, not blindly followed the demagogues and economized. Sorry but I do realize what would have happened and say will still happen and feel sorry for all those people who failed but I stick by my guns that ultimately this government has got to shake the parasites in DC and, therefore, the corruption links to the corporate lobby before it can move on and that is going to require some truly ugly economic times, not more of the SAME™ which the current crop of DC sock puppets offer.
Obama and the 111th are nothing but the same old game and no real change can be had till enough people see this truth and throw the collective babies on the Hill out with the bath water. I do not desire terrible times on people; I know it’s going to happen anyway.

No hate, no fear, just warning everyone to get ready. I’m just a few more months to a year down the road from you are Wigon in my dislike of the rampant corruption. So, yes I agree with a lot you say only that I believe in the quick crackling dust and fearsome times fix is going to happen rather than the long, slow, empty hope, agonizing Japanese economic burn they’re aiming for.

Some greedy little fvck out there is going to see opportunity through all this empty spin and bluster and upset the apple cart; you can count on it, then BOOM, that’s all she wrote for the world economy and quite likely WWIV soon to follow.

[wigon]

Thats when its time to move to a nice quiet little corner of the world that nobody gives a rats ass about. Africa will start looking good I guess since nobody cares about Africans unless they got oil, diamonds, or other mineral resources.

Well, if Obama gets his regulations passed, it would do much to head off further such economic catastrophes but it really should be just the tip of the spear. He needs to entirely overhaul that entire regulatory system which is often made up of people who have conflicts of interest with the U.S. financial industry. The Fox guarding the henhouse mentality MUST change not only in economic regulation, but also in horrifically corrupt departments like the EPA and FDA. The FDA is probably amongst the worst.
However, also keep in mind that big government is not the only one's corrupt. Some of the worst corruption I have EVER seen is in small Texas towns. Some of the dirty politics I have seen in places like Taft, Texas just BLOWS MY MIND! Unbelievable corruption. Hondo, Texas also has some of the most racist politics I've seen in a long time (I helped with my friend's succesful city-council campaign in that town).

It's with things like that where its kinda nice to have handy little non-partisan FBI investigations to sort things out.

As for self-sufficiency... I sadly don't have much for savings (massive student loans and lack of good paying employment are sucking me dry), however I have learned how to do self-sustaining organic gardening in my large back yard which I decided was a waste to just grow useless grass on. I'm also a fairly good hunter and a good shot with a rifle (maintained an expert badge while in the Army). That along with basic skills in carpentry and masonry that I think will serve me well in any economic collapse. One thing I'd love to learn is how to make mud brick structures out of the nasty clay keliche soil in South Texas. I might try making some simple stuctures once I learn more about whether its possible and how to go about the firing techniques. I also have a fairly good knowledge of local herblore regarding what is edible and not edible in the Texas hillcountry. One thing that I still need to find out is how deep the water table is below where I live and if it would feasible to rent a drill to create a basic well of some type for emergency usage.
Water, is I think something that would be terribly crucial.

Wigon

[domokun]

Theoretically speaking Germany was probably most democratic country that participated in WWII, basically all Nazi laws were based on state of emergency ruling and constitution remained same. Practice was bit different that theory.

[wigon]

Yup. Like it or not, Germans loved Hitler. If he had not done the whole genocide thing of ethnic miniorities and had stopped after conquering a few smaller Euroepan nations (and had not been stupid enough to invade Russia), he likely would have gone down as one of the greatest leaders in European history. Sadly he went insane with power and hatred for ethnic minorities. That's the horrible things about most revolutions....they start out with some good ideas and most often end in brutal totalitarian regimes. But also we must realize that ANY nation-state is held together in part by the subtle (or not so subtle) threat of miliary force. That is why we have our military. Even our police forces are military forces that enforce city, state, and federal laws to "keep us in line". Nationalism/Patriotism is an artificial construction that can be either good or evil. When times are good, we want to be part of it. When times are bad or the nation is going on a path we don't agree with...then we want to seperate from it. Thats part of the historical pattern of nation-states. We are no different.

Wigon

[domokun]

he likely would have gone down as one of the greatest leaders in European history. Sadly he went insane with power and hatred for ethnic minorities.

Wigon

I think that he was insane well before he got any grip of real power. Mein Kampf pretty much proves that, besides being quite booring book it lists quite accurately almost all flaws of society of that day. Most of those flaws still exist, but conclusions he made about reasons and solutions for those were quite insane. Everything bad is caused by those filthy and stinking zionist conspirators according to Hitler.

Yep, he was brilliant propagandist and political tactician, thank god he wasn't as good in military tactics and strategy.

[wigon]

I think the next uber-popular American leader will cast all the blame on the Mexicans and use them as a scapegoat to unite the nation, invade Mexico (and the rest of Latin America), and tell the world to piss off. The sad thing is that probably would work. I've never seen a higher degree of anti-Mexican sentiment here in America.

Wigon

[vryhpyammoadded]

Don’t get me started on state and local government corruption. I came to Florida for a job in the CFO’s department and found myself in the capitol offices M-F for three years. I watched these yum yums under Jeb and now Crist descend like locusts on billions in surplus even though I regularly overheard politicians talk about the disastrous economy that was coming.

Some were even joking about getting while the getting was still good!

They turned the budget into an 11 billion shortfall in about a year and rumor has it next years shortfall may be comparable or worse as a percentage of state economy than what California is going through now.

Meanwhile, what do they do to remedy this? Well, they’re about to cut everything critical to the bone while protecting their buddies and cronies pet development projects that happen to cost orders of magnitudes more than firemen and poilce.

By the way, expect around 30000 more unemployed in the news in the following months. Us little people smell big layoffs on the winds. Well, at least much of that will be useless middle management this go around. They made big bucks so no tears, they can handle the economic doldrums.

Hell, if I get the boot, I just might get me a student loan and go back to school until my DOD contract kicks in next year.

Then again I might just take the time off and work on the farm.

[Seek]

Actually believe it or not, 1920's Germany WAS a model of democracy up until Hitler took over. He was able to take over precisely because it was a democracy much as how Islamic extremists have gained enormous influence in Muslim countries that have tried to establish democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic


Wigon

You fail to see that, while being a democracy on paper, germany was ruled by the not so democratic Paul von Hindenburg from 1925 to 1933, who was backed by conservative parties and elected because he was wiewed as a war hero by most Germans. The german constitutuion gave the President too much power, and hindenburg would deliberately dismiss chancellors, their cabinets and the parliament. The people would have to vote again and again, untill hindenburg had a cabinet together that he thought would fit his political wiews. The fact that Germans would rather vote for an apparently "unpolitical" Soldier, who makes up for the loss of the Kaiser, than a politician affiliated to a party, does not make Germany look like a model democracy...

[wigon]

Well Wiki disagrees and we all know Wiki is the be-all-end-all of knowledge.

