January 1, 2010

Either equality among humans

Planetary devastation

A fateful Choice

The idea of a fateful choice facing humanity is not new. The crossroads in which we find ourselves today is only more urgent and fateful for humanity than any choice which has presented itself in the past. Recently, several authors have pointed to the choice faced by humanity between on the one hand, a change in the system by which humans organize themselves, and on the other, barbarism. Planetary devastation qualifies as “barbarism.”

The Choice:

Barbarism: The word “barbarism” derives from the Greek word “barbaros” which originally referred to anyone who did not speak Greek. Like the citizens of all ancient civilizations, the Greeks conceptualized the world as divided between themselves, “civilized,” at its center, and others, “barbarians,” on the geographical and cultural periphery. The distinction between superior civilized people at the center, and inferior peoples at the periphery, was basic to both Greek and Latin thought. Barbarians were portrayed as having no culture, preferring force to the rule of law, and carrying out unconventional warfare (Foster 2006, pp. 147-148).

We are told that the same division of the world applies today, as “terrorists,” “militants,” “radicals,” “Islamic extremists,” “suicide bombers,” “religious fundamentalists,” “Al Qaeda master-minds,” and “Taliban leaders,” are intent on destroying modern, technologically advanced, “developed” societies. As President George W. Bush said, after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:

“They hate our freedoms” (United States Government, White House 2001, p. 1).

The view omits the predatory role played by the United States throughout its history. It is true that our time is characterized by barbarism. But the barbarism which marks our time emanates from the center of the “developed” world,” not its periphery.

The Choice as previously described: The title of the present work specifically alludes to three analyses of class struggle pointing to the choice between either eliminating the capitalist system or “barbarism.” All three emphasize the common fate of humanity. The first two, by Rosa Luxemburg and G. V. S. de Silva, were written before the urgency of global warming had become apparent. The third, by Istvan Meszaros, was written in 2001, with an awareness of the immediacy of the situation.

At present, the United States is already the most destructive nation in the world, politically, economically and militarily. If we are to include global warming as an aspect of capitalism in its present historical stage, then the suffering, death and destruction now incubated by “developed” nations, overwhelm by many orders of magnitude the power of destruction of all “underdeveloped” nations combined.

Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919): For both German social philosophers Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), the class struggle which has governed the history of all hitherto existing civilizations, could potentially end in

“the common ruin of the contending classes” (Quote in Foster 2006, p. 154).

Polish-born German socialist leader Rosa Luxemburg amplified this aspect of Marx’s and Engel’s thought in the context of World War I. In December 1818, one month after her release from a two-and-a-half year imprisonment, and one month before she was re-imprisoned and murdered, Luxemburg wrote an article entitled, “What do the Spartacists want?” The Sparticus League was the Marxist revolutionary movement which she had co-founded, named after Spartacus who, in 73 B.C.E., led the largest slave revolt against the Roman Republic – but refused to kill 3,000 Roman prisoners which his side had captured.

In this article, “What do the Spartacists want?” Luxemburg declares that the choice is:

“socialism or barbarism” (Quote in Foster 2006, p. 154).

Should the present capitalist relations persist, the future will entail new wars, famine, and disease for all classes – a common disintegration:

“If the proletariat fails to fulfill its class duties, if it fails to realize socialism, we shall crash down together in a common doom” (Quote in Foster 2006, p. 154).

(Foster 2006, p. 151-154. Wikipedia 2009. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

G. V. S. de Silva (1928-1986): In his book, The alternatives – socialism or barbarism (edited by Charles Abeysekera, and published posthumously, in 1988),

Sri Lankan social scientist G. V. S. de Silva further develops the concept of barbarism in modern times.

de Silva views both capitalism and socialism as having the potential to degenerate into barbarism. He defines barbarism as a society which relies simultaneously on:

1. Force.

2. Ideological control on the scale described in the novel Nineteen Eighty-four (1949), by George Orwell (1903-1950).

3. The destruction of all countervailing power, permitting a direct rule by economic interests, with minimal state intervention.

4. The “induced consumption of useless products” designed to distract the population.

5. Extreme domination of nature in all of its aspects (Foster 2006, p. 155).

de Silva concludes that short of a revolutionary change in the qualitative dimensions of the global economy, and an end to the capitalist exploitation of nature, the specter of barbarism will continue to haunt humanity.

He warns:

“Barbarism in one or two powerful countries will overwhelm the rest of humanity” (Quote in Foster 2006, p. 156).

(Foster 2006, pp. 155-156).

Istvan Meszaros: In Socialism or barbarism: alternative to capital’s social order – from the American Century to the crossroads (2001), Hungarian philosopher and Professor (Emeritus) at the University of Sussex, UK, Istvan Meszaros further expands on the fateful alternative.

Meszaros argues that in present world circumstances, when one capitalist state has virtual monopoly of the world’s means of destruction, the temptation for that state to seize full-spectrum dominance, and transform itself into a de facto global government, is irresistible.

The conflict in the capitalistic system between, on the one hand, its economic aspirations, which are transnational, and on the other, its political rootedness in particular nation states, is insurmountable (Foster 2006, p. 19).

Meszaros writes:

“What is at stake today is not the control of a particular part of the planet – no matter how large – [which puts] at a disadvantage but still [tolerates] the independent actions of some rivals, but [rather] the control of [the] totality [of the planet] by one hegemonic economic and military superpower, with all means [at its disposal] – even the most extreme authoritarian [means], and, if needed, [even] violent military [means].”

“This is what the ultimate rationality of globally developed capital requires, in its vain attempt to bring under control its irreconcilable antagonisms.”

“The trouble is, though, that such rationality – which can be written without inverted commas, since it genuinely corresponds to the logic of capital at the present historical stage of global development – is at the same time, the most extreme irrationality in history, including the Nazi conception of world domination, as far as the conditions [which are] required for the survival of humanity are concerned.”

“Despite its enforced ‘globalization,’ capital’s incurably iniquitous system is structurally incompatible with universality in any meaningful sense of the term . . . There can be no universality in the social world without substantive equality” (Quotes in Foster 2006, pp. 19, 33 and 35).

We are now living in “the potentially deadliest phase of imperialism,” says Meszaros. Driven by capitalism and imperialism, the attempt by the United States to seize global control, is threatening humanity with:

“the extreme[ly] violent rule of the whole world by one hegemonic imperialist country on a permanent basis, . . . an absurd and unsustainable way of running the world order” (Quotes in Foster 2006, pp. 25, 34, 52 and 120).

For Meszaros, socialism means:

“the people . . . in control of their own activity, and of the allocation of its fruits to their own ends” (Quote in Wikipedia 2009 “Socialism or Barbarism,” p. 2).

Global warming adds urgency to the choice between capitalism and socialism:

“Marx was to some extent already aware of the ‘ecological problem,’ that is, the problems of ecology under the rule of capital and the dangers implicit in it for human survival . . . He insisted that the logic of capital – which must pursue profit, in accordance with the dynamic of self-expansion and capital accumulation – cannot have any consideration for human values, and even for human survival . . . What you cannot find in Marx, of course, is an account of the utmost gravity of the situation facing us. For us, the threat to human survival is a matter of immediacy” (Quote in Wikipedia 2009 “Socialism or Barbarism,” p. 2. Emphasis the author’s).

global warming

The Emergency:

An unprecedented Emergency: Global warming presents humanity with an unprecedented emergency. This emergency is in the context of an already severely unequal and conflicted humanity in which the alternative of either a new social order or barbarism has already been raised.

The Choice of Perspective is ours to make: Conceived of nationalistically (nations each concerned with their own interest), and with capitalism (the search for profit) as the motivation for action, the problem of global warming is not resolvable. However, conceived of globally (on an egalitarian, per capita basis), and with rationality defined not as self-interest but rather as a view to the common good, the problem is simple to understand, and easy to resolve.

The following is a review of the problem first as it presents itself within the framework of per capita emissions, and then as it presents itself within the framework of national emissions.

A “per capita” Framework:

A Benchmark for Comparison: A benchmark for comparison of per capita emissions consists of the following: a flight New York-London and return, on a jet airplane, produces the equivalent of 3.24 tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂-equivalents).

Note: The actual carbon dioxide emitted is 1.2 tons, but this number needs to be multiplied by 2.7 because of the warming effect of water vapor at high altitude. This increased warming effect is due to the formation of condensation trails and later, cirrus clouds, subsequent to the mixing of hot wet air from the jet engine exhaust, with the cold air in the upper troposphere (10-13 kilometers above the surface of the earth) where most large planes fly.

A Goal of less than 2 Degrees global Warming: In order to have a 90 percent chance of stabilizing the average global temperature at less than 2 degrees Celsius above the temperature in pre-industrial time (1880), human-engendered carbon dioxide emissions must not exceed 1.2 metric tons per capita per year.

Note: From 1900-1999, average global temperature increased by 0.6 degrees. A goal of less than 2 degrees warming above pre-industrial time, therefore, means no more than an increase of 1.4 degrees. In order to have a 90 percent change of achieving this goal, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration must not exceed 340 parts per million. (As of May 2009, the concentration was 390 parts per million).

The figure of 1.2 tons per capita per year which emission must not exceed, takes into account other greenhouse gases (which add another 15 percent equivalent to the carbon dioxide concentration, giving a total of 400 ppm CO₂ equivalents). It takes into account the carbon dioxide-absorbing capacity of the biosphere (at present 15 billion tons per year, expected to decrease to 10 tons per year by 2030). And it takes into account the expected increase in world population, from 6.5 billion in 2006 to 8.3 billion by 2030.

Present per capita Emissions: In 2004, the world average human-engendered carbon dioxide emissions was 5 tons per capita.

Note: This figure relies on a total human-engendered CO₂ emissions, in 2004, of 29 billion tons, as given by the United Nations Human Development Report 2007/2008, p. 69. The figure includes carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels, the flaring of fossil fuel gas, and the production of cement. It excludes changes in land use, which, according the United Nations, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) add another 6 billion tons – giving total emissions of (29+6) = 35 billion tons, in 2004.

The figure includes emissions which are excluded from national figures, such as those from shipping fuels, the oxidation of non-fuel hydrocarbon products (such as asphalt), and emissions by countries not shown in the main indicator tables. Such emission consist of approximately 1.5 billion tons (5 percent) of the world total.

The per capita figure is calculated on the basis of a world population, in 2005, of 6.5 billion. Specifically, (29 / 6.5) = 4.5 , rounded off to 5. Including land use changes, the figure would be (35 / 6.5) = 5.4, which would also round off to 5.

Per capita Carbon dioxide Emissions by Countries: Table 1 summarizes, for 2004, the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of ten countries which together emit 67 percent of the total world human-engendered carbon dioxide emissions, and the percentage reduction needed (or increase allowed) to meet, by 2030, the below 2 degrees of warming goal in average world temperature.

Table 1: High-emission Countries – Percent Change needed (allowed)

to meet the goal of 1.2 tons per capita, by 2030, 2004^(a)

Country Carbon dioxide Emissions Change needed (allowed) (tons per capita, per year) (percent)

United States 21 -94

Canada 20 -94

Russian Federation 11 -89

Japan 10 -88

Germany 10 -88

United Kingdom 10 -88

Republic of Korea 10 -88

Italy 8 -85

China 4 -70

India 1 +20

_________________________________________________________________________

^(a) Hall 2007a, pp. 6, 17 and 33. Hall 2009b, pp. 28 and 68.

Chances of exceeding a 2-degree Warming: In order to meet the goal of a 90 percent chance of world temperature stabilization below 2 degrees of warming by 2030, atmospheric carbon dioxide must not exceed 340 parts per million (ppm). The present level (May 2009), however, is 390 parts per million, increasing at the rate of 1 ppm per year. Adding 15 percent to this CO₂concentration in order to include the other greenhouse gases, gives a present concentration of 450 ppm CO₂-equivalents. At his concentration, the probability of exceeding a 2-degree rise above the pre-industrial temperature (1880) is 53 percent (with an uncertainty range of 27-79 percent).

(Hall 2007a, pp. 6, 17 and 33. Hall 2009b, pp. 28, 30, 32 and 68).

A “per nation” Framework:

The United States in Copenhagen, December 2009: The 15^th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), December 7-18, 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark, did not produce a binding agreement.

Emissions: The United States promised a 17 percent reduction compared to 2005 in its carbon dioxide emissions, by 2020 – equivalent to a reduction of 4 percent below the 1990 level.

Aid to poor Countries: The United States promised to:

“work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries” (Clinton 2009, p. 2).

Note: The sum of $100 billion per year donated jointly by the United States and “other countries,” must be placed in the context of the United States government having spent, in 2009, $12.8 trillion in capital infusions, loans, subsidies and buy-outs, to rescue insolvent corporations and banks. The sum promised by the U.S., provided other countries cooperate, is 0.8 percent of this domestic financial rescue package (Hedges 2009a, p. 1. Hedges 2009c. Foster 2009a).

