Keith,
You wrote: "He means the other superpower, the Social Forum in Porto Alegre for
example, and I'm sure the "policy changes" have more to do with the
World Bank/IMF/WTO than with the US government or other governments."
It's hard to misunderstand his meaning - especially since he actually uses the term "second superpower".
You wrote: "He means the other superpower, the Social Forum in Porto Alegre for
example, and I'm sure the "policy changes" have more to do with the
World Bank/IMF/WTO than with the US government or other governments."
It's hard to misunderstand his meaning - especially since he actually uses the term "second superpower".
I wrote: "...and might be related to what Noam Chomsky describes on the last page of 'Hegemony or Survival'."
What I'm saying is that events like the Social Forum might actually effect public policy outside (and perhaps inside) the U.S.. I wasn't trying to interpret his quote but rather, speculate and widen the scope where Chomsky's observation might also be true.
They may "have more to do with the World Bank/IMF/WTO than with the US government or other governments." as you say. However, to what extent is that true? Does that mean that it doesn't effect governments to any meaningful degree? If so, I think I would disagree with your assessment. In fact, there are times when I cannot distinguish between the motives of the World Bank/IMF/WTO and the US government or other governments. More importantly, a successful campaign against one would certainly effect the other.
What I'm saying is that events like the Social Forum might actually effect public policy outside (and perhaps inside) the U.S.. I wasn't trying to interpret his quote but rather, speculate and widen the scope where Chomsky's observation might also be true.
They may "have more to do with the World Bank/IMF/WTO than with the US government or other governments." as you say. However, to what extent is that true? Does that mean that it doesn't effect governments to any meaningful degree? If so, I think I would disagree with your assessment. In fact, there are times when I cannot distinguish between the motives of the World Bank/IMF/WTO and the US government or other governments. More importantly, a successful campaign against one would certainly effect the other.
Although quantifying that effect is debatable, I feel it is worth mentioning.
Finally, I offer this as a contribution to the discussion. I'm not an expert and if I were asked for an expert opinion, I would defer most economic and foreign policy matters to you. If (as you say) it's been mentioned in your previous contributions, I apologize for being redundant.
Mike R.
Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike R.
Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Mike R.
>I think the 5/30/06 post and attached article from AltEnergyNetwork did
>a excellent job explaining the administration's decision making process,
>the U.S. economy and how it compares to similar situations in other
>countries.
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg63309.html
Yes it does, but there's been a lot more about it previously,
especially in comments on the implications of Iran's new oil bourse,
there are other points of view, and I think they all have to be
assessed.
>I also think it's possible that the weakening of the U.S. Dollar is the
>result of a concerted effort by foreign entities (governments and NGO's)
>and might be related to what Noam Chomsky describes on the last page of
>"Hegemony or Survival".
>
>"For the first time, concrete alliances have been taking shape at the
>grassroots level . These are impressive developments, rich in
>opportunity. And they have had effects, in rhetorical and sometimes
>policy changes."
>
>When he says "policy changes", I read it to mean within the United
>States. However, I think that a popular movement to identify the U.S.
>government as the single biggest threat to our survival as a species, is
>coalescing in foreign policy decisions around the world. The result is
>an indication of US economic isolation with hopes of slowing military
>buildup and globalization.
I think you credit them with more strategy than they deserve. I don't
think Chomsky is talking about the same thing. He also said this,
with the same sentence in it:
"The harmful effects of the corporate globalisation project have led
to mass popular protest and activism in the South, later joined by
major sectors of the rich industrial societies, hence becoming harder
to ignore. For the first time concrete alliances have been taking
shape at a grassroots level. It is fair to say, I think, that the
future of our endangered species may be determined in no small
measure by how these popular forces evolve."
He means the other superpower, the Social Forum in Porto Alegre for
example, and I'm sure the "policy changes" have more to do with the
World Bank/IMF/WTO than with the US government or other governments.
>(IMO) this adds to Mike Weaver's position:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg63345.html
>
>"Don't get me wrong - the concerted effort to destroy our economic
>system perpetuated by the Bush Administration will (and has) have an
>effect."