;)

[Bathinus]

I think the next uber-popular American leader will cast all the blame on the Mexicans and use them as a scapegoat to unite the nation, invade Mexico (and the rest of Latin America), and tell the world to piss off. The sad thing is that probably would work. I've never seen a higher degree of anti-Mexican sentiment here in America.

Wigon

so basicly hitler 2.0

[wigon]

HITLER 2.0 Bigger, better, stronger!

But we're not ready for that yet. We gotta REALLY suffer like have a massive economic collapse. THEN the time will be ripe for scapegoating and fellow Americans will DEMAND JUSTICE AND ACTION!!! We can't blame the New York Jews as thats too obvious and there is that whole holocaust thing. But Mexicans....yes....they area easy targets cuz they're taking the jobs that suddenly Americans will demand when the economy truly fails. Mexican American's will be lumped in with illegals cuz they're just descendants of people who took those jobs. So it'll be a perfect storm I think that will be ripe for a skilled and charasmatic politician to take advantage of. In the 1950's, numerous psychological tests proved that most Americans are capable of following authoritarian leaders to the extent of purposefully hurting fellow citizens under the guise of "following orders".
Like it or not, most of our fellow Americans are sheep of one type or another incapable of critical independent thinking.

Wigon

[LineDoggie]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/crack.jpg

[wigon]

HEY!!! How did you get a picture of me??? Damn CIA...they're everywhere!!!!! (Putting tinfoil hat back on...now they won't read my thoughts).

;)

(picture of me and my cat)
http://www.jessicadunton.com/blog/TinfoilHat.jpg

[vryhpyammoadded]

Naw, the movie will look more like a combination Julius Caesar, Highlander, Jesus Christ, Fall of Rome, Escape from New York sort of thing with a little Three Stooges slapstick and Monty Python crazed, absurdity silliness thrown in.

The Obama will battle the stooges, win, win, win and just when he thinks he’s won the prize… Stick, Stick, Stick…Stick… Attu Hilary? Then Pelosi will nail him to a cross on the Capitol steps for the crowds to boo and hiss, he changed me into a Democrat... I got better, as a giant 16,000,000,000,000 ton mass of funny money shaped like a foot crushes DC.

Then the bidding will begin a new for the throne. Two billion dollars. Four billion… twelve…

The Mexicans will leave in disgust as humanity encircles the US with razor wire and guard towers to keep the loonies from escaping.

[Jacknola]

WTF? "...for the American population, the last thirty years have been some of the worst in economic history..." WTF? He is talking about 1979-2009 isn't he?

What did this self-important asshole do... invest all his cash with his pal, Madorf?

Given such a patently false and rediculous statement presented as a basic tenet of his thesis, why would anyone pay attention to this guy?

[LineDoggie]

Because he's Chomsky, and Chomsky is the darling of the left

[wigon]

Not all the left. I don't like him and alot of leftists I know don't like him cuz he's an arrogant prick. I call people like him "conservative liberals" meaning that yes, they're leftists, but they see things in black and white and refuse to see other people's points of view.

Wigon

[Elbs]

Chomsky is a hack and an imbecile.

[brainplay]

Not all the left. I don't like him and alot of leftists I know don't like him cuz he's an arrogant prick. I call people like him "conservative liberals" meaning that yes, they're leftists, but they see things in black and white and refuse to see other people's points of view.

Wigon

Wait what? Are you saying that conservatism means you only see things in black and white and refuse to see other peoples views? You're from Austin aren't you. Gahh..

[Atlantic Friend]

Chomsky has alot of retarded opinions, why should this be any different. American Empire :roll:

Weren't there quite a few prominent American Conservatives, like Kagan and Kristol and Krauthammer who were either warm to the idea of proclaiming an American Empire, or theorized it?

[Hollis]

Weren't there quite a few prominent American Conservatives, like Kagan and Kristol and Krauthammer who were either warm to the idea of proclaiming an American Empire, or theorized it?


A sliver group does not really represent the main stream. The R's have a strong view in "Peace through Trade", a driving force in the 70's to reach out to China. One might say if there is a push for a empire it is more on a corporate scale, that would not be a nationalist based empire. I can not recall any conservatives advocating a "US Empire". Generally I have only seen that statement coming from the extreme left as a criticism to the US foreign policies. Over time those criticism have been proven wrong.

Generally the worries on the right is a leftist shift in the US. Chomsky is just continuing is usual rant, stuff the Pravada and Gramma was famous for in the 60-70's. I don't think he made it to living in this millennium yet.

[Atlantic Friend]

A sliver group does not really represent the main stream. The R's have a strong view in "Peace through Trade", a driving force in the 70's to reach out to China. One might say if there is a push for a empire it is more on a corporate scale, that would not be a nationalist based empire.

I can not recall any conservatives advocating a "US Empire".

Usually Conservatives thinkers theorizing or advocating an Imperial stance for the US are quick to add that it is/should be radically different from any pre-existing empire.

Actually, come to think of it many of the Conservative US citizens I've met or chatted with about that seem to have a certain ambivalence about the concept. They don't want to be an Empire, but others should nevertheless behave like the US is one.

For example, they're quick to say that they're against an Empire that would be a morass of entangling alliances, and to demand that others shoulder the burden of responsibilities and costs while the American Atlas gets some much-deserved rest. Yet, when another power makes a move in that direction, they're just as quick to denounce it as a move against American interests.

They are also insistent that American power has been mostly used for good, and has been used at the expense of tyranny and at the defense of freedom, which is undoubtedly true. But then there are expectations that this freedom granted to others should somehow make them subordinate to American interests. You can imagine how many times, as a Frenchman haunting mostly American forums, I've had something thrown to me in the lines of "We liberated you from the Germans twice, so when we say 'jump' you should just ask how high" (an almost direct quote here).

Sometimes it feels like the problem is not about the US being an Empire, but about it being openly an Empire.


Generally the worries on the right is a leftist shift in the US. Chomsky is just continuing is usual rant, stuff the Pravada and Gramma was famous for in the 60-70's. I don't think he made it to living in this millennium yet.

Still he makes some good points, I think. Not putting him on a pedestal, but even when I disagree with what he writes, which I regularly did while reading "Failed States", I thought he made his readers think about the whys and the hows of their disagreement.

[Hollis]

The US does have it's issues. I think most people are ethnocentric. "The way we do it, should be the way you do it." Also we need to realize the partisan political world we live in, especially in the West. A massive amount of information that we received in tainted with bias/propaganda. The conservative movement in the US is not monolithic and is torn between isolationism and some kind of global action. The US has power and sometimes it is welded in a clumsy manner. Often because of the conflicts of the internal partisan politics battles between conservatives and liberals in the states.

If we view the past Empires, the US does not fall into those categories. Again the claim is more on a economic bases. Problem with corporations they may or not be nationalistic. Loyalty of the board of directors may have nothing to do with any nation. That lends a hand to the global conspiracies theories, world being controlled by some uber-economic group.

We can look at Europe after WWII, the US was in a very strong position to exert itself over other countries, but did not. Germany eventually was free of foreign oversight/control and reunified.

