Dave responds:


From: alister air <[log in to unmask]>

> ... it's a history from the perspective of the winners...  a lot of what
> was written ... is fantasy, but can see how this fantasy creates out
> present.
> ... until very recently, mainstream history never mentioned massacres of
> our indigenous population...  I suspect we share this with you in the
> US.  Without understanding the events of the past, we've no way of
> ensuring these events aren't repeated.

  Thanks for your comments.  It's very similar here.  Though matters have
been improving for the last few decades, it seems like most people here
respond by not wanting to think or talk about it.  The institutions no
longer treat the genocide as a good thing, but they also still fail to
acknowledge that is was, indeed, genocide.
  I agree that these matters are not academic, that one ought to be
interested in seeing that "these event are not repeated."  I can tell you
from personal experience, however, that such sentiments are not welcomed
by the majority of my fellow citizens.


> ...I think he means these statements literally....  I get the feeling
> that Chomsky's not one for hyperbole.

  I agree, again.  It seems as though the Reaganites were borrowing
strategies and tactics from "Camelot"; I was actually interested in seeing
some book recommendations for beginning to study the matter.
  I often like to suggest pairs of books to people when asked about some
subject I've learned about.  For example, when asked why Central America
is the way it is, or why the U.S. paid for, even instigated, the bloodbath
of the 1980s, I recommend these two books (to be read in this order):

        Richard Nuccio, _What's Right, Who's Wrong in Central America_
          (Facts on File, 1986).
        Noam Chomsky, _Turning the Tide_ (South End Press, 1985).

  The first gives the orthodox version of a balanced account of issues
faced by the U.S. in Central America.  Both "conservative" and "liberal"
views are presented, with side attention given to views attributed to
"human rights activists".  The book is very boring, in my opinion, and
gives the impression that the entire matter is rarefied and academic.  I
think a high school student reading this is very likely to be turned off
toward the entire subject.
  Chomsky's book, covering EXACTLY the same subject matter--history and
contemporary issues in Central America--presents information that is
sensational (though not intentionally) and horrifying, featuring links
between gruesome atrocities on a large scale and direct involvement of the
U.S. government, including the murders of U.S. citizens.  Whether the
hypothetical high school student agrees or disagrees with Chomsky's
analysis, I would be shocked if his/her reaction was boredom.  (Although,
many teachers here lament the shrinking of young Amerikans' attention
spans, so maybe I am projecting the reaction I had onto the hypothetical
student.)


> ...I can't think of much that has been a success - typically we've had
> delaying actions....  Feminism generally has been co-opted by
> capitalism, so that someone who supports Margaret Thatcher could call
> herself a feminist, although Thatcher's policies were generally
> anti-women.  I think we're seeing this with racists as well - the
> capitalist answer to stopping racism is not that we're all equal, it's
> that you should ignore the colour of the hand that's giving you
> money....  it has to be seen in the broader context of the co-option of
> entire movements...

  I see the same things myself, which is why I raise the question.  I see
progress in history, but the people in the movements seem to have
misunderstood that their true "success" was simply coming together, not
"winning" on the specific issue.  Labor movements call it SOLIDARITY, and
it seems to me that, to a large extent, solidarity itself is the real goal
and victory.  When people work together, things are possible.
"Capitalism" (not that it has ever existed) succeeds by organizing the
efforts of the populace to serve its ends, which are essentially
anti-human.  People would have to "disorganize" themselves from that form
of organization, and reorganize into something else based on other values,
that they decide themselves instead of being brainwashed or otherwise
"educated."
  In the U.S., the Civil Rights movement was extremely "successful," in
the narrow sense.  But the victory was stolen when it appeared the goals
were being achieved.  Most people went back home, to a condition of NO
SOLIDARITY, and the "victory" ended up being illusory.  Similarly with the
anti-Vietnam "culture"; without the Vietnam War to oppose, most dropped
the idea of SOLIDARITY and went back to being "good" Amerikans, thinking
first and foremost about satisying themselves.
  Protest in U.S. history seems to be a transient phenomenon.  I am
interested in attempts to produce what I might call "cultures of
solidarity," which would, I think, necessarily be rooted in actual
physical communities--people living a different way, according to
different values, their entire way of life a "protest" against the values
of the larger society.  But just in suggesting such a thing, I can see the
bullseye being aimed at such a community (if it could ever exist), and
wonder at how long it could possibly survive under the inevitable
reaction.  Nevertheless, if enough resolute people got together for the
purpose, and stayed together, I think the idea represents the best hope
for permanent change AND a demonstration effect to the rest of the
population.