James Hansen is Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is in the Earth Sciences of Division of the Goddard Space Flight Center, within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), New York, N.Y. Hansen’s reaction to this offer of $100 billion per year is:

“The wealthy countries are trying to basically buy off these countries that will, in effect, disappear . . . The United States offered to promote $100 billion per year – which is imaginary money, because I don’t think that’s going to happen. The United States’ share of that, based on our contribution to the carbon in the atmosphere, would be 27 percent – $27 billion per year. Do you think that our Congress is going to vote $27 billion per year to give these poor countries? It’s not going to happen” (Hansen 2009b).

The “Copenhagen Accord,” 2009: Outside the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [which produced the Kyoto Protocol (1997)], five countries reached an agreement on the last day of the Conference – Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States. A strong majority of the 192 countries participating in the Convention affixed their names to the Accord. However, as some parties opposed the Accord, the decision to enter it into the proceedings of the conference is technically not an acceptance of its substantive content by the Conference of the Parties. The standing of the Accord relative to the UNFCCC is uncertain (Pew Center for Global Climate Change undated, pp. 1-3).

The Accord:

1. “Recognizes” the scientific case for holding the increase in average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius.

2. Does not contain commitments from countries for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, calling instead for countries to state their target by February 1, 2010. The Accord calls for a legally binding treaty to be formulated by the end of 2010, and a full review of the Accord by 2015.

[In two annexes, the accord specifies the reduction targets of developed and major developing countries, respectively. These targets are not binding, and in degree of commitment, range from “adopted by legislation” (European Union), to “under consideration” (United States). The pledges of other developing countries are entirely voluntary].

3. Contains no standard against which national targets can be assessed for their aggregate effectiveness in meeting the below 2-degree warming goal.

4. Calls for countries with major economies to report the results of their efforts to the United Nations every two years, with international checking which will, however,

“ensure that national sovereignty is respected” (Reuters 2009, p. 2).

5. States the goal of developed countries to mobilize:

“jointly $100 billion a year, by 2020, to address the needs of developing countries. The funds will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral” (Clinton 2009, p. 1).

(The “Copenhagen Accord,” 2009, continued)

6. In an annex, specifies the pledges from developed countries to help developing countries in the short-term (2010-2012). Table 2 summarizes the pledge of selected countries.

Table 2: Pledges for short-term (2010-2012) financial

Help from selected Countries^(a)

Country Short-term Pledge

(billion dollars)

European Union 10.6

Japan 11.0

United States 3.6

______________________________________

Total (all countries) 30.0

______________________________________

^(a) Reuters 2009, p. 1.

7. Refers vaguely to carbon markets:

“We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions” (Quote in Reuters 2009, p. 2).

8. Does not envision any non-market solution to the problem of global warming (Foster 2009b, p. 2).

9. Contains no provision for emissions from international shipping and international aviation.

10. Makes no mention of emissions on a per capita basis.

11. Makes no mention the existence of tipping points in the climate system.

Headed for a 3.5-degree Rise: The Copenhagen Accord does not provide actual targets for emission reductions for any country, or groups of countries. Countries are to make proposals for emission reduction by February 1, 2010.

As they were stated in early December, just before the opening of the Conference, the emissions reductions commitment and pledges proposed by developed and developing countries would allow, by 2100, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to reach 650 ppm – meaning a total greenhouse gas concentration of nearly 800 ppm CO₂-equivalents. Table 3 shows the chances of various levels of warming at this concentration.

Climate Action Tracker is a cooperative effort by a renewable energy company, a non-profit organization, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Its authors conclude:

“The best proposals on the table are only half way to what the science indicates are the emission limits, in 2020, needed for a good chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius [by 2100]” (Climate Action Tracker 2009, pp. 1-2).

Table 3: Probability of Warming to specified Levels, at an atmospheric

Carbon dioxide Concentration of 800 parts per million^(a)

Rise in global Temperature above Probability of specified Rise

pre-industrial Temperature, by 2100

(degrees Celsius) (percent)

More than 2.0 100

3.5 (uncertainty range: 2.8-4.3)^(b) 50

4.0 25

___________________________________

^(a)Climate Action Tracker 2009, pp. 1-2.

^(b) The uncertainty range is due to different possible interpretations of national pledges.

Level of Commitment of selected Countries: In early December, just before the Conference, the level of commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions varied widely. Table 4 summarizes these levels.

Table 4: Level of Commitment to greenhouse Gas Reductions

by selected Countries, December 3, 2009^(a)

Country Proposal

Costa Rica Be Climate-neutral by 2020.

Maldives Be Climate-neutral by 2020.

Brazil A significant reduction in emissions.

Japan A 25 percent reduction in emissions.

Norway A 30-40 percent reduction in emission.

India A reduction in the growth of emissions by the 2020’s.

Indonesia A reduction in the growth of emissions by the 2020’s.

Mexico A reduction in the growth of emissions by the 2020’s.

South Korea A reduction in the growth of emissions by the 2020’s.

China A low target.

Australia A 13 percent increase in emissions.

Canada A 3 percent reduction in emissions.

China The proposed reduction is probably close to “business as usual.”

European Union-27 A 20 percent reduction in emissions.

Russian Federation A target by 2020 above “business as usual” projections.

South Africa Target conditional upon a strong Copenhagen agreement.

United States A 3 percent reduction in emissions.

Belarus No action proposed beyond “business as usual.”

Russia No action proposed beyond “business as usual.”

Ukraine No action proposed beyond “business as usual.”

_________________________________

^(a) Climate Action Tracker 2009, pp. 3-16. All commitments are by 2020, compared to the 1990 level.

(Clinton 2009, p. 2. Hansen 2009b. Berger 2009, p. 2. Hedges 2009a, p. 1. Reuters 2009, pp. 1-2. Climate Action Tracker 2009, pp. 1-2. Morgan 2009, pp. 1-3. Vidal, Stratton and Goldenberg 2009, pp. 1-3. Ecofys 2009, pp. 1-2. Pew Center for Global Climate Change undated, pp. 1-3).

camouflaged Totalitarianism

Classical Totalitarianism: Classical totalitarianism is exemplified by the 20^th century regimes of Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), and Russia under Joseph Stalin (1879-1953).

The U.S. – sometimes not so camouflaged totalitarian Actions: Sometimes the totalitarian tendencies in the United States are not so hidden and easier to see. Some of the striking parallels between the classical totalitarian regimes of the 20^th century, particularly Germany in the 1930’s, and the United States in the 2000’s, are detailed in The end of America – letter of warning to a young patriot (2007) by Naomi Wolf. I have summarized Wolf’s book in “Parallels – Germany (1930’s) and the United States (2000’s)” (2007). These aspects will not be repeated here (Hall 2007b, pp. 1-126).

Camouflaged Totalitarianism: Present totalitarian mode of thinking have available to them technologies of control, intimidation, and mass manipulation far surpassing those of the classical 20^th century totalitarian regimes.

Camouflaged totalitarianism [or, as Sheldon Wolin, in Democracy Incorporated – managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism (2008), names it, “inverted totalitarianism”], represents the consolidation of the power of the business corporation with that of the state, accompanied by the political demobilization of the citizenry. It is not conceptualized overtly as an ideology. It is made possible by concentrated power (trusts, monopolies, holding companies, and cartels), which bears no relation to the small-scale laissez-faire market of Adam Smith (1723-1790); and by a biased interpretation of what Charles Darwin (1809-1882) called the “survival of the fittest.” It is the concentration of private power removed from and unaccountable to the body of citizens (Wolin 2008, pp. ix, x and ivx).

Wolin explains:

“In coining the term ‘inverted totalitarianism,’ I tried to find a name for a new type of political system, seemingly one driven by abstract totalizing powers, not by personal rule; one that succeeds by encouraging political disengagement rather than mass mobilization; that relies more on ‘private’ media than on public agencies to disseminate propaganda reinforcing the official version of events . . . It is largely independent of any particular leader and requires no personal charisma to survive. Its model is the corporate ‘head,’ the corporation’s public representative . . . Economics dominates politics . . . [Its] mentality is expansionist, opportunistic and above all, exploitative. It exhausts resources – natural, human, public ” (Wolin 2008, pp. 44, 58, 286 and 290).

“An inversion is present when a system, such as a democracy, produces a number of significant actions ordinarily associated with its antithesis – for example, when the elected chief executive may imprison an accused without due process, and sanction the use of torture, while instructing the nation about the sanctity of the rule of law . . . Inverted totalitarianism . . . professes to be the opposite of what, in fact, it is. It disclaims its real identity, trusting that its deviations will become normalized as ‘change’” (Wolin 2008, pp. 46 and 52).

“Inverted totalitarianism trumpets the cause of democracy worldwide, [but it is] a ‘managed democracy,’ a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that they have learned to control” (Wolin 2008, p. 47. See also Wolin 2008, p. 140).

“It might seem perverse to warn of the ‘totalitarian temptation’ at a time when the Republican Party – and to a lesser extent, the Democratic – have championed the cause of ‘smaller government,’ [and] of trimming the size of the ‘bloated bureaucracy’ . . . sharply weakening its regulatory powers.”

“A main object of managed democracy [however, is] the expansion of private (that is, mainly corporate) power, and the selective abdication of governmental responsibility for the well-being of the citizenry. These trends . . . indicate a realization that governance (in the sense of control over the general population and the performance of traditional governmental functions, such as defense, public health, education, and means of communication and transportation) can be accomplished through ‘private’ mechanisms, largely divorced from popular accountability, and rarely scrutinized for their coerciveness.”

“The union of corporate and state power means that instead of the illusion of a leaner system of governance, we have the reality of a more extensive, more invasive system than ever before, one removed from democratic influences, and hence, better able to manage democracy” (Wolin 2008, pp. 136-137).

“Inverted totalitarianism marks a political moment when corporate power finally sheds its identification as a purely economic phenomenon, confined primarily to a domestic domain of ‘private enterprise,’ and evolves into a globalizing co-partnership with the state – a double transmutation, [one] of corporation and state. The former becomes more political, the latter more market oriented. The new political amalgam works at rationalizing domestic politics so that it serves the needs of both corporate and state interests, while [it defends and projects] those same interests into an increasingly volatile and competitive global environment” (Wolin 2008, pp. 238-239. See also Wolin 2008, p. 253).

HISTORICAL Descriptions of camouflaged totalitarianism: Some of the highlights in the history of the concept of “camouflaged” totalitarianism, helps understand its nature:

The Dervishes (12^th Century): A Dervish is an initiate in a Sufi order, the ascetic and mystical movement within Islam. The word “Dervish” is the Persian equivalent of the Arab word “Fakir,” meaning poverty (in relation to God).

Indian author Idries Shah (1924-1996) was instrumental in introducing Sufism to the West. In Tales of the Dervishes – teaching stories of the Sufi masters of the past thousand Years (1967), Shah recounts the following story, entitled “When the Waters were changed”:

“Once upon a time, Khidr, the teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed, with different water, which would drive men mad.

Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water, and went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.

On the appointed date, the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his retreat and drank his preserved water.

When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet, they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.

At first, he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then, he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity” (Shah 1967, summarized in Hall 2004).

(Historical Descriptions of camouflaged Totalitarianism, continued)

Walter Lippman (1889-1974): In his book Public opinion, a manual of the invisible government (1922), American essayist and editor Walter Lippman, distinguishes between:

“the world outside and the pictures in our heads” (Quote in Hedges 2009b, p. 50).

Edward Bernays (1891-1995): In the 1920’s, Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), invents the term “public relations” as a euphemism of propaganda. He is one of the first to attempt the manipulation of public opinion using knowledge of the subconscious.

Bernays uses the term “invisible government of propaganda” to denote the power of the combined media (public relations, the press, broadcast and advertising) to brand products and imprint images (no matter their veracity) in the minds of the public. Bernays campaigns on behalf of the tobacco industry, re-inventing cigarette as “torches of freedom,” and promoting smoking among women as an act of feminist liberation. He is instrumental in spreading the disinformation critical to the overthrow, in 1954, of the democratically-elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (Pilger 2009).

George Orwell (1903-1950): British novelist and essayist George Orwell warns, probably in Nineteen Eighty-four (1949):

“In our age, there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” (Quote in Quinn 2009a and Quinn 2009b. Partial quote in Pilger 2009).

(Historical Descriptions of camouflaged Totalitarianism, continued)

Daniel Boorstin (1914-2004): In The image – a guide to pseudo-events in America (1961), American historian and attorney Daniel Boorstin writes that in contemporary culture, the fabricated, the inauthentic, and the theatrical have displaced the natural, the genuine and the spontaneous, until reality itself has been converted into stage-craft.

Boorstin warns:

“We risk being the first people in history to have been able to make their illusions so vivid, so persuasive, so ‘realistic’ that they can live in them . . . Yet we dare not become disillusioned, because our illusions are the very house in which we live; they are our news, our heroes, our adventure, our forms of art, our very experience.”

“An image is something we have a claim on . . . [It is] made to order, tailored to us . . . An ideal, on the other hand, has a claim on us . . . If we have trouble striving towards it, we assume the matter is with us, and not with the ideal” (Quotes in Hedges 2009b, p. 15).