I think Empire building is just another propaganda scare tactic, not much different than the US is heading to down the road to Communism or fascism, etc. Scare tactics seem to work better at getting people to donate to political causes, protest, etc than words of peace and working together. In any country it doesn't take much to get a certain percentage of people ready to hit the barricades. I think all Western societies chart a path between the two extremes, anarchy and totalitarianism. Societies are not static, so there is always wobbling between the two extremes. At any time alarmists can cry out we are going to the left or to the right.

Example is like the cycles in business, Boom or recession, when and how much? It is a constant cycle, the difference is timing, duration and amplitude.

[Atlantic Friend]

The US does have it's issues. I think most people are ethnocentric. "The way we do it, should be the way you do it." Also we need to realize the partisan political world we live in, especially in the West. A massive amount of information that we received in tainted with bias/propaganda. The conservative movement in the US is not monolithic and is torn between isolationism and some kind of global action. The US has power and sometimes it is welded in a clumsy manner. Often because of the conflicts of the internal partisan politics battles between conservatives and liberals in the states.

Which is good - I found the debate between "neoconservatives" and "paleoconservatives" very interesting, for example, and much to the credit of American democracy. There's an openness when it comes to debating core issues that is admirable, and the appearance of firebrand pundits at each extreme is but a small price to pay for the fact the average American can, if he so chooses, access an incredible amount of information about the way is country is, has been, or should be run, and in which direction it is, has been, or should be led.


If we view the past Empires, the US does not fall into those categories. Again the claim is more on a economic bases. Problem with corporations they may or not be nationalistic. Loyalty of the board of directors may have nothing to do with any nation. That lends a hand to the global conspiracies theories, world being controlled by some uber-economic group.

It's either Bob Bernanke or George Soros doing it, depending on who's complaining. ;)


We can look at Europe after WWII, the US was in a very strong position to exert itself over other countries, but did not. Germany eventually was free of foreign oversight/control and reunified.

It's true - the American Empire, if such a thing exists, is not the Roman Empire. Nor it is the European colonial Empires of the 19th century. And it probably will never devolve into any of these forms.

But I find it interesting that there are enough fears, and enough desires of an Imperial stance that serious people - Kristol, for example - ponder the existence, and the opportunity of an American Empire. The fears I can understand. Given American military and economical might, it's easy to portray the US as an Imperial power ruling over smaller, federated nations. The desire for an Imperial stance I have more trouble understanding. Is it an expression of self-doubt, a part of the old cycle of assertiveness/isolationnism that seems to rythm Americans' views of what US foreign policy should be?

[3rdMillhouse]

I see a 4-page thread dedicated to a discussion over BS that Noam Chomsky said, so, in that sense, one sentence comes to my mind:

"Successful Troll is successful."

[Atlantic Friend]

I see a 4-page thread dedicated to a discussion over BS that Noam Chomsky said, so, in that sense, one sentence comes to my mind:

"Successful Troll is successful."

The sentence that comes to my mind is something like : if you absolutely refuse to discuss the issue the thread is about, why show up?

[3rdMillhouse]

The sentence that comes to my mind is something like : if you absolutely refuse to discuss the issue the thread is about, why show up?

Because I want to.

[Hollis]

But I find it interesting that there are enough fears, and enough desires of an Imperial stance that serious people - Kristol, for example - ponder the existence, and the opportunity of an American Empire. The fears I can understand. Given American military and economical might, it's easy to portray the US as an Imperial power ruling over smaller, federated nations. The desire for an Imperial stance I have more trouble understanding. Is it an expression of self-doubt, a part of the old cycle of assertiveness/isolationnism that seems to rythm Americans' views of what US foreign policy should be?


I think that is human nature, that comes with power, age and 'importance". A desire to make it work and use that power to by-pass or side step the 'democratic' process and force it to work. Sort of the Bureaucratic way of doing things. Maybe a paradox, the desire to have a ruler, but only if the ruler is oneself. A desire to have things done efficiently. Democracies is anything but efficient compare to a central power. Like everyone of us, some days we can take on the world, the next day we want to hide under our beds. Our governments are just a extension of our collective Psyche.

The other natural tendency is those who have the feeling of being unable to stop or to do something can cause distrust of those in power or with the power. Like when Reagan was president and said winning a tactical nuclear war (in Europe) was possible cause a great deal of concern in Europe. Europeans found themselves between the hammer and anvil of two major powers with the inability to do anything to stop those two powers from acting. I am not sure if Reagan understood what he just did, but he did show the Soviets that there would never being another invasion of the Russia and that they no longer needed to maintain the buffer states to protect them from such a invasion. The up side it led to opening of the Eastern Europe and the down side added a lot to the Anti-US sentiments in Europe. No one likes the feeling of helplessness.

[Hollis]

Because I want to.


Then don't go trolling yourself. :-(

[Atlantic Friend]

The other natural tendency is those who have the feeling of being unable to stop or to do something can cause distrust of those in power or with the power. Like when Reagan was president and said winning a tactical nuclear war (in Europe) was possible cause a great deal of concern in Europe.

True, that. We had a mirror debate, much smaller, about French tactical nuclear weapons because we were adopting the same stance - they are tools to win the war - and the Germans were understandably much cooler about the prospect of winning anything in such a manner.



The up side it led to opening of the Eastern Europe and the down side added a lot to the Anti-US sentiments in Europe. No one likes the feeling of helplessness.

Or of being sacrificed to pull someone else's chestnuts from the fire, indeed.

[wigon]

Wait what? Are you saying that conservatism means you only see things in black and white and refuse to see other peoples views? You're from Austin aren't you. Gahh..


Hahaha...nah I actually don't like Austin aside from a few things (like random mobs of people riding bikes with wierd blinking lights in the middle of the night which I thought was insanely funny the last time I was there).
I should have clarified that what I meant by conservative liberal is a very literal usage of the word as in "restrictive in thought, stubborn, traditional, slow to change" which yes at times does apply to many conservatives. Just like there are tons of idiotic hippy, tree-hugging, gun-hating, liberals who smoke waaaay too much weed and need to stop procreating and get a job, there are plenty of conservatives who fall under every stereotype of a conservative good or bad. But for the sake of political correctness (ah I'm acting liberal again), I probably should call people like Chomsky, "Fascist Liberals" or something. I didn't only because on this forum, all liberals tend to be called "fascists" so it kinda loses its meaning. lol

At least you're not as bad as one academic I'm debating with on another forum who went ballistic because I called Bush and Cheney "Neo-Cons". He refused to debate the original issue and just spent half a dozen posts demanding that I not use that word because I was using it incorrectly and that true Neo Cons were actually communists (started by Trotskyists), etc... etc... I was just like, "Dude...every regular person calls people like **** Cheney, a neocon. It's common usage...get over it. If I called him a Neo-Liberal, then normal people just get confused."
But he insists on the appropriate academic usage of political terminology on a non-academic forum. lol
Ah those crazy college kids...