From: buzzanco <[log in to unmask]>

> I'd never say they were useless, since it's essential to understand the
> way that establshment intellectuals think.  But I would always suggest
> reading these people ... in conjunction with critical work ...  But I
> wouldn't suggest discarding their work at all.  Most of the time, it's
> intellectually honest, though in my opinion just plain wrong!  It's
> crucial to see how the state and its myrmidons think!

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying my latter proposal (read the
orthodox as commisars, not as historians) is the reason we should read
mainstream history, not to actually learn about history.  Or, are you
saying that radical history is inadequate because it assumes previous
knowledge obtained from mainstream history, so that a combination approach
is necessary (read the orthodox, then read the criticism)?  (For example,
the mainstream adequately presents the important topics of study, but
misinterprets and leaves out material so that it is necessary to
supplement it with critical material that makes up for the missing
material and presents interpretations based on all of the information.)
  I don't mean to suggest that people should only read radical history.
That would be a recipe for disaster, and would result in a new orthodoxy.
I mean to suggest that, with all of the repetition and reinvention of the
wheel carried out by writers on history, it seems like most of it repeats
the same mistakes over and over and can be ignored without loss.  (The
examples provided provided by Loewen in _Lies My Teacher Told Me_ come to
mind; couldn't we easily replace those texts without loss?)
  Right now, I'm interpretting your answer as meaning we need the
Schlesinger's and Beschloss's and Boorstein's even though they give us a
pathetic, laughing gas picture of history.  Is that correct?


>        Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and so forth. I think American
> foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for a long long time now
> ...  so the parallels go further than Vietnam and Latin America.   As
> for that, there are similarities:  both started as "counterinsurgency"
> operations that snowballed; both involved the extensive use of state
> terror; both caused untold misery and destruction....  the lessons of
> Vietnam did make it harder for Reagan ..., but I'd add the caveat that
> the American military ... had no great interests in fighting in
> Nicaragua, El Salvador, especially Cuba.  The civilian "cowboys" are
> almost always more dangerous...

  I agree that there is a uniformity of cynicism-of-the-powerful in U.S.
decisionmaking from the beginning.  The Amerikan Revolution redirected the
flow of wealth from the king's coffers toward those of local elites.
Then and after, U.S. aggression seems to have been limited only by
military weakness and external power.
  However, wouldn't you agree that the Reagan/Kennedy comparison is
extraordinarily close?  Johnson got handed Vietnam.  Nixon as well.
Carter hid behind intermediaries, such as Israel and Indonesia--a much
different approach, though I assume the victims wouldn' care to
differentiate.
  I haven't read much of the relevant literature, so I was asking for book
suggestions.  From what I've read so far, I might pair up these two books
for someone interested in the Reagan/Kennedy comparison:

  Richard J. Walton, _Cold War and Counterrevolution_ (Viking, 1972).
  Chomsky, _Turning the Tide_ (South End, 1985).

I have read only 4 or 5 other relevant books in these areas, though, so I
was looking for some suggestions.  Heavy stuff, like Kolko, is better!


>        First, I'd recommend that everyone read that essay ["The
> Responsibility of Intellectuals," in Chomsky, _American Power and the
> New Mandarins_]....  I suspect he'd advocate speaking truth to everyone.

  I have more than one videotaped speech of Chomsky where he says speaking
the truth to power "is exactly the wrong approach" (or something very
close to that).  I think his point is that browbeating the powerful is a
waste of effort, though I also think you're right--he wouldn't actually
tell people not to do it.


> Clearly, we don't have access to the major media centers...  Still,
> anytime we have a venue, it's important to tell people what the real
> deal is.  I like to speak in the community for this reason. I've spoken
> to the "usual supects" ..., but I also speak to church and school groups
> whenever I can.  I don't buy this media crap about how "conservative"
> this country is.  I've spoken to church groups here in Texas who were
> very responsive to what I said [no, not just Unitarians!].  So spread
> the word, at the water cooler at work, in between pitches at the Little
> League game, while getting a hair cut, etc.  I think you'll be surprised
> at how many people are sympathetic.  Obviously, no revolutionary change
> is imminent, so we have to talk with people and give them our rap and in
> time, more people will listen to it and be persuaded.

