On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 01:20:29AM -0400, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, David McNab wrote:
>
> > >A typically liberal capitalist statement. Of course, this ignores the
> > >fact that the system that you implicitly support is based on two
> > >things: domination and exploitation. Anyone who sincerely thinks that
> > >the US (or any other western capitalist nation, or even a socialist
> > >state) is free is quite ignorant of what really goes on (there is
> > >plenty of stuff that happens which is not reported in the newspaper or
> > >on TV news) and doesn't have a clue about the true nature of authority
> > >and hierarchy.
> >
> > OK - fair cop - you got me there.
> > I guess I could try and save face and play 'victim' for a moment, by
> > complaining that with mass media available here in NZ, the news feeds are
> > very limited in scope. But I can't pull that as an excuse. Because I am on a
> > broadband internet connection, with access to the greatest wealth of
> > conglomerate and independent news available. So even that excuse crumbles.
> > :p
>
> How weak...
>
> Travis, I think it would be great if Congress cut President Bush's throat.
> Am I implicitly supporting Congress? Am I implying that the U.S. is free?
> Would you denounce a fellow anarchist as a "liberal capitalist" for making
> that statement?
You're "anarcho"capitalist, not anarchist, for you do not reject the
capitalist notion of property (and replace it with possession/use
rights). If you did reject the capitalist notion of property, you'd
probably be categorized as an individualist anarchist.
You are not explicitly supporting Congress, but you do somewhat imply
that you like Congress better than President Bush. However, you don't
imply that the U.S. is free by saying that.
> I'd also like a list of the three most noteworthy things that the liberal
> capitalist media did not report in the past decade.
One of the main things about the corporate media is that they often do
not completely hide something, but instead distort and downplay it.
Another note is that the corporate media isn't just liberal
capitalist, but instead ranges from liberal capitalist to thoroughly
reactionary.
After Seattle, the liberal capitalist media slowly learned that they
made the mistake of reporting on strong opposition to corporate
globalization (their reporting of the "Battle of Seattle" greatly
increased awareness of corporate globalization and that there actually
are people really against corporate globalization). I've seen three
main things that they do or have done in reaction to opposition to
corporate globalization: either make it look like a band of people
destroying things indiscriminately, or make it look like a bunch of
passive and weak sign-wavers, or just ignore it.
While the first approach seems to have been favored at and after the
"Battle of Seattle" and throughout year 2000, the second two
approaches seem to be now favored. Because the protests at the
American presidential inauguration could not be ignored, they were
downplayed to appear to be a whole bunch of passive sign-waving (the
fact that protesters had forced security forces to retreat and then
smashed their way through the security perimeter was almost completely
ignored). On the other hand, it seems like the corporate media is all
but completely ignoring the massive mobilization in Quebec City to
crush the Summit of the Americas and the Free Trade Area in the
Americas.
As for the Free Tree Area in the Americas, this is getting *far* less
coverage by the corporate media than NAFTA got. Of course, the FTAA
is also far more significant than NAFTA was for the FTAA includes all
of North and South America except Cuba (and it includes provisions for
the inclusion of Cuba if Cuba becomes capitalist). Of course, one
thing that they do not at all tell you about the FTAA is that it will
include the privatization of all services currently carried out by
governments and the elimination of all trade barriers, including all
labor and environmental protections, and the elimination of the last
vestiges of labor power. The FTAA is the capitalist Death Star; it is
of the last steps toward total unrestricted global capitalism. The
corporate media is helping this sneak up on everyone; when most people
realize what is happening it will probably be too late. Of course,
the only thing that can save us now is social revolution (which is
quite unlikely at the present).
One thing that really didn't get reported is that the first reports of
"genocide" which sparked NATO intervention in Kosovo were probably
actually fake. A whole bunch of bones were found in the ground, as
this was used to say that genocide has occurred, which was used as a
convenient excuse to justify NATO intervention. In addition, NATO
intervention in Kosovo really wasn't about protecting Kosovars from
retaliatory attacks by the Serbs, but rather about increasing western
capitalist control of the rich mineral deposits in Kosovo (this is
something that the corporate media didn't even slightly mention).
There's far more stuff, but I'm not going to list it all here.
> Finally, if you were forced to choose either a Republican, a Democratic,
> or a Libertarian presidential candidate, which of the three would you
> choose, and why?
Republicans: a can of mixed reactionaries, primarily religious zealots
and fascists. The voice of industry and religion. Thoroughly
infested with creatures like Pat Robertson (a religious zealot) and
John Ashcroft (a fascist religious zealot) and Henry Hyde (a fascist).
Democrats: a bunch of liberal capitalists, which are reformist at best
and reactionary at worst. These days, the most prominent Democrats
are reactionary for all purposes (Bill Clinton is a good example of
this). There are a few reformist ones around, such as Feingold, but
they've still done stuff that is on the reactionary side (Feingold
supported Ashcroft in the name of "bipartisanship").
Libertarians: a group of minarchist capitalists. Essentially want to
get rid of anything that restricts their money and their property as
well as anything that helps anyone who doesn't have lots of money.
One might say that "all power to the capitalists" would be a good
motto for them.
I hate all three of these groups, and I would avoid having anything to
do with any of them. If I was forced to choose one of these three,
with no option for not choosing any of them, I would probably have to
choose the Democrats because they are a *bit* less reactionary than
the other two. Even still, that would be a hard choice (the Dems are
at least partially responsible for stuff like the DMCA (something than
only a reactionary could love) and the FTAA (this *was initiated* by
Clinton - and is essentially for the purpose of "all power to the
capitalists")).
--
Yes, I know my enemies.
They're the teachers who tell me to fight me.
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance,
hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Rage Against The Machine
PGP signature
