Peter Hollings responds to my comment: > Aren't you assuming that the two major political parties actually compete > when in service of their corporate masters, or that any plot necessarily > involved Bush (as opposed to, say, Cheney)? <
1) Yes, I assume that the two major parties compete. But they compete as two coalitions representing different wings of the capitalist class. Each of them has several different factions within them, representing smaller interest groups within the capitalist class. Various non-capitalist groups (labor unions, pro-lifers, etc.) cling like remoras to one or the other of the two majors, hoping that they'll benefit by cleaning their master's teeth. (Sometimes they get results, if they are organized enough.) Within factions, there are various competing personalities. (For example, I've heard that the Bush camp hates the Rick Perry camp and vice-versa.) (By the way, the US political process is "relatively autonomous." To me that means that it doesn't always serve the long-term class interests of the capitalists (i.e., what's "functional" for the capitalist system, allowing its harmonious reproduction over time). Instead, we often see "special" interests winning. For example, the "no increased taxes" (or "no new revenues") line that is currently dominating the GOP's thoughts and actions is (as people like George Soros suggest) likely destructive to the US capitalist system. It helps unify the GOP, allowing them to cow people like Obama, but can create all sorts of problems in the future.) 2) I presume that Dick Cheney was part of #2's "Merry Men" that I referred to, so I didn't leave him out at all. In any event, I don't believe in the Bush Administration/911 conspiracy theory and was only assuming that that absurd theory was true for argument's sake. > I think these are straw men you are knocking down. < Not true. Instead I pointed to a problem in the 911 "truther" conspiracy theory: if it's true, why is Obama following the conspirators' plans, covering them up, avoiding even a peep of criticism, etc.? Maybe it's because the theory isn't true? > ... One has to truly have an open mind and let inquiry take one where it > will. < Of course, but stupid theories should be exposed as such. > We live in Plato's cave looking at shadows on the wall and thinking it is > reality.< It is true that the distinction between appearance and reality is as old as Plato (and likely older). Social scientists use that appearance/reality conflict a lot. But the question is what _is_ the reality? Is it a small bunch of malevolent puppet-masters who seem to be demigods and can thus commit massive acts of treason to the nation they control and totally get away with it? And all they seem to have achieved is to continue the preexisting trends toward increasing gaps between the rich and poor, diminishing civil liberties, increasingly deregulated finance, etc. What _was_ it that the alleged conspirators achieved? The Cheney gang clearly _exploited_ 911 for all it was worth, garnering as many benefits for their allies as possible. But that's different from arranging for 911 in order to get those results. > There are false realities all around. That Saddam possessed WMD is a good > example of one. I never believed that. It's not a false reality. Instead it was an old-fashioned lie. Why dress it up as in fancy words? Actually, when the unnamed senior aide to President #2 talked about "creating reality," I always assumed that it referred to "creating facts on the ground" (as when Israelis grab land on the West Bank or East Jerusalem, creating barriers to there ever being a Palestinian state). They hoped and prayed that their invasion of Iraq would be a game-changer, i.e., allowing their pet oil companies to control oil supplies, turning the Middle-Eastern balance of power against Iran, helping Israel, etc. This would change the real-world parameters that the rest of us live with. The fact that this adventure didn't work as planned suggests that these demigods weren't so smart or powerful. -- Jim Devine / "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