Wigon

[maw]

Hahaha...nah I actually don't like Austin aside from a few things (like random mobs of people riding bikes with wierd blinking lights in the middle of the night which I thought was insanely funny the last time I was there).
I should have clarified that what I meant by conservative liberal is a very literal usage of the word as in "restrictive in thought, stubborn, traditional, slow to change" which yes at times does apply to many conservatives. Just like there are tons of idiotic hippy, tree-hugging, gun-hating, liberals who smoke waaaay too much weed and need to stop procreating and get a job, there are plenty of conservatives who fall under every stereotype of a conservative good or bad. But for the sake of political correctness (ah I'm acting liberal again), I probably should call people like Chomsky, "Fascist Liberals" or something. I didn't only because on this forum, all liberals tend to be called "fascists" so it kinda loses its meaning. lol

At least you're not as bad as one academic I'm debating with on another forum who went ballistic because I called Bush and Cheney "Neo-Cons". He refused to debate the original issue and just spent half a dozen posts demanding that I not use that word because I was using it incorrectly and that true Neo Cons were actually communists (started by Trotskyists), etc... etc... I was just like, "Dude...every regular person calls people like **** Cheney, a neocon. It's common usage...get over it. If I called him a Neo-Liberal, then normal people just get confused."
But he insists on the appropriate academic usage of political terminology on a non-academic forum. lol
Ah those crazy college kids...

Wigon

the term neo con applies to the teachings/writings of leo strauss.

[maw]

If we view the past Empires, the US does not fall into those categories. Again the claim is more on a economic bases. Problem with corporations they may or not be nationalistic. Loyalty of the board of directors may have nothing to do with any nation. That lends a hand to the global conspiracies theories, world being controlled by some uber-economic group.

I think Empire building is just another propaganda scare tactic, not much different than the US is heading to down the road to Communism or fascism, etc. Scare tactics seem to work better at getting people to donate to political causes, protest, etc than words of peace and working together. In any country it doesn't take much to get a certain percentage of people ready to hit the barricades. I think all Western societies chart a path between the two extremes, anarchy and totalitarianism. Societies are not static, so there is always wobbling between the two extremes. At any time alarmists can cry out we are going to the left or to the right.

Hollis, the definition of an empire has changed. the world has changed, today you can jump in a plane and travel great distances in a matter of hours, therefore the need to apply overt force has diminished. in the past if you wanted to influence people you needed boots on the ground. today influence can be applied through much more subtle means.

but let let's discuss the overt means for a moment, according to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. keep in mind that this was from 2003, these numbers have grown. another consideration is that the 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. the report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan.

"On Okinawa, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries."

there are something like 180 countries on the planet. the US has bases (officially) in 130 of them. to a casual observer it would be hard not to perceive american foreign policies as imperialist. just sayin'.

[wigon]

the term neo con applies to the teachings/writings of leo strauss.

True, but he inists that they are commies because they were preceded by "New Conservatives" who were led by left-wing socialists like Max Shactman, who was a Trotskyists. Go figure. At any rate, the average American doesn't even know who Leo Strauss is and most likely would have him confused with the Levi Strauss who made blue jeans (not Claude Levi Strauss who was a famous anthropologist). lol!

From experience on this forum, I've found that spouting off about political/social theory in a "know it all" fashion to someone who has no background in it tends to make you look like a jerk and an elitist to everyone else.

Wigon

[DS73]

I think that is human nature, that comes with power, age and 'importance". A desire to make it work and use that power to by-pass or side step the 'democratic' process and force it to work. Sort of the Bureaucratic way of doing things. Maybe a paradox, the desire to have a ruler, but only if the ruler is oneself. A desire to have things done efficiently. Democracies is anything but efficient compare to a central power. Like everyone of us, some days we can take on the world, the next day we want to hide under our beds. Our governments are just a extension of our collective Psyche.
Or it can be the part of internal political struggle for much smaller but actual perks in internal american politics. The notorious message "(country) Strong!!!!11111" is always appealing to the specific part of population. Apparently modern USA have quite a few of such people. "Forgotten to grow up teenagers"?

America is not unique neither anyhow too special country. All craziness, idiocy, and the "importance" bigotry common for any other country (say France with "We need to be in Africa" crap) is quite common for american politics as well.

Democracy institutions can be efficient and sufficiently centralized. If population is normal (has more commonalities than differences in different population's strata) and has sufficient situation awareness they can quite democratically choose the right leader and austerity measures in the case of troubles. You can find enough examples in the history of your own country.

The problem of modern American society is, it is fragmented way too much.
This problem is aggravated by universal bigotry and total incompetence of mass media sources. I can't name any american newspaper or TV station that is actually worth to be used as reliable source. None.



The other natural tendency is those who have the feeling of being unable to stop or to do something can cause distrust of those in power or with the power. Like when Reagan was president and said winning a tactical nuclear war (in Europe) was possible cause a great deal of concern in Europe.
Reagan administration was fed from the same source and used the same people as Bush jr. group have. No wonder Reagan left kind of similar memories outside of USA.



Europeans found themselves between the hammer and anvil of two major powers with the inability to do anything to stop those two powers from acting. I am not sure if Reagan understood what he just did, but he did show the Soviets that there would never being another invasion of the Russia and that they no longer needed to maintain the buffer states to protect them from such a invasion. The up side it led to opening of the Eastern Europe and the down side added a lot to the Anti-US sentiments in Europe. No one likes the feeling of helplessness.
Sorry, but I have no idea where did you get this stuff. Nuclear war was permanent threat for w. Europe. Since pretty much of invention of MAD or even earlier since discussions about "limited nuclear war". Reagan was never original. His novelty was the way of wording and actual persistence with pushing for stronger confrontation.

Eastern Europe was sold out by commi leaders. It was exchanged for british boarding schools and yachts in Caribbean. The fact and mere possibility of the purchase depended on russian side exclusively. Any american administration would go for that.


Anti-US sentiments grew in 90s when USA failed to adjust properly their policies to the realities of one-polar world. You can directly see huge difference in anti-american sentiments between older European generations who remember cold war and younger people. Young europeans (now in their twenties) are indeed crazy. For older generations it depends on political affiliations.


There is nothing to tell about just another Chomsky's crap.
PreHitler Germany was anything but democratic(the mere fact that the germans had to drag von Hindenburg into politic says volumes: there were no normal political forces, neither there was any political dialog which is essential for democratic process). USA as well have no prerequisites for national level nazism. There is no national unique cultural/language identity per se in USA. No starting point.

[Hollis]

Sorry, but I have no idea where did you get this stuff. Nuclear war was permanent threat for w. Europe. Since pretty much of invention of MAD or even earlier since discussions about "limited nuclear war". Reagan was never original. His novelty was the way of wording and actual persistence with pushing for stronger confrontation.




Probably because I was very much involved in Politics at the time. I didn't have to read about it. I also don't think Reagan was the power, he was the pretty face.