I think it adds to Gabriel Kolko's position and mine 18 months ago,
and since - Vote Bush! LOL!
>... But a Kerry win would still have left you with the "duopoly" party,
>followed by business-as-usual, especially on the foreign policy
>front. There's not much essential difference between the two parties'
>foreign policy, eg between Clinton's and Bush's, it's mostly just the
>Bushies' outrageous in-your-face style of it that's different.
>
>I agreed with Gabriel Kolko at the time, that Bush might be the
>lesser of two evils, but while Kolko was thinking of other nations
>and international alliances I was thinking of the Other Superpower.
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg38234.html
>[Biofuel] The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power
>16 Sep 2004
>
>Also this:
>
>"Gabriel Kolko -- in this writer's estimation, our most indispensable
>historian -- argues in a recent piece on the Counterpunch website
>that because a second Bush term would possibly intensify the
>international enmity elicited by its bumbling unilateralism, it could
>be preferable to a Kerry Administration:
>
>"'Kerry is neither articulate nor impressive as a candidate or as
>someone who is likely to formulate an alternative to Bush's foreign
>and defense policies, which have much more in common with Clinton's
>than they have differences. To be critical of Bush is scarcely
>justification for wishful thinking about Kerry. Since 1947, the
>foreign policies of the Democrats and Republicans have been
>essentially consensual on crucial issues -- "bipartisan" as both
>parties phrase it -- but they often utilize quite different rhetoric.
>
>"'Critics of the existing foreign or domestic order will not take
>over Washington this November. As dangerous as it is, Bush's
>reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to
>continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to
>American power...'
>
>"It is becoming clear that all-too-many Kerry supporters view
>November's plebiscite as an end in itself. That, if Kerry should
>prevail, the reaction of a too-large proportion of his voters will be
>overwhelming relief -- "Whew! That was a close one!" -- followed by a
>repeat of Clinton-era apathy and apologetics.
>
>"Whereas, a Bush victory couldn't but propagate the amazingly diverse
>and widespread lobbying and protest movement which saw the New York
>Times declare public political involvement the World's "second
>superpower." From the unprecedented pre-war protest mobilisations, to
>the hundred-plus official municipal renunciations of the PATRIOT Act,
>to the overwhelming response to the FCC's proposed further relaxation
>of media ownership restrictions, to the virtual implosion of the WTO,
>to the solidarity actions of "internationals" in Iraq and Palestine;
>the accomplishments have been many, and the momentum is gathering.
>
>"So even though a Kerry administration would no doubt be marginally
>less nefarious in its designs, in the absence of activist mitigation
>of these designs, the net effect could well be more disastrous than a
>second Bush Administration..."
>
>-- From: Who's The Lesser Evil? by Eddie Tews (March 24, 2004)
>http://eatthestate.org/08-14/WhosLesserEvil.htm
>
>Tews was also thinking of the Other Superpower.
And so on.
Best
Keith
>White House policy is both self destructive and antagonistic, attracting
>the attention of others to attack.
>
>Military spending/use, energy, the environment, you name it, the U.S.
>government is enormously wasteful and destructive (not that I need to
>tell anyone in this forum) and people are taking notice. Like Keith
>wrote: "Eco-economics has been on the table since Maggie Thatcher put it
>there by mistake in 1988. It's not going to go away, it's been gaining
>ground steadily."
>
>It's about holding back the most destructive empire in human history -
>destructive for what it does and doesn't do.
>
>Re: WMD's - how U.S. policy threatens our survival.
>
>In addition to U.S. engagement in continuous military conflicts since
>WWII, the Bush administration has vetoed or avoided discussion on nearly
>every international effort to limit nuclear, chemical and biological
>weapons, has militarized space in violation of past nuclear weapons
>treatise and has prompted other countries to react and build more arms.
>U.S. spending on nuclear weapons has surpassed the entire state
>department budget. The U.S. Pharmaceutical industry is helping develop
>vaccine resistant Anthrax (for example) and an arms race for biological
>weapons is already underway.
>
>
>Mike
>
[snip]
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