  I agree about the country not being "conservative."  It is conservative
and liberal--i.e., right wing--by default because that's what the
institutions teach.  I grew up in an extremely conservative family--
borderline fascist, in fact--but I was forced to change my views upon
finding out what the U.S. is actually doing in the world.
  I am afraid I cannot agree that merely trying to tell people, in (what
otherwise would be) polite, smalltalk conversations, that the U.S. is
funding fascist military regimes and promoting economic policies that lead
to mass starvation will be effective.  People don't want to hear about
these things, not where I am, anyway.  The "intellectuals" are especially
closed-minded here, preferring to believe fairy-tales about U.S.
benevolence.
  It seems to me that people don't have time for any of this stuff:  by
the time they work and try to have a social life (family, friends, etc.)
they have NO TIME LEFT; even if they had time, they wouldn't want to
carry out a personal research project to find out how bad they're being
lied to!  In many ways, fundamental change seems precluded before we even
begin.  There are statistical aberrations, such as myself and some of the
people on this list, but no more than that--and very little possibility
for more than that, it would appear.  For me, then, the question becomes:
How do we create conditions where people have an opportunity to
think/act/live according to different values, where they have a system of
support when the reactionary onslaught sets in, where they aren't tricked
or coopted into going home once the single-issue fight appears to be over?
  I have only vague, sketchy answers so far.  What most activists are
doing seems to ignore this problem, which I think is at the center of what
they should be thinking about.  (Of course, I could be wrong.)  What the
Spanish were able to achieve in the midst of warfare in 1936-9 is highly
inspiring for me, and without Hitler and Mussolini would probably have
given the entire world lots of ideas about how to do things differently
than what the masters do, an alternative to both "communism" (which wasn't
communism) and "capitalist democracy" (which is neither capitalist, nor
democratic, though I oppose capitalism in principle).  After that, one has
few examples to study, other than various small, often short-lived,
projects.  One book that I found inspiring was _Streets of Hope_ by Peter
Medoff and Holly Sklar, about the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in
Boston.  DSNI demonstrates the sort of solidarity I referred to above in
responding to Alistair, but once again it seems that the focus is on the
immediate local problems, and not on the bigger picture.  Simply focusing
on the needs of one subcommunity limits the potential for including more
and more of the population later (unless they revise their purpose).  Now,
I realize that no one in Boston had my goals in mind when they created the
DSNI, but my point is that, very often, the initial conception of social
change is limited, and therefore limits the ultimate scale of
possibilities for social change.  (I think I'm not saying this very well!)
  Anyway, tell me what you think...


From: Michael Kocsis <[log in to unmask]>

> ... I think an important distinction is missing...  Vietnam and Central
> ... both were almost entirely manufactured actions.

  If I understand your point, slavery and genocide were the means of
gaining power, but aggression in Vietnam and Central America had no such
purpose or motivation.  I guess I agree, but it is simply the other
side of the coin from the previous period:  the U.S. was playing king on
the mountain with other European powers, and ended up on top; now it is
trying to maintain that position.  So even if there is a difference, it
seems to me that the latter violence is the direct consequence of the
former.


> ... since military power, economic power and territorial control had
> been already ... achieved ... Marxist or socialist models creeping in to
> Vietnam or Nicaragua were a challenge to be conquered.
> ... This is why I have a problem with the claim that America now is not
> a conservative political community....  when the pocket groups make
> enough noise, this is when the elite reconsiders their endorsement ...
> this is when leaders ease military support for their plundering, or send
> it underground, and this is how most contemporary military adventures
> come and go.

  I think I have already addressed this.  The U.S. populace is right-wing
by default; one wonders whether they would maintain their views if they
knew all of the facts.  (Maybe Amerikans are simply more of Hitler's
Willing Executioners, minus Hitler.)  Leadership elements are right-wing
by definition, thus Chomsky's prescription of not bothering to point out
their misdeeds to them--they already know.
  Chomsky and Herman (among others) argue that the U.S. is not only
concerned about keeping Vietnam and individual Central American countries
within the "Free World" (meaning:  the network of non-participatory
national systems that allow access to raw materials and slave labor, for
the benefit of wealthy masters in rich countries), but is PRIMARILY
concerned with preventing other populations from thinking THEY might break
free from the "Free World."  That is the REAL threat, the threat of a
"demonstration effect."  No one in power cares if Grenada becomes self-
sufficient and independent from external economic manipulation, UNLESS it
will lead to a mass exodus of other "Third World" countries from the
international economic status quo.  This is the best explanation I've come
across.  The U.S. inherited the remnants of the old colonial system after
World War II, and now corporate power has transcended the nation-state
by occupying it; the current U.S. role, in my opinion, is to be the
bodyguard/enforcer for international corporate feudalism, where those
people who have a place in this world owe it to some corporate lord and
master, and those who do not have a corporate master are essentially
defenseless and without hope.

  Thank you all for your responses.  Let's keep it going.

Dave W.

"... for if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass
of human beings ... would learn to think for themselves; and when once they
had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged
minority had no function, and they would sweep it away." - Emmanuel Goldstein