[DS73]

Hollis, the definition of an empire has changed. the world has changed, today you can jump in a plane and travel great distances in a matter of hours, therefore the need to apply overt force has diminished. in the past if you wanted to influence people you needed boots on the ground. today influence can be applied through much more subtle means.

but let let's discuss the overt means for a moment, according to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. keep in mind that this was from 2003, these numbers have grown. another consideration is that the 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. the report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan.

"On Okinawa, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries."

there are something like 180 countries on the planet. the US has bases (officially) in 130 of them. to a casual observer it would be hard not to perceive american foreign policies as imperialist. just sayin'.
It's always good to mention sources of used quotes.
I believe this piece of sh&t is written by Chalmers Johnson.

Being chronically curious I checked his statements.
In 2008 report Okinawa facilities are broken down into separated geographically distinguished unites and obviously Futerma is mentioned.
In 2003 report Okinawa facilities are mentioned as surprise surprise Okinawa facilities with correct number of used buildings and such.
Relevant quote explaining difference between reports:
"If the site is located in a foreign country, it must be larger than 10 acres or have a PRV greater than10$mil. to be shown as a separate entry. As a result of implementing the site registry the number of DoD sites increased approximately 100 from last year's report."

Camp Bondsteel doesn't belong to USA, it was built by americans as their efforts for KFOR and it's the part of KFOR i.e. NATO. Obviously it is home not only for american troops (Croatians etc.)
The similar case with all other mentioned countires. Stretches and lies.
For example search on "Al Udeid" provides:
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/12/world/fg-base12
Relevant quote:"...The Qatar Emiri Air Force owns and operates the base. ..."

[DS73]

Probably because I was very much involved in Politics at the time. I didn't have to read about it. I also don't think Reagan was the power, he was the pretty face.
Sorry.
It is found that eye witnesses change their memories and descriptions accordingly with "established opinion" and "found facts".
That how some end with "policia" in Swedish waters.

Actually I find myself all the time trying to "colour" or "overgeneralize" my memories :|.

Are you sure that your current statement is drawn from your relevant in-time experiences and not from your current post-knowledge?

From everything I read being supplemented by discussions etc. I have the impression that the perception Europe vs. USA problems started with ascending EU that was (is?) considered to be a threat by american concervatives. Pretty contemporary events that are still happening in post Cold War Era.

[maw]

True, but he inists that they are commies because they were preceded by "New Conservatives" who were led by left-wing socialists like Max Shactman, who was a Trotskyists. Go figure. At any rate, the average American doesn't even know who Leo Strauss is and most likely would have him confused with the Levi Strauss who made blue jeans (not Claude Levi Strauss who was a famous anthropologist). lol!

From experience on this forum, I've found that spouting off about political/social theory in a "know it all" fashion to someone who has no background in it tends to make you look like a jerk and an elitist to everyone else.

Wigon

i've read some of his works and to this day i still don't know what he truly believed in, but he certainly wasn't a communist, he despised communism but his greatest disdain was directed towards the stagnation of morality in american society. also, he didn't mind using political factions against each other so his political alignment is even further drawn into question. i think it's reasonable to say that the trend of polarizing political discussion into us vs. them and good vs. evil was his creation.

[maw]

It's always good to mention sources of used quotes.
I believe this piece of sh&t is written by Chalmers Johnson.

Being chronically curious I checked his statements.
In 2008 report Okinawa facilities are broken down into separated geographically distinguished unites and obviously Futerma is mentioned.
In 2003 report Okinawa facilities are mentioned as surprise surprise Okinawa facilities with correct number of used buildings and such.
Relevant quote explaining difference between reports:
"If the site is located in a foreign country, it must be larger than 10 acres or have a PRV greater than10$mil. to be shown as a separate entry. As a result of implementing the site registry the number of DoD sites increased approximately 100 from last year's report."

Camp Bondsteel doesn't belong to USA, it was built by americans as their efforts for KFOR and it's the part of KFOR i.e. NATO. Obviously it is home not only for american troops (Croatians etc.)
The similar case with all other mentioned countires. Stretches and lies.
For example search on "Al Udeid" provides:
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/12/world/fg-base12
Relevant quote:"...The Qatar Emiri Air Force owns and operates the base. ..."

"piece of sh&t"?

if you'd have read the original article (i believe it was in the nation) you'd have known johnson was quoting text from one of his award winning books. you'd also have understood the context of his comment. specifically, his point was that the official figures were in all likelihood low-balled, which is probably true. keep in mind johnson had worked for the cia and therefore had first hand experience of seeing the real nature of american foreign policy, the policy that was excluded from the majority of the american population. also based on his background in the navy, the cia and tenured academia he's also probably more qualified at interpreting dod structure reports than either of us. but lets omit this "controversial" part of my post and focus on the part that isn't up for interpretation:

"according to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. keep in mind that this was from 2003, these numbers have grown. another consideration is that the 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. the report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan. "

once again, there are something like 180 countries on the planet. the US has bases (officially) in 130 of them. to a casual observer it would be hard not to perceive american foreign policies as imperialist. just sayin'.

[Mastermind]

It is about the resistance between nationalism and globalism.

Look at the liberals. They are seemingly so fully enlightened. They see utopia around just about every corner. If only the filthy unwashed masses of people who love this nation and what it stands for and the freedom it protects would just get the hell out of the way.

All liberals believe they are the only ones with vision...all others not on their cocktail party lists are just ignorant and blind. Kerry epitomized it..."I can not believe I am losing to this idiot!" And, that political writer for the Times...I forget her name at the moment..."How can this be that Bush is winning...no one I know would ever vote for him!"

They live in an echo chamber...they surround themselves with their own choir in their own church and noting is ever allowed to come between their dreams and reality.

They preach, as Obama does so well, of sweet nothings and promises...but, they never have anything of real substance to offer. Just confused, overly complex, exorbitantly expensive, plans of utter impracticability that would only work if they could turn the entire nation into one big concentration camp. They can't even win an argument on important issues without resorting to re-definitions, subterfuges, subject changing, answering questions with questions and in the last gasp, name calling.

The pitiful conservatives, patriots, lovers of heritage and freedom...those who just never seem to get on the liberal train, are always referred to in comparison to the monsters of the past...the liberals constantly try to dehumanize them..to paint them with broad strokes as brutes, killers of the environment, haters of Mother Gaia and racists.

And, they are never, ever happy people, these liberals. They fear everything. A warm summer day is a sign the earth is ending. A ride in the country, is a gun to the head of the "Goddess" of the environment; a shout against abortion, is a threat to the freedom of women; and to call a lying president a liar is an utter abomination.

So, now we conservatives are Nazis...called that by a man who would destroy our republic, who despises our constitution, who, in the name of all man kind, is ashamed to call himself an American and would look at people who are proud of that nationality as conniving capitalistic en-slavers of the downtrodden.

I would wear that label proudly...that hated name of "Nazi" - if I knew it would save my nation from the likes of liberal dreamers and haters of freedom like that idiot Chomsky.

[wigon]

It is about the resistance between nationalism and globalism.