Boorstin cautions that propaganda uses stereotypes because they simplify rather than complicate (Hedges 2009b, pp. 15 and 50).

Milan Kundera: In The book of laughter and forgetting (1979), Czech novelist Milan Kundera writes:

“The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then, have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long, the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster . . . The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting” (Quote in Bush 2009, pp. 2-3).

(Historical Insights into camouflaged Totalitarianism, continued)

Naomi Klein: In No logo (2000), Canadian journalist and author Naomi Klein writes:

“The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness, successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action” (Quote in Hedges 2009a, p. 2).

Benjamin DeMott (1924-2005): In Junk politics (2003), American cultural critic Benjamin DeMott uses the phrase “junk politics,” to describe that politics which personalizes and moralizes issues rather than clarifying them.

“[Junk politics] is impatient with articulated conflict, enthusiastic about America’s optimism and moral character, and heavily dependent on feel-your-pain language and gesture.”

The result is that nothing changes –

“meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socio-economic advantage . . . [Junk politics] miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad . . . [It] seeks at every turn to obliterate voters’ consciousness of socio-economic and other differences in their midst” (Quotes in Hedges 2009b, p. 47).

Harold Pinter (1930-2008): In 2005, accepting his Nobel Prize, English dramatist Harold Pinter debunks the myth of “exceptional America”:

“Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to U.S. foreign policy? The answer is yes, they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it.”

“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn’t happening. it didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis” (Pinter 2005. Partial quote in Pilger 2009).

Sheldon Wolin: In Democracy, Incorporated – managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism (2008), American political philosopher Sheldon Wolin warns about “inverted totalitarianism,” which hides behind the anonymity of the corporate state, purporting to cherish democracy, patriotism, and the constitution, while manipulating internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions (Wolin 2008).

(Historical descriptions of camouflaged Totalitarianism, continued)

Chris Hedges: In his article “Buying Brand Obama” (2009), American journalist and author Chris Hedges writes:

“Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush.”

“President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they [sic] make you feel . . . The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness” (Hedges 2009a, pp. 1-3 and 5).

In Empire of illusion (2009), Hedges writes:

“Those who manipulate the shadows that dominate our lives are the agents, publicists, marketing departments, promoters, script writers, television and movie producers, advertisers, video technicians, photographers, bodyguards, wardrobe consultants, fitness trainers, pollsters, public announcers, and television news personalities – who create the vast stage for illusion. They are the puppet masters” (Hedges 2009b, p. 15).

John Pilger: Australian journalist and documentary film maker John Pilger notes the power of emotions attached to false ideas, propagated by history books which consistently portray the United States as a non-imperialist country, driven by motives which are invariably innocent, well-meaning, moral, exceptional, and devoid of ideology (Pilger 2009).

Pilger comments:

“We should never forget that the primary goal of great power is to distract and limit our natural desire for social justice and equity and real democracy” (Pilger 2009).

He asserts:

“What Obama and bankers and the generals, and the IMF and the CIA and CNN and BBC, fear, is ordinary people coming together and acting together. It is a fear as old as democracy, a fear that suddenly people convert their anger to action, as they have done so often throughout history” (Pilger 2009).

U.S. Steps toward camouflaged Totalitarianism

1776: The american Revolution:

The same Year as The wealth of nations: The book An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, by Scottish economist Adam Smith (1723-1790), is published in 1776 – the same year as the American Revolution. The young nation does not have the traditions that Europe has, and capitalism takes hold easily an quickly (Wolin 2008, p. 122).

1787: A Republic, not a Democracy:

The “Founding Fathers”: In 1787, the main hope of the framers of the Constitution is to establish a strong central government. The “great experiment” aims, not at self-government or individual freedom, but rather at managing democracy (Wolin 2008, pp. 225, 229, 250 and 277).

The American political system would not be born a democracy. It would be born with a bias against democracy – constructed by men either skeptical about democracy or actually hostile to it. In the history of the nation, democratic advance would be slow, against the very forms which order political and economic power (Wolin 2008, p. 228).

Thomas Jefferson (President 1801-1809): Jefferson seeks to circumscribe “action by the citizens.” While citizens are “competent to judge the facts of ordinary life,” as when serving as jurors, they are “unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level” (Quotes in Wolin 2008, pp. 256-257).

The tacit assumption is that an elite should govern (Wolin 2008, p. 257).

Jefferson is afraid that democratic self-consciousness, bound to a place, might consolidate a majority. In an effort to forestall that possibility, he broadens the idea of geographical extension of national power to include new economic opportunity. In this scheme, political involvement would be given up in favor of economic opportunity and independence, equality given up for competitiveness (Wolin 2008, p. 232).

The purchase of the Louisiana Territory, in 1803, doubles the national domain and establishes the United States as an enlarging empire. The empire would expand across the continent during the rest of the century (Foster 2006, p. 13. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

James Madison (President 1809-1817): For Madison, the Constitution needs to be designed to frustrate the politics of commonality (Wolin 2008, p. 279).

This is because democratic majority rule:

“[stands for] the wishes of an unjust and interested majority” (Quote in Wolin 2008, pp. 229 and 280).

Madison refers to his compatriots and the public as:

“ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” (Quote in Pilger 2009).

He favors the expansion of the country, predicting that expansion would render difficult the organization of a democratic majority. He advises:

“ Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests. You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. Or, if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it, to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other” (Quote in Wolin 2008, p. 230. See also Wolin 2008, pp. 61-62 and 230).

Madison abandons the concept that disinterestedness, not personal advantage, is the fundamental virtue required of those entrusted with state power – what in Republic, Greek philosopher Plato (?427-347) called the “guardian class,” who prefer knowledge to political power. Instead, Madison imposes the principle of capitalism on the Constitution, with various offices:

“a check on the other, [so] that the private interests of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights” (Quote in Wolin 2008, p. 281).

By thus playing off the self-interest of the various government officials against each other, Madison subordinates the rationality essential to governing and policy-making to self-interest. He accepts in politics the market principle that all men are driven to act by and for self-interest (Wolin 2008, pp. 138, 280-281 and 333 n13).

Alexander Hamilton (President 1757-1804): For Hamilton, in particular, the consolidation and expansion of national power, require the promotion of certain interests (such as banking, finance, and commerce) which are “national interests,” and even a “common interest.” “The state” should be their “guardian.” The interests of common people, on the other hand, are parochial, unrelated to state power. Hamilton’s understanding of the “national interest” would continue to the present time (Wolin 2008, pp. 227 and 281-282).

Hamilton’s elitism can be gauged from his use of the word “irregular” to denote a democratic, egalitarian, and often rowdy public:

“Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice and other irregular and violent propensities?” (Quote in Wolin 2008, pp. 228 and 328).

A “managed” Democracy: The framers of the Constitution are the founders of modern “managed” democracy. They dilute the potential of democratic power by constraints intended to filter out any possible grand scheme. An elaborate system of checks and balances, separation of powers, an electoral College to select the president, and later, judicial review, are all designed to make it next to impossible for popular majorities to institute policies in the interest of the majority. Only the House of Representatives is to be directly elected by eligible (white male) voters. The Senate is to be indirectly elected by the various state legislatures. The framers hope that the Electoral College would play an active role in the selection of presidents, not merely register popular votes (Wolin 2008, p. 155).

The 1800’s: Frontier Freedom in exchange for Representation:

Forestalling democratic Consciousness: In the 1840’s, the ideology of “Manifest Destiny” legitimates and fuels the “drive” westward. “Taking over” what is not one’s own, is considered “just” according a higher principle. Freedom is the freedom to move westward.

But an enlarged spatial scale both requires and promotes a technology of power. The Winchester rifle is an indispensible technology which “Manifest Destiny” only serves to legitimate. A continually expanding scale distorts democracy in favor of power. Differences are not reconciled, only diluted by more space. The population is dispersed. Thus, in the early history of the country, the tension between the drive for expansion and the democratic ethos of political commonality, would not be resolved (Wolin 2008, pp. 61-62 and 230-232).

Abraham Lincoln (President 1861-1865): Lincoln defends his decision to suspend habeas corpus by citing the ongoing Civil War. The clear assumption is that once the emergency is over, this power will cease to be exercised (Wolin 2008, p. 235).

1880-1900 – The Populist Movement:

Grover Cleveland (President 1885-1889):

The “new Imperialism”: In the final decades of the 19^th century, imperialism enters a new stage. The “new imperialism” is characterized by:

* The breakdown of British hegemony, with the subsequent increased competition between the advanced capitalist states for control over territories throughout the world.

* The rise of monopolistic corporations (large, integrated industrial and financial firms) as the dominant economic actors in the advanced capitalist states. These large corporations – later to become known as multi-national or global corporations – seek to expand beyond national boundaries in order to dominate global production and consumption (Foster 2006, pp. 102-103, 108, 110, 119-120 and 162).

The Populist Movement: In 1886, in Cleburne, near Dallas, TX, the Farmers’ Alliance draws up what becomes known as the “Cleburne demands” – the first document of the Populist Movement.

The document calls for:

“such legislation as shall secure to our people freedom from the onerous and shameful abuses that the industrial classes are now suffering at the hands of arrogant capitalists and powerful corporations” (Quote in Zinn 1980/1995, p. 280).

William McKinley (President 1897-1901): Under President McKinley, the United States wages the Spanish-American War (1898) and the brutal Philippine-American War (1898-1901), thereby now becoming a world power (Foster 2006, pp. 13 and 122. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

The beginning of the 20^th Century:

Theodore Roosevelt (President 1901-1909):

The Progressive Period: The Progressive Period and the Age of Reform begin. Many regulatory laws are passed. Fundamental conditions, however, do not change for the vast majority of the working class.

The reason why nothing changes for workers is known at the time. In 1901, Bankers’ Magazine writes:

“As the business of the country has learned the secret of combination, it is gradually subverting the power of the politician, and rendering him subservient to its purposes” (Quote in Zinn 1980/1995, p. 342).

There is, indeed, much to protect. By 1904, 318 trusts, with capital of more than $7 billion, control 40 percent of the country’s manufacturing sector. Big business wants government rules, not an uncontrolled “free market” (Zinn 1980/1995, pp. 324-343).

In The triumph of conservatism – a re-interpretation of American history, 1900-1916 (1963), American historian Gabriel Kolko describes the emergence of “political capitalism” during this period. Major American businesses not only did not oppose many of the reforms and regulations, they actively supported them. The result of this big business/government coalition was:

“political capitalism – a utilization of political outlets to attain stability and rationality in the economy . . . [The merger movement and the financial structure of the United States became] a matter for the combined resources of the national state – a political rather than an economic matter” (Quote in Colburn 1995, p. 1)

The absence of a political party with a reform program reflects a lack of mass involvement. Big business is unchallenged (Zinn 1980/1995, pp. 342 and 646. Wolin 2008, p. 277. Colburn 1995, p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “Gabriel Kolko,” p. 1).

William Howard Taft (President 1909-1913):

The 17^th Amendment: The 17^th Amendment is proposed. It provides for the election of senators directly by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures, as the original Constitution provides. (It would be ratified in 1913) (Zinn 1980/1995, p. 341).

Woodrow Wilson (President 1913-1921):

World War I: America’s entry into World War I, is an intimation of what is to come. A Democratic, reformist administration re-directs its energies to wage war.

Wilson declares:

“The world must be made safe for democracy” (Quote in Wolin 2008, pp. 220 and 233. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Like Lincoln, Wilson applies expansive notions of executive authority during war time. Again, there is a clear assumption that once the emergency is over, the powers will cease to be exercised (Wolin 2008, p. 235).

The Clayton Antitrust Act (1914), and the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission (1915) are the continuation by Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) of conservative policies initiated under William Howard Taft (a Republican). Political capitalism has triumphed (Colburn 1995, p. 1. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

The Great depression: justification for an Expansion of state Power:

Franklin D. Roosevelt (President 1933-1945):

The Emergence of a Power Imagery: When Franklin D. Roosevelt takes office, in 1933, and establishes the “New Deal” (1932-1940), his aim is to stabilize capitalism by establishing a social democracy.

In the country, public discourse centers unapologetically on planning, focusing resources on the poor and unemployed, limiting agricultural production, regulating business and banking practices, castigating the rich and powerful, raising the standard of living of whole regions of the country, initiating public works projects which would create employment for millions while leaving valuable public improvements, and promoting schemes to include the citizenry in economic decision-making processes.

However, with both Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) in the background, a power imagery begins to emerge in the United States. The nation’s economic crisis seems to many to qualify as the equivalent of a state of war, justifying an unprecedented expansion of state power.

By the late 1930’s, it is far from clear that the social gains of the New Deal will survive World War II (Wolin 2008, pp. 20-22, 24 and 156).

Like Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt applies expansive notions of executive authority during war time. Again, there is a clear assumption that once the emergency is over, the powers will cease to be exercised (Wolin 2008, p. 235).

World War II: the Beginning of a global Power Imagery:

The Effect of total War on Consciousness: World War II enlarges the power imagery, as, for the first time, American military power reaches globally, engaged on every continent, except Latin America (Wolin 2008, pp. 24-25).

In terms of the material force at its disposal, the United States is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. It accounts for 50 percent of the total world output, 60 percent of the total world manufacture, and has a monopoly over nuclear weapons (Foster 2006, pp. 162-163).

In Total war and the constitution (1946), Princeton University constitutional scholar Edward Corwin (1878-1963) predicts:

“The impact of total war on the Constitution will . . . become embedded in the peacetime Constitution” (Quote in Wolin 2008, p. 106. See also Wolin 2008, pp. 16 and 308).

There would be no more regulation of capital by Democrats after World War II (Wolin 2008, pp. 221 and 270).

Harry Truman (President 1945-1953):

War now Part of normal Life: President Truman establishes the “Fair Deal” (1945-1952) (Wolin 2008, p. 156).

The war which Truman prosecutes, the Korean War (1950-1953), is incorporated into the ordinary life of the country. It does not transform the life of citizens. There are no U.S. civilian casualties. There is no “home front.” There are no economic hardships, only some inconveniences. The war is not even a “declared war,” as the Constitution requires. Henceforth, warfare would be part of normal life (Wolin 2008, p. 106).

In 1950, the word “superpower” first begins to be used to describe the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), as the “world’s only superpowers” (Wolin 2008, p. 305).

Major Interventions: Major interventions, overt and covert, by the United States in other countries, include those in China (1945), Greece (1947-1949), and Korea (1950-1953) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

Dwight Eisenhower (President 1953-1961):

Both social Programs and Wars: Even though a Republican, President Eisenhower does not seek seriously to roll back the social reform programs instituted by the Democrats who preceded him (the “New Deal,” by Franklin Roosevelt, and the “Fair Deal,” by Harry Truman). These programs are widely perceived as beneficial to the country as a whole. This consensus in the country would prevail until the election of President Reagan, in 1980 (Wolin 2008, pp. 156 and 203).

Major Interventions: Major interventions, overt and covert, by the United States in other countries, include those in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indochina (1954-1973), Lebanon (1958), the Congo (1960-1964), and Cuba (1961) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

The cold War: Justification for an Expansion of State Power:

John Kennedy (President 1961-1963):

“Mutual Assured Destruction”: President Kennedy is willing to sacrifice some elements of social democracy in order to promote a “strong state” for opposing Soviet communism abroad. The Cold War would last more than four decades (1947-1991) (Wolin 2008, pp. 27, 221 and 270).

In the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), Kennedy formulates the doctrine of “Mutual Assured Destruction” (targeting the enemy’s cities instead of his military facilities), to help “prevent” a nuclear war (Wolin 2008, p. 33).

Like the Korean War, the Vietnam War (1961-1973) is not a “declared war,” as the Constitution requires. It is a “distant war,” abstract and without U.S. civilian casualties. The War is unprovoked (Wolin 2008, pp. 106 and 270).

The elitism of the administration is revealed by its assurances to the public that the “best and brightest” and the “wise men” are in power (Wolin 2008, p. 270).

In the early 1960’s, as part of his promise “to get America moving again,” Kennedy announces a “New Frontier” – the “race for space” (Wolin 2008, p. 233).

Lyndon Johnson (President 1963-1969):

The Military wins over social Programs: President Johnson initiates the “Great Society” (1963-1968) programs, which include the “War on Poverty” (Wolin 2008, p. 156).

During the Johnson administration, the ambivalence of liberalism between defending the “free world” against communist aggression abroad, and increasing social and racial equality at home, remains unresolved. Johnson flounders in Vietnam, and is unable to come to terms with the participatory energy of the 1960’s. He does not seek his party’s presidential nomination in 1968. The Johnson administration is the last instance of a Democratic administration which struggles to combine the welfare state and a crushing defense budget (Wolin 2008, pp. 221-222 and 334).

Lies: The Pentagon Papers, a 47-volume analysis by the Department of Defense, of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, 1945-1968, is completed in 1969. When Daniel Ellsberg, a former government employee, makes copies of the Papers available to the New York Times, in 1971, and the New York Times publishes excerpts, the arrogance of even liberal administrations is revealed. Air strikes, raids, and U.S. marine involvement, in Laos and North Vietnam, have been kept secret from the public (Wolin 2008, p. 270. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Major Interventions: Major interventions, overt and covert, by the United States in other countries, include those in Indonesia (1965) and the Dominican Republic (1965-1966) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

Richard Nixon (President 1969-1974):

Economic, Energy and Military Crises: Like President Eisenhower, even though he is a Republican, President Nixon does not seek to roll back seriously the social reform programs instituted by the Democrats who preceded him. The “Great Society” programs of Lyndon Johnson are widely perceived as beneficial to the country as a whole. This consensus in the country would prevail until the election of Ronald Reagan, in 1980 (Wolin 2008, pp. 156 and 203).

In the early 1970’s, the rate of growth in the economy of the United States and the other world capitalist countries, suddenly slows down. In 1971, Nixon de-links the dollar from gold, ending the dollar-gold standard, and marking a decline in U.S. economic hegemony. In 1973, an energy crisis, engendered by Persian Gulf countries, as they cut their oil exports, exposes the United States as being dependent on foreign oil, and, therefore, vulnerable. In 1975, the Vietnam War (1961-1975) ends in defeat for the United States. The response to the economic stagnation is neoliberalism, which transfers the costs of the economic crisis to the world’s poor (Foster 2006, pp. 14 and 17).

Major Intervention: A major covert intervention by the United States in another country, includes that in Chile (1973) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

Gerald Ford (President 1974-1977):

Economic Stagnation: The causes of stagnation in a capitalist society reaching maturity – the stage of capitalism characterized by monopolies and oligopolies – is being clarified by some economists. [These do not include John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), whose analysis, as expressed in General theory of employment, interest and money (1936), remains rooted in the assumptions of atomistic competition] (Foster 2006, p. 43).

In Maturity and stagnation in American capitalism (1952/1976), Austrian economist Josef Steindl (1912-1993), explains that monopolistic and oligopolistic firms generally have a wider profit margin – that is, a higher rate of exploitation – than smaller firms. However, they are constantly threatened by a shortage of effective demand, due to the weakness of wage-based consumption. Facing this, they do not lower prices, as they might in a perfectly competitive system. Instead, they maintain existing prices and, therefore, their profit margin, by cutting back on output, capacity utilization and new investment – all measures which generate economic stagnation (Foster 2006, pp. 44 and 175).

Major Intervention: A major covert intervention by the United States in another country, includes that in Angola (1976-1992) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

Jimmy Carter (president 1977-1981):

Major Intervention: During the Carter administration, a major covert intervention by the United States in another country, is that in Afghanistan (1979-1989) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

Donald Reagan (President 1981-1989):

Business wins over Welfare: After 1945, the war time imagery has not been abandoned, but rather re-conceived as a “Cold War” (1947-1991) between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) – a showdown between capitalism and anti-capitalism. It is a “total war” of global dimension, and of uncertain but prolonged duration. The enemy operates secretively, “under-cover,” and is bent on “world domination.” He is at home as well as abroad.

New legal categories of “loyally,” “internal security,” and “subversion,” are introduced. The categories are totalizing – the War is an epical struggle for the fate of the world between a totalitarian dictatorship promoting atheism and communism, and the freedom-loving, God-fearing capitalist democracy of the United States and its Western European allies.

The Cold War thwarts the egalitarian tendencies encouraged by the New Deal, and the accompanying faith in government regulation of the economy, by obliging the assignment of a large proportion of the nation’s resources to defense rather welfare. National defense is declared inseparable from a strong economy. The welfare state is rolled back, and the power of capital consolidated. Business depicts social democracy and political regulation of the economy as socialism, and therefore, the blood relative of communism. Patriotism, anti-communism, and fear of a nuclear encounter become the new, now “dematerialized” unifying ideology. The state promotes business, without, however, imposing on business the requirement to be socially responsible.

From an agreement by both Democrats and Republicans about basic political institutions and practices, the country has formed an ersatz consensus that accepts as permanent the institutions and practices of corporate capitalism, and the dismantlement of the welfare state. Taxation of the wealthy is equated with “class war.” The ersatz consensus exploits the notion of consensus, thus reducing the space of acceptable contestation (Wolin 2008, pp. 26-28, 32, 34-35, 204 and 271-272).

Major Interventions: Major interventions, overt and covert, by the United States in other countries, include those in Nicaragua (1981-1990), El Salvador (1981-1992) Lebanon (1982-1984), and Grenada (1983-1984) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

George H. W. Bush (President 1989-1993):

Power, not Welfare: In 1991, during the first Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush exults:

“By God, we’ve killed the Vietnam syndrome once and for all” (Quote in Wolin 2008, pp. 41 and 165).

The syndrome includes not only popular resistance to an adventurous foreign policy, and mounting criticism of the “foreign policy elites,” but, equally important, widespread experiments in spontaneous “teach-ins” in which the pros and cons of foreign policy and military strategies are avidly discussed by ordinary citizens, students, and teachers (Wolin 2008, p. 165).

Like the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1961-1973), the First Gulf War (First Iraq War, 1991) is a distant, abstract war. The citizenry is kept at a distance. They are disengaged spectators watching events in the formats determined by an increasingly “embedded” media whose function is to render warfare “virtual,” sanitized, yet fascinating. Television, action movies and computer war games offer a parallel universe saturated with images of violence and triumphalism (Wolin 2008, pp. 106-107).

Major Interventions: Major interventions, overt and covert, by the United States in other countries, include those in Panama (1989-1990), Iraq (1991), and Somalia (1992-1994) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

Bill Clinton (President 1993-2001):

Economic Stagnation and Inequality: As a mature capitalist country, the United States is characterized by a concentration of capital (and the stagnation tendencies which this concentration brings), exploitation of poor countries, the financialization of the capital accumulation process, and continued rivalry with other advanced capitalist countries (Foster 2006, pp. 53 and 55).

Inequality in income characterizes the United States and the world as a whole:

* In the United States, in 1997, the top 10 percent of the population has 30 percent of the country’s income, while the lowest 10 percent of the population has 2 percent.

* In the world as a whole, in 1993, the top 10 percent of the population has 51 percent of the world income, while the lowest 10 percent of the population has 1 percent (Foster 2006, pp. 79-80 and 106).

Major Interventions: Major interventions, overt and covert, by the United States in other countries, include those in Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), and Yugoslavia (1999) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

The 21^st Century: “Terrorism” justifies PERPETUAL War:

George W. Bush (President 2001-2009):

The lone “Superpower”: The United States has been the lone “Superpower” since 1991. A new system has emerged. Its guiding purpose is not democratic, as might be represented by the promotion of citizen well-being and involvement in the political process, or a strict respect for the nation’s constitution. The nation has a new identity. The Superpower stands for economic and military power, and the standard of measurement is global.

The administration expresses its view in The National security strategy of the United States (2002):

“The United States possesses unprecedented – and unequaled – strength and influence in the world” (Quote in Wolin 2008, pp. 60, 303 and 350).

The blend of powers on which Superpower relies, includes the business corporation, science and technology (particularly military technology). A common characteristic of each of these three powers is a presumption of virtually limitless development – a so called “dynamism.” All three constantly supersede their own previous limits. They are totalizing in the sense that, in each case, the driving force is infinity rather than simple superiority.

This “dynamism” of capital, science and technology, is vital to the imperial reach and globalizing drive of corporations. It forms the basis for the system of corporate power which has replaced the old system, with its ideal of a sovereign citizenry. The corporate system conceives governance as a strategy based upon the dynamic power that science (including psychology and the social sciences) and technology have made possible. Exploitation of this power enables their owners to redefine citizens as respondents rather than actors, as objects of manipulation rather than autonomous individuals.

But democracy proposes a radically different conception of power. Democracy proposes that it stands first and foremost for equality – equality of power and equality in sharing the benefits and values made possible by social cooperation. Democracy is incompatible with world domination (Wolin 2008, pp. 60-62 and 100-101 and 132).

(George W. Bush, continued)

In Democracy Incorporated – managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism (2008), Sheldon Wolin observes:

“Superpower is distinctively the creature of elites. It is the antithesis of democracy” (Quote in Wolin 2008, p. 160).

Between 1945 and 2001, the United States has employed its military forces in other countries more than 70 times, excluding innumerable instances of counter-insurgency operations by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (Foster 2006, pp. 22 and 35).

The Union of corporate and state Power: An unprecedentedly systematized union of corporate and state power has taken place. The partners share a common culture – that of the corporation. While the corporate ethos has overwhelmed the ideal of government as the servant of the people, the old governmental ideals – such as that power is to be used for the public good, not private profit – have not provided a model for corporate behavior.

The government is resolutely capitalist and viscerally anti-socialist. It makes fear the constant companion of most workers. Downsizing, re-organization, the bursting of economic bubbles, the busting of unions, quickly out-dated skills, and the transfer of jobs abroad, create an economy of fear – a system of control whose power feeds on uncertainty. The egalitarian momentum generated during the 1930’s, and revived during the 1960’s, has been reversed.