Look at the liberals. They are seemingly so fully enlightened. They see utopia around just about every corner. If only the filthy unwashed masses of people who love this nation and what it stands for and the freedom it protects would just get the hell out of the way.

All liberals believe they are the only ones with vision...all others not on their cocktail party lists are just ignorant and blind. Kerry epitomized it..."I can not believe I am losing to this idiot!" And, that political writer for the Times...I forget her name at the moment..."How can this be that Bush is winning...no one I know would ever vote for him!"

They live in an echo chamber...they surround themselves with their own choir in their own church and noting is ever allowed to come between their dreams and reality.

They preach, as Obama does so well, of sweet nothings and promises...but, they never have anything of real substance to offer. Just confused, overly complex, exorbitantly expensive, plans of utter impracticability that would only work if they could turn the entire nation into one big concentration camp. They can't even win an argument on important issues without resorting to re-definitions, subterfuges, subject changing, answering questions with questions and in the last gasp, name calling.

The pitiful conservatives, patriots, lovers of heritage and freedom...those who just never seem to get on the liberal train, are always referred to in comparison to the monsters of the past...the liberals constantly try to dehumanize them..to paint them with broad strokes as brutes, killers of the environment, haters of Mother Gaia and racists.

And, they are never, ever happy people, these liberals. They fear everything. A warm summer day is a sign the earth is ending. A ride in the country, is a gun to the head of the "Goddess" of the environment; a shout against abortion, is a threat to the freedom of women; and to call a lying president a liar is an utter abomination.

So, now we conservatives are Nazis...called that by a man who would destroy our republic, who despises our constitution, who, in the name of all man kind, is ashamed to call himself an American and would look at people who are proud of that nationality as conniving capitalistic en-slavers of the downtrodden.

I would wear that label proudly...that hated name of "Nazi" - if I knew it would save my nation from the likes of liberal dreamers and haters of freedom like that idiot Chomsky.


Dude, that's way too big of a paint brush. That's like me calling all conservatives neo-conservatives. Chomsky upholds the stereotype of a liberal. True most of us liberals believe in environmental protection, but so do alot of conserative libertarians. Most liberals I know are also pretty happy doing yoga, zen meditation, excercising regularly, and (the less hyproctical ones) being involved in social programs helping the poor or some type of community service. I don't know too many who are against cars, but most definitely believe in buying more environmentally friendly cars. As for abortion, yeah that stereotype holds true although most liberals when asked if abortion is a good thing, will say no. I don't believe in abortion, but I don't believe in banning it for a wide range of reasons that is for a whole other thread. However I strongly believe in doing everything to prevent as few abortions as possible occuring by providing alternatives (adoption, government subsidized day care for low income single moms so they can work, etc..) and by encouraging a combination of abstinance until marriage education COMBINED with good *** education that includes good information birth-control and safe *** practices. More condom usage = many less unwanted pregnancies. Its also been proven that absitence only education doesn't work. I've known quite a few young conservative women who actually refuse to use condoms for religious reasons.
With that said, yeah liberals tend to be alot more open minded about ***.
But so are Europeans and they tend to have vastly smaller numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
Another true stereotype is that liberals hate guns. Yeah most do. But not all. I don't hate them. I love 'em. There are also plenty of liberals in our military. As for dehumanizing conservatives, aren't you kinda doing the same thing by demonizing them? Some conservative leaders rightfully should be called monsters. I'm sorry, people like **** Cheney are outright bastards.
Bush I actually like as a person mainly because most of the people that have ever known him or worked for him have all said that they he was a wonderful guy. The people who worked in the Texas governors mansion for example said that he was WAAAY nicer then Anne Richards and that he knew them all by name and bothered to ask them how their families were doing. I just think he made alot of bad decisions as President.

Finally conservatives don't have a monopoloy on patriotism. Most liberals (aside from far left nuts like Chomsky) LOVE America and serve this country in a wide variety of ways. However we also tend to be a little more wary of blind nationalism and actually care about the rest of the world as well to varying degrees. I'm more of a isolationalist myself, but that doesn't mean I won't support international disaster relief efforts, development work, and other positive foreign policies that don't interfere with another nation's sovereignty (and where we are wanted).
At any rate, just because we are more sympathetic to the poor, are critical of the abuses of capitalism, are tolerant of other religions, and don't eat so much red meat doesn't make liberals un-patriotic.
Its easy to call someone with a political belief that you think will ruin the country, unpatriotic. But by that same token a liberal could call you unpatriotic cuz they think that the political beliefs you advocate are ruining the country.
Finally, the fact of the matter is that liberals tend to be more educated. That's just a simple fact. It could be argued that its because universities are breeding grounds for liberalism and liberal brain-washing. But it could just be that when you know more stuff about how the world works, that you tend to question things alot more. I'm not saying that all conservatives are uneducated. Many here have all kinds of degrees and are highly educated. I'm talking more about the great bastions of conservatism in the South full of regular working class folks who never had the opportunity to go to college or never felt the need to.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america

Now, what I find fascinating however is that often liberals and conservatives often agree upon the same things and just don't realize. Like big government for example. Most liberals are fine with government social programs, but are not exactly crazy about the government running everything. If anything that's very scary for most liberals. Liberals are also VERY VERY MUCH against the government legislating morality. I think most conservatives would agree that morality is something that should be taught at home or that should stay in the bedroom and not in the courts. Otherwise shifts in governments can result in all kinds of crazy morality laws being passed such as a ban on hunting because its evil and immoral.
Most liberals are also very much in support of REAL family values such as laws protecting maternity leave time for pregnant mothers, keeping government subsidized school lunch programs for children from low-income families, fighting for a clean environment for their children, and supporting labor laws regulating the number of hours you can be forced to work so that we have more time to spend with our families and actually enjoying life.
Most conservatives I think can support such things as long as they're not advocated with big flags with red star on it and calls for a socialist revolution.

When it comes down to it, much of the fighting between conservatives and liberals boils down to a lack of communication and way too many assumptions about who and what the other person represents.

Wigon

[maw]

Most liberals (aside from far left nuts like Chomsky)

chomsky is neither a liberal or leftist nut.

[Hollis]

Actually I find myself all the time trying to "colour" or "overgeneralize" my memories :|.



I noticed you like to overgeneralize.

[Ought Six]

C:
"I think he is giving the far right wing too much credit. Yes, they do have a following, but I don't believe they will have any real political clout for the next 10 years or perhaps even longer."Really? So then I guess it must have been the liberals who killed the 'public option' in Obama's healthcare plan that he and Pelosi campaigned so very hard for? :roll:

The conservatives are always a power, especially within the Senate. Keep in mind two things; some Democrats are conservatives, and the neocons who control the Republican political machine are not conservatives. So conservatives have not been in power for quite a while, but they have had a tremendous political influence in America all along.

[Hollis]

chomsky is neither a liberal or leftist nut.