The intelligentsia is loyal, seamlessly integrated into the system through a combination of government contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects by university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors (Wolin 2008, pp. 63, 67-68, 89, 112, 131, 143-144, 147, 238-239 and 253).

The ersatz consensus which silently has come into being under the Reagan administration, is now unquestioned. Both Democrats and Republicans accept as permanent the institutions and practices of corporate capitalism, and the dismantlement of the welfare state. During the 2004 campaign, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, testifies:

“I am not a re-distributionist Democrat. Fear not . . . I am an entrepreneurial Democrat” (Quote in Wolin 2008, pp. 204 and 324-325).

(George W. Bush, continued)

The World-wide Expansion of Capitalism: During the 1990’s, neoliberal globalization (the spread of unregulated capitalism throughout the world) gains strength, as the barriers to capital are removed throughout the world in ways which directly enhance the power of the rich capitalist countries at the center of the world economy, as against the power of the poor countries at the periphery. A key development in this regard is the establishment, in 1995, of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to work with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in enforcing the rules of monopoly capital. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, is symptomatic of a general global financial instability. These trends accelerate under George W. Bush (Foster 2006, pp. 17 and 39).

The 9/11 Myth: After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, on September 11, 2001, the United States media (television, radio, and newspapers), fall unwaveringly and unquestioningly into unison. The iconography of terror propels American citizens into a realm of mythology, where occult forces are bent on destroying a world created for the children of light. The myth recounts how the armies of light will arise from the ruins to battle and overcome the forces of darkness.

A myth presents a narrative of exploits, not an argument or a demonstration. It does not make the world intelligible, only dramatic. In the course of its account, its heroes become privileged, justified in taking bloody and destructive actions. They are entitled to take action morally denied to others. The “terrorist” epical, cosmic myth depicts an inevitable, and even necessary showdown between forces which are irreconcilable, mutually exclusive, and intolerant of opposition – that is, distrustful of a free and genuinely democratic politics.

On January 2007, in his State of Union address, President Bush gives a mythical representation of the stakes involved:

“[If American forces were to] step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be over-run by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by Al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country, and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq , would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America” (Quote in Wolin 2008, p. 11).

(George W. Bush, continued)

The country, even with all the main elements of a “free society” in place (free elections, free media, a functioning Congress, and the Bill of Rights), is now engaged in a battle against chaos with no discernible end. But no national institution can be accurately described as democratic – the elections are highly managed and money-saturated, the Congress is infested with lobbyists, the presidency is imperial, the judicial and penal systems are biased against the poor, and the media but reflect the official line (Wolin 2008, pp. 10-12 and 105).

The 9/11 myth perpetuates elements of the Cold War myth, depicting a foe which is global, without contours or boundaries, and shrouded in secrecy. Like the Cold War myth, the 9/11 myth justifies the goal of imperial dominion, and like it also, it turns inward, domestically, justifying totalitarian practices at home – now in the form of sanctioning of torture, the holding of individuals for years without either charging them or allowing them access to due process, transporting suspects to unknown locations, and conducting warrantless searches into private communications (Wolin 2008, p. 40).

Napalm and Torture: In Iraq, the United States re-introduces the use of napalm, outlawed by the United Nations in 1980. Its use of systematic torture in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and on its base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, generates a deep hatred of American imperialism throughout the world (Foster 2006, pp. 158-159 and 172).

Expansive Notions of executive Authority: On the basis of being “commander in chief” and “chief executive,” President Bush claims authority to override the Constitution, domestic laws and the power of Congress. He appoints “reliable” justices to the Supreme Court. The radical alteration of the system of checks and balances results in a dramatically changed political system. The President is not impeached. His imperial presidency is consistent with that of a Superpower (Wolin 2008, pp. 235-236).

Despite the incongruity and inherent tensions between unlimited global hegemony and constitutionally limited domestic power – between arbitrary power projected abroad (unilateralism, pre-emptive war), and democratic power responsible to the citizenry at home – the implications of Superpower, imperial power, and globalizing capital for democracy are not publicly confronted (Wolin 2008, p. 237).

(George W. Bush, continued)

Lies: A rarely discussed but crucial need of a self-governing society, is that the members and those whom they elect to office tell the truth. Self-government is, literally, deformed by lying. This is especially true when a democracy is reduced to a form of representative government, which is, by its nature, distanced from the citizen. In the age of spin doctors, public relations experts, pollsters, and a declining political involvement by ordinary citizens, democracy becomes dangerously empty. It will then accept blind patriotism, fear, and demagoguery, and eventually become comfortable with a political culture in which lying, mis-representation and deception are normal practice.

For more than a century, the public has been shaped by a relentless culture of advertising and its exaggerations, false claims, and fantasies – all aimed at influencing and directing behavior. The techniques developed for the marketplace have been adapted by political consultants and their media experts. The result is the pollution of the ecology of politics by the inauthentic politics of mis-representative government, claiming to be what it is not – compassionate, conservative, god-fearing and moral (Wolin 2008, pp. 261-262).

Lying is the expression of a will to power. In Truth and truthfulness – an essay in genealogy (2002), British moral philosopher Bernard Williams (1929-2003) notes:

“[My power is increased if you accept] a picture of the world which is a product of my will” (Quote in Wolin 2008, pp. 263 and 333).

A real democracy would be unlikely to deceive itself. The administration of George W. Bush pushes inauthenticity to extremes (Wolin 2008, pp. 263 and 272).

Violations of Federal Law: In 2005, following the Katrina hurricane disaster, President Bush dispatches federal troops to the area, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The Act restricts the employment of federal troops to “the purpose of executing the laws – except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress” (Wolin 2008, p. 307).

(George W. Bush, continued)

“War” against Terrorism: Imperialism is central to the terror crisis. Terrorism is both a response to empire, and the provocation which permits empire not to be ashamed of its identity. By blocking auto-centric development at its periphery, and thus perpetuating under-development, the United States breeds terrorism, which then blows back upon it, in a spiral of destruction without apparent end. By any objective standard, the United States is the most destructive nation on earth (Foster 2006, pp. 36-38 and 110. Wolin 2008, p. 70).

An enemy both amorphous and absolutely evil:

* An amorphous enemy: The amorphous character assigned to the “terrorist” threat, justifies enlarging the power of the state, both abroad and domestically. Power is both spatially and temporally limitless.

In his speech of January 22, 2004, President Bush claims:

“The best way to protect America is to go on the offensive, and stay on he offensive” (Quote in Wolin 2008, p. 71).

A world where warfare has no boundaries, spatial or temporal, and hence no limits, is not only the product of terrorism. It is also the product of the exploitation of terrorism. Terrorism presents an opportunity for Superpower, a justification for declaring a state of permanent crisis. Terrorism, power without boundaries, becomes the nation’s template.

By periodically providing its citizens with examples of its own power without legitimacy, Superpower can convert the threat from one posed by foreigners, into a more veiled one, as its actions, at any time, can be redirected against the citizens themselves.

* An absolutely evil Enemy: The absolute evil assigned to “terrorists” (murderers without reasonable or just provocation), allows the state to cloak its power in innocence (Wolin 2008, pp. 71-73, 76 and 93-94).

(George W. Bush, continued)

Major Interventions: Major overt interventions by the United States in other countries, include those in Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present) (Foster 2006, p. 144).

Like the other long and costly post-1945 wars [the Korean War (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (1961-1973), and the first Gulf War (1991) and its sequelae, the Second Iraq war (2003-) has an abstract quality, without U.S. civilian casualties (Wolin 2008, p. 106).

The threatened Use of nuclear Weapons: The Bush administration refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty aimed at limiting nuclear weapons development. It does not renounce the first use of such weapons.

In 2005, Robert McNamara (1916-2009), Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, explains:

“The United States has never endorsed the policy of ‘no first use,’ not during my seven years as secretary or since. We have been and remain prepared to initiate the use of nuclear weapons – by the decision of one person, the president – against either a nuclear or non-nuclear enemy, whenever we believe it is in our interest to do so” (Quote in Foster 2006, p. 19).

The Undermining the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: In 2001, President Bush blocks the enforcement and verification mechanism proposed for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Foster 2006, p. 90).

(George W. Bush, continued)

Refusal to act on environmental Issues: The lack of forceful and consistent policy on environmental issues (such as global warming, air pollution, water and food shortages, diminishing supplies of fossil fuel, and the likelihood of an infectious disease pandemic), is symptomatic of an increasing paralysis of the political system. At best, Democrats enact regulations, only to have them weakened or rolled back by a Republican administration.

The frustration of environmentalists reveals the profound inability of the United States political system to deal with long-range problems which require consistency of purpose, allocation of public funds, taxes, and a determined commitment to control corporate behavior. Concurrently, the economy, with its highly focused quest for profits, generates new products, new dangers to consumers and the environment, and new tactics for circumventing existing safeguards (Wolin 2008, pp. 207-208).

Sheldon Wolin notes:

“A government responsive to the deepening distress of the Many, to ever-widening class disparities, [or] to impending environmental crises, would need sufficient autonomy to defy corporate wishes” (Wolin 2008, p. 144).

Internationally, the United States refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol (1997) – a first and weak step aimed at controlling global warming (Foster 2006, p. 19).

The 2003 Iraq war, which is about the control of oil as a means to world domination, is itself a manifestation of the U.S. refusal to change direction, regardless of the consequences for the planet (Foster 2006, p. 160).

2009: Empire, not Democracy:

Barack Obama (President 2009-):

State/corporate Power trumps Democracy: Although raising hopes as a candidate that he would reverse the imperialist and domestically repressive policies of the Bush administration, Obama’s strategy was evidently image-making – a success in “public relations” (propaganda, advertising). The facts speak loudly for an Obama fully immersed in the Washington corporate machine.

Internationally:

As Senator, Obama:

1. Votes to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Presidential Candidate, Obama:

1. Sets his sight on power:

“I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another [American Century], when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good . . . We must lead by building a twenty-first century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people . . . ” (Obama 2007a).

2. Approves supplying “smart bombs” to Israel, while Gaza is being bombarded, during the weeks before he takes office. Investigative journalist and author Seymour Hersh would later write:

“The Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other high-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel” (Hersh 2009, p. 2).

3. Promises to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as a priority. But as of February, 2010, one year into his presidency, Obama has not closed it yet.

4. On October 20, 2008, is named by Advertising Age, the weekly magazine of the Association of National Advertisers, the “2008 Marketer of the Year” (Azpiri 2008, p. 1).

(Barack Obama, Internationally, continued)

As President, Obama:

1. Intimates that U.S. troops in Iraq will be coming home:

“And today, this is the promise I make to you . . . This includes the job of bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end, and pursuing a new comprehensive strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and it allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan” (Obama 2009b).

But Obama continues to deploy tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. General George Casey, Jr., Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, states that the U.S. troops will be in Iraq for 10 years. Military planners estimate that 70,000 troops will remain in Iraq for the next 15-20 years.

2. Twice escalates the war in Afghanistan.

3. Increases the number of unmanned drone strikes in Pakistan.

4. Continues the U.S. military involvement in Somalia.

5. Orders cruise missile attacks in Yemen.

6. Threatens Iran. (U.S. covert paramilitary forces are already in Iran) (Nairn 2010, p. 4).

7. Initiates the construction of a $46 million military base in Columbia.

8. Refuses to prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture.

9. Issues a “torture ban” (January 22, 2009) which prohibits American citizens from torturing in situations of armed conflict – but not if the country in which the torture is carried out is not at war. The ban is, in any case, ineffective, because 98 percent of U.S.-backed torture is done by foreigners (such as by Jordanians or Egyptians), acting under U.S. sponsorship (Nairn 2010, p. 14).

10. Continues the policy of preventive detention and detention without charges initiated by the Bush administration.

(Barack Obama, Internationally, As President, continued)

11. Re-instates military commissions and the policy of indefinite detention.

12. At the end of 2009, is still holding some 200 prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

13. Keeps intact the world system of secret prisons supervised by the United States.

14. Promises a world without nuclear weapons:

“So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” (Obama 2009a).

But Obama does not mention the development by the U.S. of new tactical nuclear weapons which blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

In his fiscal year 2011 budget, Obama proposes a $1.4 billion annual increase for the next five years (total $7 billion), for the U.S. nuclear arsenal (Democracy Now! 2010c. Democracy Now! 2010d).

15. Justifies the building of a missile system in Europe:

“Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies . . . As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system . . .” (Obama 2009a).

(Barack Obama, Internationally, As President, continued)

16. Promises to take the leadership in the development of alternative sources of energy:

“Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world’s dependence on fossil fuels . . . And I pledge to you that in this global effort, the United States is now ready to lead” (Obama 2009a).

But on December 18, 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark, Obama’s promise of a 17 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emission by 2020, from the 2005 level (equivalent to a 4 percent reduction from the 1990 level), is not emblematic of leadership. The UK has pledged a 34 percent reduction, and Japan a 25 percent reduction, from the 1990 level, by 2020.

In January 2010, both the Royal Dutch Shell Company, and a group of oil companies led by Exxon Mobil, sign contracts to exploit oil fields in Iraq (Democracy Now! 2010b).

(Barack Obama, Internationally, As President, continued)

17. Intends to side-line the United Nations in future climate negotiations.

On January 14, 2010, Jonathan Pershing, United States Deputy Envoy for Climate Change, explains:

“Who were [the countries that blocked an agreement in Copenhagen]? Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba. These are countries that are part of the ALBA group, a group that sees this process not so much as a solution to climate change, but, in fact, as a mechanism to redistribute global wealth. And they don’t like the fact that this did not do that. It didn’t do that, and they objected to that fact. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, the rest of the world doesn’t want to do it that way. But they couldn’t get an agreement because this group, this narrow group, was blocking it.”

“It is . . . impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail” (Quote in Democracy Now! 2010a).

Note: The member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), are Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Venezuela.

Major Interventions: Major new interventions, overt and covert, by the United States in other countries, include those in Pakistan and Yemen.

(Barack Obama, continued)

Domestically:

As Senator, Obama:

1. Votes to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

2. Refuses to support a bill to cap predatory credit card interest rates.

3. Opposes a bill to reform the Mining Law of 1872. The Law allows mining companies to pay little or no royalties to mine on public land.

4. Refuses to support a bill to provide single-payer health care for all Americans (HR676, sponsored by representatives Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers).

5. Supports the death penalty.

6. Supports a bill which would effectively bar state courts from hearing most class-action lawsuits (the Class Action Fairness Act). This “reform” bill is the culmination of a major lobbying effort by financial firms because in many state courts, class-action cases have a chance of defying the challenge of powerful corporations.

7. Promotes nuclear power as “green” energy. In July 2009, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, explains:

“I think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to a low carbon future. Quite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power. We have lost that lead, as we have lost the lead in many energy technologies, and we want to get it back” (Quote in Goldenberg 2009, p. 1).

(Barack Obama, Domestically, continued)

As Presidential Candidate, Obama:

1. Propagates the myth that the United States is benevolent and exceptional:

“At moments of great peril in the past century, our leaders ensured that America by deed and by example, led and lifted the world, as we stood and fought for freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders” (Obama 2007b, p. 1).

2. Opposes the mining reform legislation which has passed the House of Representatives. Discussing his platform for rural Nevada, Obama explains:

“The legislation that has been proposed places a significant burden on the mining industry, and could have a significant impact on jobs [in rural Nevada], given the difficulties the industry is already facing in maintaining its operations” (Quote in Roberts 2007, p. 1).

3. Receives more corporate support than his opponent, John McCain.

(Barack Obama, Domestically, continued)

As President, Obama:

1. Keeps in his post Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s powerful Secretary of Defense.

2. Allocates almost $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of the war in Iraq.

3. Spends, lends or guarantees $12.8 trillion of taxpayer money to corporations and insolvent banks.

4. Refuses to restore Habeas corpus.

5. Refuses to dismantle the extreme secrecy laws of the George W. Bush administration.

6. Continues to violate U.S. laws which prohibit:

a. Security assistance by the U.S. to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights [U.S. Code of Laws, Title 22, Chapter 32, Sub-chapter II, Part I, Section 2304 (a)].

b. The use of U.S. foreign assistance funds to train internal security forces (police) (Foreign Assistance Act, Section 660, 1974).

c. Assistance by the U.S. to any foreign military unit, if there is “credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights” (Leahy Amendment, 1997).

d. The use of U.S. weapons by foreign countries in order to carry out aggression (International Arms Sales Code of Conduct Act, 1999).

Repressive regimes now supported by the U.S., in violation of U.S. laws, include those of Algeria, Columbia, the Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Nepal, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and the Palestinian Authority (in the West Bank) (Nairn 2010, pp. 10-12. Federation of American Scientists undated, p. 1. Center for Public Integrity 2000, p. 1).

(Barack Obama, Domestically, As President, continued)

7. Does not consider a single-payer, not-for-profit health care plan for all Americans, favoring instead proposals which increase the power of the private health insurance industry.

8. Refuses to ease restrictions making it difficult for workers to organize.

9. Issues a permit for a multi-billion-dollar pipeline to carry crude oil from Canadian oil sands to refineries in the United States [Presidential Permit, August 20, 2009, to Enbridge Energy, Ltd., for the Alberta Clipper, a 1,607-kilometer (1,000 mile) pipeline to carry crude oil between Hardisty, Alberta, and Superior, Wisconsin] (Environmental News Service 2009, p. 1).

(Pilger 2009. Hedges 2009a. Hedges 2009b. Greenwald 2009. Obama 2007a. Obama 2007b. Obama 2009b. Obama 2009a. Roberts 2007, p. 1. Nairn 2010. Center for Public Integrity 2000, p. 1. Hersh 2009, p. 2. Azpiri 2008, p. 1. Goldenberg 2009, p. 1-3. Federation of American Scientists undated, p. 1. Environmental News Service 2009, p. 1. Democracy Now! 2010c. Democracy Now! 2010d).

The U.S. System of monopoly-Finance capitalism

The Monopoly stage of Capitalism:

Monopoly-Finance Capitalism: A basic contradiction in capitalism, is that the process of accumulation (savings and investment), and hence, economic growth, depends on low wages, while at the same time, this same process of accumulation relies on wage-earners to consume its products. The contradiction manifests itself particularly acutely in the monopoly stage of capitalism because of the ability of large corporation to exploit workers to a greater degree than small firms are able to do (Foster and Magdoff pp. 27, 84 and 92-93).

In Monopoly capital – an essay on the American economic and social order (1966), Paul Baran (1909-1964), who had been Professor of Economics at Stanford University, and Paul Sweezy (1910-2004), then Professor of Economics at Harvard University, conclude:

“The normal state of the monopoly capitalist economy is stagnation” (Quote in Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 14-15, 63 and 66. Emphasis the authors’).

Baran and Sweezy explain that the core problem of a monopoly-capitalist economy is stagnation, as enormous productivity and oligopolistic pricing combine to generate a surplus of capital so great as to be beyond the capacity of the economy to absorb through the usual channels of consumption and investment. The system becomes dependent on the generation of waste, in the form of military spending, the expansion of sales efforts, duplicative innovations, and speculative finance. The first three of these stimulate production, but over time prove inadequate because by increasing production, they contribute to “vanishing investment opportunities” – a term used by Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), in Business cycles (1939) (Quote in Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 13-14. Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 18, 64-65, 68, 126 and 141).

Historically, giant corporations made their appearance around 1900, marking a major transformation in the evolution of capitalism.

After World War II, the new stage of capitalism became consolidated, as a handful of giant corporations were now in control of most industries. The United States is now a monopoly capitalist state – and the view of Baran and Sweezy has been corroborated. The economic growth of the country, as measured by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has slowed, and concurrently, there has been a qualitative change in the economy from production to financialization, as investors have maintained profits by trading financial instruments instead of commodities (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 64 , 70, 72 and 79).

Karl Marx (1818-1883) explained the accumulation of capital as:

M -> C -> M¹

(where M represents the original investment,

C represents commodities, and

M¹represents the original money plus

the surplus value produced by labor).

In the financial circuit of capital, the cycle is:

M -> M¹

Such “financialization” shifts the weight of the economy from production to finance. The money cycle is fed by debt undertaken by financial institutions for the purpose of speculation. It has little or no stimulatory effect on production. Profits resulting from these debt-financed transactions are generally used to generate even more profits through more speculation, or spent in high living by the rich. The result is stagnation in the “real” economy (the material, commodity economy in which something is actually made or a service delivered). The result is relative unemployment, and increased wealth inequality (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 45, 61 and 77).

The “Great Financial Crisis” of 2008 represents a crisis in this debt-speculation cycle. There is no possibility that the enormous surplus capital (profits) which has fed the financial explosion can be absorbed by productive investment at this stage of monopoly capitalism, and with the existing structural inequality. At the same time, the financialization process itself is now in crisis (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 14-18, 20-21, 99 and 129-133).

Stagnation in the Production of Goods and Services:

Insufficient Demand: In the 1960’s, private sector net non-residential fixed investment was able to absorb all of the growing investment-seeking surplus capital (profits) which the economy generated. This investment expanded the production of goods and services (the “real” economy), and – together with government military spending – drove economic growth.

Starting in the 1970’s, however, fixed investment began to decrease. The result was that production stopped expanding.

Since the 1980’s, not only has there been no expansion in the “real” economy, there has not been even sufficient demand for the available output. The high demand of the early phases of industrialization has waned. Corporations can just barely sell the current level of goods they produce – at prices calibrated to yield the going rate of oligopolistic profit. The weakness in the growth of consumption results in cut-backs in the utilization of productive capacity, as corporations attempt to avoid over-production and price reductions, both of which would threaten their profit margins. For the owners of capital, the dilemma is what to do with the immense surpluses of capital at their disposal, in the face of a dearth of investment opportunities (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 79 and 101).

The response of the corporations has been to decrease utilization of the available capacity, and invest solely in the replacement of facilities (albeit with new, enhanced technology).

The result has been stagnation in the production of goods and services. The investment-seeking surplus capital has sought profits in speculation. These profits are increasingly decoupled from the manufacturing base of the country. Tables 5 and 6 illustrate these trends (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 13, 55, 93, 103-104 and 133. See also Foster and Magdoff 2009, p. 42).

Table 5: U.S.: A decreasing manufacturing Base and increasing Profits from Finances⁽^a)

Year Net private non-residential Profits from Manufacture Profits from Finances

fixed Investment (Percent of (Percent of

(Percent of the GDP) total domestic Profits) total domestic Profits)

(derived from five-year moving averages)

1965 3.5 50 15

1975 4.1 45 20

1985 4.3 42 17

1995 2.3 28 31

2005 1.8 14 40

________________________________________________________________________

^(a) Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 55, 93, 103 and 133.

Table 6: U.S.: A decreasing Utilization of available industrial Capacity^(a)

Year Utilization of industrial Capacity

(Percent Utilization)

1965 85

1975 85

1985 78

1995 81

2005 78

___________________________________________________

^(a) Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 102 and 131-132.

See also Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 38-39.

Low Investment in the “real” Economy: In the last few decades, the production of goods relative to the country’s GDP has steadily decreased – a decrease which represents a tendency toward stagnation in the “real” economy. Using 1960 as a baseline, and comparing the production of goods relative to the GDP with the total debt relative to the GDP, indicates that the country’s total debt has enormously increased while goods production has decreased.

Thus, from 1960 to 2005, the ratio of goods production to GDP decreased from 1.0 to 0.6, while the ratio of total debt to GDP increased from 1.0 to 2.5. The growth of the GDP shown in Tables 9 (“Non-finances and Finances Profits”) and 10 (“The total Debt of the United States”), therefore – from $4.2 trillion in 1985 to $12.5 trillion in 2005 – was due not to the production of goods, but rather to financial speculation. In 2005, the ratio of total debt to GDP was more than four times the ratio of goods production to GDP. Table 7 illustrates the trends.

Table 7: U.S.: Goods Production and total Debt, 1960-2005^(a)

(with baseline ratios considered 1.0 in 1960)

Year Goods Production Total Debt Goods Production and Debt compared

(Ratio Production/GDP) (Ratio Debt/GDP) (Goods Production

as a percent of total Debt)

1960 1.0 1.0 100

1980 0.9 1.1 82

2005 0.6 2.5 24

_____________________________________________________________

⁽^a) Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 19-20, 53 and 122.

A slowing economic Growth and low Wages: The Great Depression of the 1929 was followed, in the 1940’s, by the extraordinary growth of the country’s economy, under the impact of World War II.

During the two decades 1950-1969, strong growth was propelled by a set of special historical factors, which Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy attributed to:

1. The spending of war-time consumer savings.

2. Increasing reliance on the automobile – and the accompanying expansion in the glass, steel, and rubber industries, the construction of an inter-state highway system, and the development of suburbia.

3. The rebuilding of the European and Japanese economies which had been devastated by the War.

4. The Cold War arms race, and two regional wars in Asia (Korea and Vietnam).

5. The growth of sales efforts, marked by the rise of Madison Avenue advertizing.

6 The expansion of the finance, insurance, and real estate sectors of the economy.

7. The pre-eminence of the dollar as the hegemonic currency.

Once the stimulus provided by these factors subsided, however, the economy returned to stagnation – increasingly slow growth, rising excess capacity and unemployment/under-employment. The economy became sustained principally by military spending and an explosion of debt and speculation. The percentage of the GDP distributed in wages and salaries fell, as labor costs were cut. Indeed, in constant (1982) dollars, the wages of private non-agricultural workers were the same in 2006 as they were in 1967. Profits reached a low in 1986, and since then, have been rising, fueled by the finance sector, and de-coupled from investment in the commodity (“real”) economy. Table 8 illustrates the trends.