I think you find that he throws himself in the leftest camp as some kind of a higher level of a socialist. I agree he is not a liberal in the US political meaning. I do think he is a leftist. I tend not to place American liberals in the leftest camp.

[maw]

I think you find that he throws himself in the leftest camp as some kind of a higher level of a socialist. I agree he is not a liberal in the US political meaning. I do think he is a leftist. I tend not to place American liberals in the leftest camp.

hi HOLLiS,
prior to bush II, chomsky had voted republican almost just as many times as democrat. he specifically, touts the admirable traits of conservatism (small government) and speaks positively of the goldwater republicans. today he refers to himself as an anarchist but only because he see's all governments eventually evolving into complex power structures that control/oppress the people. i see him as someone who's deviated towards anarchy through libertarianism and because of his exhaustive documentation of human rights abuses by various states (both democratic and communist), someone who has become very cynical of governments and institutionalized power structures.

[3rdMillhouse]

hi HOLLiS,
prior to bush II, chomsky had voted republican almost just as many times as democrat. he specifically, touts the admirable traits of conservatism (small government) and speaks positively of the goldwater republicans. today he refers to himself as an anarchist but only because he see's all governments eventually evolving into complex power structures that control/oppress the people. i see him as someone who's deviated towards anarchy through libertarianism and because of his exhaustive documentation of human rights abuses by various states (both democratic and communist), someone who has become very cynical of governments and institutionalized power structures.

I have yet to see Noam Chomsky denouncing human's rights violation on a communist nation.

[Hollis]

hi HOLLiS,
prior to bush II, chomsky had voted republican almost just as many times as democrat. he specifically, touts the admirable traits of conservatism (small government) and speaks positively of the goldwater republicans. today he refers to himself as an anarchist but only because he see's all governments eventually evolving into complex power structures that control/oppress the people. i see him as someone who's deviated towards anarchy through libertarianism and because of his exhaustive documentation of human rights abuses by various states (both democratic and communist), someone who has become very cynical of governments and institutionalized power structures.


He is obviously a outsider. Leftists that I met, speak more highly of conservatives than they do liberals. Many see liberals as cooping out. Liberals in the US, tend to be middle of the road conservatives (capitalists)

There is a evolution of leftest political thought. Regardless of what system one has, power corrupts people. Government just allows a single person/group to amass an inordinate amount of power. Libertarians in a way are neo-anarchist type of "capitalists". Like communists, capitalist and friends who sees the other systems as inherently evil and theirs as divine, Libertarians see government as inherently evil. I tend to think it is human nature that in the right environment whether it is drunk with drugs or with power, it will lead to a corrupted system/person.


I guess the evolution to leftest thought is part of the dream of communism being the salvation of human kind only became a pariah when communist eventually was able to obtain or seize power. In many was Communism, Socialism and capitalism agree on basic needs of industry it is who owns and controls them. Democratic centralism of the Communism failed to keep the power out of the hands of a few and maintain it in the hands of the people.

[GB_FXST]

chomsky is neither a liberal or leftist nut.

He is an evil little man, who most likely suffers from a mental deficiency and disorder.



I have yet to see Noam Chomsky denouncing human's rights violation on a communist nation.

Isn’t that the truth, and so very telling about his true motives.

[maw]

I have yet to see Noam Chomsky denouncing human's rights violation on a communist nation.

how many communist nations are there? seriously, one perhaps. besides i've seen him give a critical discussion on china. i'll see if i can find the vid. but i'm not sure it matters much, he resides in the west and he's an observer of the western form of governance. does the fact that he hasn't written books critiquing the chinese purges where between 20 and 75 million chinese were killed under mao zedong in someway invalidate his other work? that chain of reasoning doesn't work for me. if you think that he's a communist then i'm sorry, you haven't read enough of his work.

[maw]

Libertarians in a way are neo-anarchist type of "capitalists".

i like that. i find myself being opposed to large institutionalized government structure exactly because the points you mentioned. libertarianism has its appeal, but i think chomsky's path has warped him.

[Hollis]

i like that. i find myself being opposed to large institutionalized government structure exactly because the points you mentioned. libertarianism has its appeal, but i think chomsky's path has warped him.


I was listening to a speaker at the local University, his comment was; "When ever the government serves the needs of the people, it is never too big. When ever the government serves a single (special interest) group, regardless of how small it is, it is too big".. (kind of the way it went).

IMHO, Libertarianism, Socialism, Communism, etc all have appeal, they all seem to suffer from a commonality, Human behavior. The ability of people to corrupt a good thing for their own personal interest.

[3rdMillhouse]

does the fact that he hasn't written books critiquing the chinese purges where between 20 and 75 million chinese were killed under mao zedong in someway invalidate his other work?

It does.

12343454

[DS73]

i've read some of his works and to this day i still don't know what he truly believed in, but he certainly wasn't a communist, he despised communism but his greatest disdain was directed towards the stagnation of morality in american society. also, he didn't mind using political factions against each other so his political alignment is even further drawn into question. i think it's reasonable to say that the trend of polarizing political discussion into us vs. them and good vs. evil was his creation.
If you read his works or interviews you would know that he is an anarchist, at least he considers himself as such.

In my opinion he is typical trotskyist..
Actually I am curious what do you consider to be communist views.

Chomsky never invented anything in his life,and his polarization
"rhetoric" was never original. Such people never have time for dull inventing.

He's got access to media after very apealing "discovery" of "universal grammar" which if true would have fantastic concequences in social science. Everything next he did was his exploitation of acquired public attention.
His concerns with morality never stopped him to manipulate his arguments, or support any anti american actions or simply lie. For example I highly doubt he ever voiced any concerns about Vietnamese left behind in South Vietnam.

[DS73]

"piece of sh&t"?

if you'd have read the original article (i believe it was in the nation) you'd have known johnson was quoting text from one of his award winning books.
Since when "award winning" implies accuracy? Have this world being finally transited into "entitlement" world? Somehow I have missed that.. I thought that any presented information should be measured by it's relevance to reality and any statement has to be confronted with facts. This "article" miserably fails trivial check. If beside reading left sites you would bother checking original sources they "quote", you would find that quite reqularly these "revolutionaries" simply lie, misinterpret and fake data. Just like it's happened in this case. I've presented example.



you'd also have understood the context of his comment. specifically, his point was that the official figures were in all likelihood low-balled, which is probably true. keep in mind johnson had worked for the cia and therefore had first hand experience of seeing the real nature of american foreign policy, the policy that was excluded from the majority of the american population. also based on his background in the navy, the cia and tenured academia he's also probably more qualified at interpreting dod structure reports than either of us. but lets omit this "controversial" part of my post and focus on the part that isn't up for interpretation:
What cia background does he actually have? Why his "experience" would have any special weight anyway? I already presented that he literally misinterpreted (obviously because of political bias) statistical government backed data. The stuff he states is not there, and the stuff he claims is omitted shouldn't be there in the first place.