Table 8: U.S.: Gross Domestic Product, Wages/Salaries, and Profits^(a)

Year Gross Domestic Product Wages and Salaries Profits

Average Yearly Growth relative to GDP relative to GDP

in constant 2005 Dollars (mid-way through the (mid-way through the

specified decade, specified decade,

(percent) percent)^(b) percent)^(b)

1930-1939 1.3 - -

1940-1949 6.0 - -

1950-1959 4.2 - -

1960-1969 4.4 51 9

1970-1979 3.3 50 7

1980-1989 3.1 47 6

1990-1999 3.2 46 6

2000-2008 2.4 46 7

- 46 (2006) 8 (2006)

2009 Q₁-₃ -4.9 - -

__________________________________________________________________

^(a) Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 18, 128-130 and 133. United States Government, Department of Commerce 2009b, pp. 1-4 and 9. See also Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 49, 61 and 102.

^(b) The specific years are 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995 and 2005.

The Financialization of the Economy:

The Profits are in Finances: In its monopoly stage, capital derives more profit from financial activities than from the production of goods. “Financialization” of the economy refers to the process by which the traditional role of finance as a helpful servant of production, is inverted, and finance comes to dominate production (Foster and Magdoff 2009, p. 100).

In 1970, the GDP of the country was $1.0 trillion. Considering 1970 as the baseline equal to 1.0, both for the profits-not-from-finances to GDP ratio, and the profits-from- finances to GDP ratio, shows that from 1975 to 2005, the former increased by a factor of 19, while the latter increased by a factor of 33. Table 9 summarizes the trends.

Table 9: U.S.: Non-finances and Finances Profits^(a)

Year GDP Profits not from Finances Profits from Finances

(trillion dollars) (Ratio Profits to GDP) (Ratio Profits to GDP)

(Ratios to GDP considered 1.0 in 1970)

1975 1.6 2 2

1985 4.2 4 3

1995 7.4 7 7

2005 12.5 19 33

__________________________________________________________________

^(a) Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 122-123. United States Government, Department of Commerce 2009a, pp. 2-5.

Total Debt – A Measure of Speculation: Debt provides profits, and thereby stimulates economic growth – even though this growth may be mostly in the financial sector.

U.S. total debt is defined as the sum of the debt owed by households, government (local, state and federal), non-financial businesses, and financial institutions (banks, investment firms, insurance companies, and real estate consortia).

Since the 1970’s, the country’s total debt relative to its gross domestic product (GDP) has steadily increased, and since the 1980’s, has done so at an increasingly rapid rate. In major part, this expansion in debt represents the amount of debt incurred by speculation in the financial institutions (financialization of the economy). In 1975, 10 percent of the total U.S. debt came from financial institutions. In 2005, 30 percent of it came from these institutions. Table 10 summarizes the trends.

Table 10: The total Debt of the United States^(a)

Year GDP Total Debt Ratio Debt of Financial Institutions

Total Debt/GDP compared to Total Debt

(trillion dollars) (trillion dollars) (percent)

1975 1.6 1.5 0.9 10

1985 4.2 10.0 2.4 -

1995 7.4 20.0 2.7 -

2005 12.5 43.0^(b) 3.4 30

________________________________________________________________________

^(a) Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 19-20 and 46-48, 54, 70, 84 and 122. United States Government, Department of Commerce 2009a, pp. 2-5. Search.com 2005, p. 6.

^(b) In 2005, the Gross World Product, was $43.9 trillion (calculated at market exchange rates). That year, therefore, the total debt in the United States, was essentially equivalent to the value of the whole world economy.

Speculation out of Control: The figures on the debt explosion in the U.S. economy are startling. And yet, they under-estimate the growth of financial speculation in all manner of financial “instruments” such as stocks, futures, options, derivatives, currency and hedge funds. There is no accepted way of measuring the full scale of the speculation which the debt represents, since numerous financial instruments now exist which are completely new (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 56 and 80).

In After the new economy (2005), Doug Henwood, Editor of the Left Business Observer, describes:

“[These new instruments] are completely outside the conceptual realm of traditional accounting, which can think of debt and equity, liabilities and assets, but not [of] more insubstantial instruments like options, futures, and inverse floaters. And unlike stocks or loans, it is hard to put a dollar volume on them, since the purported value of the transaction – the notional principal – is usually far more than the sum of money actually at risk . . . But the very immeasurability of the things underscores the point about financialization: layers of claims have been piled upon layers of claims, most of them furiously traded, with some resisting definition and measurements . . . If there were some way to capture their growth, the line on the chart would no doubt run off the page” (Quote in Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 70 and 147-148).

Military Expenditures:

Military Expenditures out of Control: In recent years, along with finance, the principal stimulus to the U.S. economy has been military expenditures. Military spending lifted the country out of the Great Depression, but this method cannot be used now without threatening world annihilation.

In his article “Why the U.S. has really gone broke” (Le Monde Diplomatique, 2008), former Professor at the University of California, San Diego, CA, Chalmers Johnson summarizes:

“The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008, are larger than [those of] all other nations’ military budgets combined.”

“The supplementary requests to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – not part of the official defense budget – [themselves total more] than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. [The Department of Defense fiscal year 2008 budget plus these supplemental requests total $766 billion]”

“[Including the hidden military spending in other sections of the government, such as in Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs etc . . .], Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history.”

“Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defense spending has doubled since the mid-1990’s. The defense budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the Second World War” (Quotes in Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 104-105. See also Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 22 and 152).

Military expenditures have a special stimulating effect on the economy. Actual warfare stimulates the economy by requiring the replacement of spent armaments, and equipment that wears out rapidly under battle conditions. The need for armaments stimulates investment in capital goods, such as shipbuilding, machine tools, other machinery industries, and communication equipment. Military research and development may also give rise to entirely new industries, such a the Internet (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 42-43).

Table 11 summarizes the published U.S. military expenditures for fiscal year 2010. The total of more that one trillion dollars is almost as much as the defense spending of all the other countries combined. In his fiscal 2011 budget (presented in February 2010), President Obama requests an additional $44 billion in military expenditures – from (534 + 130) = $664 in fiscal 2010 to $708 billion in fiscal 2011 (Foster and Magdoff 2009, pp. 22 and 75-76. Wikipedia 2010 “Military Budget of the United States,” p. 8, Democracy Now! 2010c).

Table 11: U.S.: Military Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2010^(a)

Item Expenditures

(billion dollars)

Base request^(b) 534

“Overseas Contingency Operations” request^(b) 130

Addition by Congress^(c) 16

Supplemental (Afghanistan and Iraq Wars)^(d) 45

Non-Department of Defense Spending^(e) 289

Unpublished “Black Budget”^(f) ?

___________________________________________________________

Total 1,014 +

___________________________________________________________

^(a)Wikipedia 2010 “Military Budget of the United States,” pp. 1-2. Martin 2010, pp. 2-3.

^(b) The total requested by President Obama was (534 + 130) = $664 billion dollars.

^(c) On October 28, 2009, when the budget was signed in law.

^(d) On November 5, 2009, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed expecting to request, by the Spring of 2010, an additional supplemental spending bill in the range of $40-50 billion, to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

^(e) Defense-related expenditures outside the Department of Defense are in the range of $216 -$361 billion. Nearly all of the budget of the Department of Energy is for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

^(f) The Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs. This spending is not listed as federal expenditures, and is not included in published military expenditures.

Federal priorities:

The Budget: In February 2010, President Obama released his budget for fiscal year (FY) 2011, to take effect on October 1, 2010. The proposed budget is $3.8 trillion. Table 12 summarizes some of its principal aspects.

Table 12: United States, proposed 2011 Budget^(a)

Fiscal Year Budget Growth from Mandatory Discretionary

previous year Spending Spending

(trillion dollars) (percent) (trillion dollars) (trillion dollars)

2009 3.1 7 1.9 1.2

2010 3.6 16 2.2 1.4

2011 3.8 6 2.1 1.7

_________________________________________________________

^(a) Wikipedia 2010 “2008 United States federal Budget,” p. 1. Wikipedia 2010 “2009 United States federal Budget,” pp. 1-3. Wikipedia 2010 “2010 United States federal Budget,” pp. 1 and 3-4. Wikipedia 2010 “2011 United States federal Budget,” p. 1. About.com undated b, p. 1.

The Gross Domestic Product: The budget is based on a 3.8 percent growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011. In view of the decrease in 2009 and the very slow growth expected in 2010, the 3.8 percent growth is probably optimistic.

The budget does not clarify how on a finite planet, already reeling from the abuse of its resources, the economy of a high-consuming country can continue to grow ad infinitum. An annual growth of 3.8 percent means a doubling in 19 years. If the “real” economy is 0.6 percent of the GDP [see Table 7 (U.S.: Goods Production and total Debt, 1960-2005)], and its annual growth is (0.6 x 3.8) = 2.3 percent, its doubling time would be 31 years. Table 13 summarizes the present and proposed growth of the economy.

Table 13: The United States Gross domestic Product (GDP)^(a)

Fiscal year Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth in GDP

(trillion dollars) (percent from previous year)

2009 14.2 -2.4

2010 (estimated) 14.6 2.7

2011 (projected) 15.1 3.8

__________________________________________________________

^(a) BusinessWeek 2010, p. 1. Wikipedia 2010 “Economy of the United States,” p. 1. Martin 2010, p. 1. United States Government Spending undated, p. 1. United States Government, Department of Commerce 2009a, pp. 2-5).

The federal Deficit: The federal deficit is projected to decrease from its record high of 1.6 trillion in FY 2010, to 1.3 trillion in FY 2011. In major part, the deficit represents the effects of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 (which has depressed tax revenues and increased expenditures for unemployment compensation and other mandatory programs), and massive military spending. Table 14 summarizes the principal aspects of the deficit.

Table 14: The United States federal Deficit^(a)

Fiscal Year Federal Deficit Deficit relative Deficit relative

to Budget to GDP (trillion dollars) (percent) (percent)

2009 1.4 45 11

2010 1.6 44 11

2011 (projected) 1.3 34 11

_____________________________________________________________

^(a) United States Government Spending undated, p. 1. About.com undated a, p. 1. Martin 2010, p. 1. Washington Post 2010, p. 1. New York Times 2010, pp. 1 and 5. BusinessWeek 2010, pp. 1-2.

The federal Debt: The gross federal debt is the money owed by the federal government, including its intra-governmental obligations (debt held by trust funds, such as the Social Security Trust Fund). The net debt is the money owed by the federal government excluding these obligations. Table 15 summarizes the federal debt.

Table 15: The United States federal Debt^(a)

Fiscal Year Gross Debt Gross relative Net Debt Net relative

to GDP to GDP

(trillion dollars) (percent) (trillion dollars) (percent)

2009 12.9 90 8.5 60

2010 14.5 98 9.9 67

2011 (projected) 15.7 101 10.9 70

__________________________________________________________________

^(a) Wikipedia 2010 ”United States public Debt,” pp. 1 and 4. Martin 2010, p. 2.

Financing the national Debt: For FY 2011, interest payments on the gross debt are projected to be $499 billion, with net interest payments at $250 billion.

Most of these payments will go to wealthy investors, both in the United States and internationally. In effect, the federal government is paying interest to the rich for the cost of borrowing from them the vast sums expended for (among other things) the tax cuts for them passed during the Bush administration, and the bailout of the Wall Street financial interests by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Debt means a re-distribution of money upwards.

Too much debt, of course, leads to loss of confidence by investors in the ability of the U.S. government to repay its debts in any way except by printing more dollars. The threat is a collapse of the U.S. government. At present, the net debt equals 70 percent of the GDP (see Table 15: The United States federal Debt), and President Obama aims to decrease it (Martin 2010, p. 2. Wikipedia “United States public Debt 2010,” p. 16).

Unemployment: The official definition of unemployment excludes “involuntary part-time workers” (those who are working but not at the full-time hours they want), and “marginally attached workers” (those who want work but have given up actively looking). In the 2011 proposed budget, unemployment is likely to be additionally under-estimated because projected on the basis of an optimistic 3.8 percent economic growth. Table 16 summarizes unemployment rates.

Table 16: Unemployment in the United States^(a)

Fiscal Year Labor Force Unemployment

(millions) (percent of labor force)

2009 155 12

2010 (estimated) 155^(b) 10

2011 (projected) 156⁽^c) 9

___________________________________________________________

^(a) Martin 2010, p. 1. Wikipedia “Economy of the United States,” p. 2. Indiana Department of Workforce Development undated, p. 1. United States Government, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010, p. 1. BusinessWeek 2010, p. 1. Economic Policy Institute pp. 1-2.

^(b) This is an approximate figure.

^(c) The figure is for January 2011.

“Job Creation”: President Obama proposes to spend $100 billion on “job creation.”

From the perspective of the total budget, the sum of $100 billion is extremely small. It is, for instance, just 40 percent of the interest payments on the net federal debt ($250 billion, in 2011). It is just 10 percent of the military expenditures (more than 1 trillion in 2010). It is only a third more than the yearly subsidies to the oil and natural gas industry ($70.2 billion). And it is only twice the proposed loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants ($54.5 billion, in 2011) (Roberts 2010, p. 1. For military expenditures, see the present document under “The U.S. System of Monopoly-finance Capitalism,” “Military Expenditures”).