Btw. The assumption that any official figures are "low-balled" etc. is ridiculous and is pretty much sufficient statement of your retardness. These data can be somehow incomplete or specifically chosen (using specific criteria like site's size or the type of political agreements), but in either case any and every assumption has to be checked.
This is the basic action if you want to present something beyond your personal "believes". To check your "idea".


I for one have no slightest idea why this data could be not accurate.
They do it for themselves in the first place.
In either case the assumption that american goverment is capable to do undercover illegal (and misstating state property definitely is crime) state level activities is ridiculous. Already because of it's (government) size and multiple parallel agencies who, beside everything else, don't exactly like each other.



"according to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. keep in mind that this was from 2003, these numbers have grown. another consideration is that the 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. the report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan. "

once again, there are something like 180 countries on the planet. the US has bases (officially) in 130 of them. to a casual observer it would be hard not to perceive american foreign policies as imperialist. just sayin'.Dude did you read my post?
Anyway I think american goverment are just stupid not to sue such "discoverers" for libel. This would give some cheep publicity and provide I think necessary political ground recovery. The level of noise is incredible.

To complement my previous post:
Did you read this base structure 2003 yourself? I've looked.
6700 locations are in total. There is no indication about number of countries involved. But it's far from 130 (you can count as they are all listed). More detailed 2007's report states there are 39 countries. While it's a lot it's not incredibly different from Russia just some years ago. Considering current Chinese involvement in Africa (most remarkable by it's consequences is Sudan) I see them catching up with the americans in notime.

Due to specific counting these "locations" in 2003 report differ in size from few buildings in expensive cities to huge islands like Okinawa. And this inventory lists real property owned or leased by USA, so obviously the bases, like in Qatar where the americans are literally guests or like in Iraq where they are post war occupants, are not listed.
They are not listed because they are not the subject of this report (which is real property inventory) and not because they are "forgotten". Something that would be immediately noticed by anybody who ever did any reasonable counting research job, something this Chalmers Johnson claims he did.
If this "professor" would want to talk about actual presence of american soldiers, there is nothing better than the counting of postal mil. codes since they reflect with 100% accuracy long term presence of enlisted personal in sufficient details (geographical, administrative and logistic separation). But this "CIA" dude obviously is too smart for that. He needs to find lies and "fight with the system".
I am scared to check what he writes about China and such....Because I am sure it's not any different in it's quality or relevance to facts.


Some small remark:
Any intestate action involves at least two countries, the fact which is conveniently forgotten by the idiots baffling about American imperialism.
Even in Iraq the american presence is regulated by the agreements with current Iraq government and these agreements are far from what USA officials would like to have. If local established l33t is against american presence the americans do leave, if american l33t doesn't see ++ in staying they do leave. In either case the american government is just one side in existing agreements and political environment. Far from always the dictating side.
There are plenty of cases when local goverments succesfully suck good bonuses for rather limited perks they allegedly provide.

[DS73]

He is obviously a outsider. Leftists that I met, speak more highly of conservatives than they do liberals. Many see liberals as cooping out. Liberals in the US, tend to be middle of the road conservatives (capitalists)

I find american political system very confusing. Two parties are divided by some not easily explainable differences and are better characterized by lobbies they serve (finances for Democrats and industry for Republicans) than any political beliefs they claim they protect.



There is a evolution of leftest political thought. Regardless of what system one has, power corrupts people.
Any exceptional circumstances expose people internals, the core, they have. Doesn't matter war, dark grief, the exceptional luck or of course the access to power. People don't really show them self in ordinary circumstances as stereotype socially induced behavior hides their real motives and desires.


Government just allows a single person/group to amass an inordinate amount of power.
In every case they get as much they are given by everybody else.
If population is ready to be sheep, they (population) will be sheared. No doubt about that.



I tend to think it is human nature that in the right environment whether it is drunk with drugs or with power, it will lead to a corrupted system/person.
It is even worse, if the group of leaders is not continuously challenged or checked they do degrade.


I guess the evolution to leftest thought is part of the dream of communism being the salvation of human kind only became a pariah when communist eventually was able to obtain or seize power.
Actually I don't see that. For example spanish communists still get hard on on "communism" and claim that the russians were just not ready for :roll: real communism.


In many was Communism, Socialism and capitalism agree on basic needs of industry it is who owns and controls them. Democratic centralism of the Communism failed to keep the power out of the hands of a few and maintain it in the hands of the people.It's more detachment from reality which is specific for communism even more than for other hard defined ideologies. Basically communist ideology defines what is wrong and "enemies" in their opinion without clear identification what is right and on what base. "Dialectics" is extremely schematic and fails on every real check. For example the ideologists of communism carefully omitted particularities of leadership. Actually the consideration of phenomenon of leadership and it's consequences on any society would exclude either of mentioned ideologies.
As leadership necessities exclude any real decision sharing (declared by socialism), individual differences amplified by hierarchy kill communism, and inevitable mutual understandings and limited number of decision makers kill "free" capitalism.


I noticed you like to overgeneralize.
No doubt about that, but forum conversations are schematic anyway :) so often it's deliberate.

[gilgoul]

Since when has Noam Chomski been relevant to anything beside making a career to call nazi anyone not bowing to him?
Bring Chomski is irrelevant to any debate on any subject, the the one about the hijacking of academia by incompetent political appointees talking out of their subject of specialization.

[wigon]

I was listening to a speaker at the local University, his comment was; "When ever the government serves the needs of the people, it is never too big. When ever the government serves a single (special interest) group, regardless of how small it is, it is too big".. (kind of the way it went).

IMHO, Libertarianism, Socialism, Communism, etc all have appeal, they all seem to suffer from a commonality, Human behavior. The ability of people to corrupt a good thing for their own personal interest.


I think thats spot on Hollis. Its really next to impossible to even get a city government in a small town to not serve certain special interests. That's the nature of collective power whether its a democracy, a communist government, a libertarian "anarcho-capitalist" ideal of a "free" community, etc.. etc... I do know that communism for example works very well in small communities and is really fairly closely related to libertarian ideals except that there is not the emphasis on the individual and individual ownership. Instead it goes back to a more tribal system where everyone works together for the collective. The Israeli "Kibbutz" system was an example of where communism at a local level worked very efficiently forming the backbone of Israel at its beginning. Sadly they've all been privatized. Some of the best Israeli soldiers historically came from the kibbutzim. But at any rate, there are interesting comparisons to be made between this form of small-scale communism and libertarianist ideals of small independent community-based governments with greater responsibilities and roles for most adult members of the community.
Sadly most libertarians I know have not really thought out what type of government they really want other then "less of it". Kinda like Muslims who scream and yell for an Islamic government totally based on Shariat Law without having any real clue as to what it would look like and how it would work in the modern world (along with the economic consequences of isolating itself from the non-Muslim world).

I should clarify by the way, that I don't support communism as a national form of government. For the reasons you mentioned, it doesn't work and always ends up turning into a totalitarian form of governance with powerful elites with no checks and balances on power. Checks and balances are the best that you can hope for in any national governmental system. The trick is getting those checks and balances to work properly.

Wigon