In January 2010, the number of unemployed and under-employed totaled 25.7 million (14.8 million unemployed, 8.3 million “involuntary part-time,” and 2.5 million “marginally attached”). Excluding any overhead costs or business profits, the sum of $100 billion is equivalent to 2 million jobs at $50,000 each – less than one tenth of the need (Martin 2010, p. 2. BusinessWeek 2010, p. 1. Economic Policy Institute 2010, pp. 1-2).

Upon the presentation of his budget, President Obama himself declared:

“Our economy has lost 7 million jobs over the last two years” (Quote in BusinessWeek 2010, p. 1).

Since December 2007, when the present recession began, 8.4 million jobs have been lost. In order just to keep up with population growth, 2.6 million jobs should have been gained. To return to the pre-recession unemployment rate, therefore, (8.4 + 2.6) = 11 million jobs need to be made available (Economic Policy Institute 2010, p. 1).

Not only is the $100 billion which Obama proposes for “job creation” an extremely small sum, but the workers are not to gain directly from it. The money is not intended to be spent on hiring workers. It is to consist largely of tax cuts for businesses which hire workers or raise their pay, extended unemployment benefits, and aid to state and local governments.

On January 30, in his weekly and Internet address, President Obama emphasized:

“But as we work to create jobs, it is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we’ve been accumulating for far too long” (Quote in Associated Press 2010, p. 1).

One can conclude, therefore, that for the administration, cutting the federal deficit is just as important as creating jobs, and that the emphasis of the Obama administration is on austerity for working people (Martin 2010, p. 4).

Entitlement Programs: Upon the presentation of his budget, President Obama reiterated his call for the establishment of an independent federal commission to propose major cuts in entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (Martin 2010, p. 4).

the corporate state

The corporate ethos:

A narrow Definition of Rationality: Definitions of rationality differ but many of them encompass the requirements of life. It is not “rational,” for instance, to kill life.

Concepts normally encompassed in definitions of rationality include:

* Making sense, being appropriate or required, or in accordance with some acknowledged goal, such as aiming at truth or aiming at the good.

* Analyzing data gathered through systematically gathered observations.

* Drawing conclusions from juxtaposing facts to each other.

* Being consistent with, or based on logic.

* Objectivity, thoughtfulness.

* Optimality.

* Living one’s best possible life, achieving as much as possible one’s most important goals and preferences.

* Reasonable, coherent, without subjective bias.

In game theory, however, rationality is defined exclusively as acting in one’s own best interest. Market theory (capitalism) defines it in the same way, and this definition is increasingly invading the larger culture (Answers.com undated, p. 1-3. Hall 2008, p. 34).

This discrepancy between the narrow definition of rationality by capitalism, and other definitions, reveals that capitalism is by no means either “value-free,” or “independent of human norm and choice,” as its advocates claim it to be; nor is global capitalism an inalterable structure of the world to which societies must adapt, whether or not they approve of its consequences (Hall 2008, p. 34).

A Culture of Exploitation: A culture of competitiveness, exploitation, opportunism, acquisitiveness, accumulation and ruthlessness follows in the wake of globalizing corporations. The corporate ethos is autocratic and hierarchical.

In Democracy Incorporated – managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism, Sheldon Wolin describes the ethos of the globalizing corporation:

“The ethos of the 21^st century corporation is an anti-political culture of competition rather cooperation, of aggrandizement, [and] of besting rivals, [while] leaving behind disrupted careers and damaged communities. It is a culture for increase that cannot rest (rest is equated with ‘stagnation’), but must continuously innovate and expand.”

“It accepts as axiomatic that top executives have to be, first and foremost, competition-oriented and profit-driven. The profitability of the corporate entity is more important than any commonality with the larger society . . . The corporate ethos is not one that favors conciliation and fairness, or worries over collateral damage” (Wolin 2008, pp. 138-139).

“The contemporary phenomenon of privatization, by which governmental functions, such as public education, military operations, and intelligence gathering, are shared with, or assigned to private entrepreneurs, represents more than a switch in suppliers. The privatization of pubic functions is an expression of the revolutionary dynamic of capitalism, of its aggrandizing bent. Capital brings [with it] its own culture of competitiveness, hierarchy [and] self-interest. Each instance of the private inroads into public functions, extends the power of capital over society” (Wolin 2008, p. 213).

A Culture of Lies: A culture of advertising and its exaggerations, false claims, and fantasies follows in the wake of globalizing corporations. Lying and its variants, including deception and mis-representation, are not simple aberrations. They are the expression of a will to power [Wolin 2008, pp. 261-263. Hall 2009a (Poem, “The Pollution of Reality”), pp. 1-3, reproduced at the end of the text portion of the present document].

Sheldon Wolin describes:

“Political corruption and lobbying are the principal expedients for conveying the concerns of the most powerful actors in the political economy of change” (Wolin 2008, p. 275).

Expansion to Infinity: The business corporation, science and technology have in common the presumption that their development is virtually limitless. Each constantly supersedes its own previous limits. All three are totally committed not only to achieve a simple superiority over a rival, but to expand to infinity. Superpower relies on this so-called “dynamism” for its imperial reach and globalizing drive.

The Compression of Time: Modern technology and communications represent the means to compress (“hurry”) time, in the sense that less time is required to achieve a desired end.

But democratic deliberations need time. Compressed time, instantaneous communications, and rapid response impose a tyranny of efficiency. The constant efficiency subverts the very basis of democracy which is that time be defined by the requirements for deliberation, discussion, and reconciliation of opposing viewpoints – all of which suddenly seem “time-consuming” (Wolin 2008, pp. 268 and 233).

If efficiency is the goal, is there time for an authentic politics, reflective of the pluralistic character of reality? (Wolin 2008, p. 278).

The Enlargement of Space: The strategy of President Madison was to disperse the democratic energy of the people by means of dispersing them in increased space. The idea was revived in the early 1960’s, as President Kennedy announced a “New Frontier” – the “race for space.”

Soon, however, outer space would be over-shadowed by “cyberspace.” Indeed, the endless space of “cyberspace” fulfills completely the strategy of Madison for dispersing the will of the people. A limitless empire is now possible – concretely, America spreads “democracy” throughout the world, and abstractly, everyone can enter the Web and voice what happens to be on his or her mind.

But is either the concrete empire or the Web helpful to democracy? Is an enduring identity for the under-represented, the poor, the sick, the powerless, possible in the age of political bloggers? Can the Internet foster the trust required to find common ground among a multitude of interests? Or do Internet communications principally foster narcissism? Can what the public world is really like, what its inhabitants are really experiencing be “felt” through cyberspace? Or is the very venue by which reality is conveyed unable to communicate actuality? Is the abstract statistic that such and such a percent of the population are “below the poverty line,” able to convey the “feel” of the grinding poverty on the daily lives of “the millions who lack health insurance”?

In the past, moments when the people have challenged, and even influenced the structure of power, it has typically been at the initiative of a fraction of the people, not at the initiative of a collective whole (Wolin 2008, pp. 233, 267-268 and 278).

Rapid Change – to enhance Profits, not Democracy: The consequences of today’s increased tempo for democracy are not immediately obvious.

1. The political Economy of Change: Rapid change is not a neutral force. It is not a natural phenomenon which exists independently of human will. It is a “reality” which has been constructed from decisions taken within a certain framework formed by considerations of power, comparative advantage, and ideology. The “political economy of change” involves a wide range of factors, such as market conditions, scientific discoveries, technological innovations, and cultural disposition. Most importantly, however, it includes powerful actors and excludes the common people. Democracy is irrelevant to it, except perhaps insofar as it can be used.

When, in April 2001, Vice-president Richard Cheney and his National Energy Policy Development Group (the “Energy Task Force”) met in a series of 40 closed meeting with the most powerful energy corporations (Exxon-Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and the American subsidiary of British Petroleum), major environmental groups (such as the National Resources Defense Council) were denied admission. In May 2005, an appeals court even permitted the records of the meetings to remain secret. The political economy of change does not include a search for commonality (Wolin 2008, pp. 275 and 335n29. Wikipedia 2010 “Energy Task Force,” pp. 1-2).

2. Preventing Consolidation: The highly organized pursuit of technological innovation, and the culture which it encourages, have brought about rapid and encompassing change affecting institutions, values, and expectations. The triumph of contemporaneity necessitates forgetting – collective amnesia. The effect is to prevent consolidation. In particular, change has prevented the consolidation of democracy in the areas of civil rights (black voting rights), women’s liberation (equality), and public education (the privatization of education).

3. Change For Profit, not Progress: In the 1700’s, during the Enlightenment, for the first time, change became conceived as “progress” – an advancement which benefited all members of society. An important element in this early modern conception of progress was that change was a matter for political determination by those who could be held accountable for their decisions.

By 1875, however, the concentrations of economic power had overwhelmed the understanding of change as a public decision. Change became a private enterprise, inseparable from exploitation and opportunism. It was now a major element in the dynamic of capitalism, and the object of pre-meditated strategies for maximizing profits.

The unceasing search for what might be exploitable meant that virtually anything, from religion, to politics, to human well-being could be exploited. Democracy itself became exploited for anti-democratic ends. American power is extended internally (as by secrecy, increased surveillance of citizens, and policies which increase inequality), in order to “defend” democracy domestically. It is extended externally (as by wars, the deployment of intelligence agents in other countries, and more than 700 bases across the world), in order to “expand,” “bolster” and “promote” democracy internationally (Wolin 2008, pp. x-xii, and 134).

4. Blunting the collective Conscience: A society fixated on the future and caught in the frenzy of rapid change, has difficulty thinking about the consequences of its actions. Rapid change blunts the collective conscience, and dims the collective memory. No collective memory means no collective guilt – surely, My Lai is the name of a rock star (Wolin 2008, p. 275).

5. Engendering a reactionary Response: Christian evangelism, religious fundamentalism, creationism, and originalist interpretations of the Constitution, are part of a broad ideological matrix – “archaism” – which is a reaction to the intolerability of existence in a rapidly changing world (Wolin 2008, pp. 114-130, and 201).

Co-opting Science and Technology: Today, the state and the corporation have become the main sponsors and coordinators of the powers represented by science and technology. The result is an unprecedented combination of forces characterized by their totalizing tendencies. The state, the corporation, science and technology not only challenge established boundaries – political, moral, intellectual, and economic – but by their very nature challenge those boundaries continually, even to the point of challenging the limits of the earth itself.

The same forces (the state, the corporation, science and technology) are also used to invent and disseminate a culture which teaches consumers to welcome change and private pleasures, while resigning themselves to political passivity (Wolin 2008, p. xv).

Scientists invent instruments of unprecedented power for those who are motivated, not by intellectual curiosity or the common good, but by power or profit, or some combination of the two. The results are Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, bunker busters, the “shock and awe” unleashed against the entire Iraqi society, and unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen (Wolin 2008, p. 183).

Universities are no longer sites of anti-war activities as in they were in the 1960’s. The lack of anti-war agitation at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003, revealed the effective integration of universities into the corporate state (Wolin 2008, pp. 165-166).

Blurring the Line between Reality and Fantasy: Like the “enclosure movement” (the privatization of common land, which reached its peak in England around 1675), U.S. politics is being “enclosed” (privatized). Each instance of privatization of public services and functions, is a manifestation of the steady evolution of corporate power into politics, into an integral, and even dominant partner with the state. To the extent that political campaigns, elections, legislation, and even judgeships are dependent on private funds, our politics is to that extent enclosed, and the citizenry excluded.

Democratic resistance is prevented by the stunting of popular rationality, specifically, by a blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy. When the mayhem and violence depicted daily on screens are banal, the “shock and awe” over Baghdad seems just another episode in a long-running television series (Wolin 2008, pp. 283-285).

Sheldon Wolin observes:

“The crucial political issue of our times concerns the incompatibility between the culture of everyday reality, to which political democracy should be attuned, and the culture of virtual reality on which corporate capitalism thrives” (Wolin 2008, p. 268).

“In the late 20^th century, elites shaped a politics and a culture by which the stunting of popular rationality became an art form, devised to solve the problem [which had been] created by . . . the comparatively high levels of popular participation in electoral politics around [the 1900’s]. The aim was a new kind of electorate, a hybrid creation, part cinematic and part consumer. Like a movie or TV audience, it would be credulous, nurtured on the unreality of images on the screen, [and] the impossible feats and situations depicted. [Like a consumer audience, it would buy into] the promise of personal transformation by a new product . . . [Public] credulousness displaced public rationality” (Wolin 2008, p. 284-285).

The Rigidity of the state/Corporate System:

A Monoculture: The quote of President Barack Obama reproduced on the title page of the present document, points out, correctly, that a rigid system cannot endure:

“For history teaches us that the nations that grow comfortable with the old ways and complacent in the face of new threats – those nations do not long endure” (Obama 2009b).

But the corporate state is a monoculture. It does not allow for diversity. In nature, diversity is what allows adaptation and resiliency in the face of threats. At present, the threat of global warming is looming over the world, and corporations cannot adopt. Corporations have only one way to survive – by making a profit. They eat up the competition. They are intolerant of other economic systems, such as socialism or eco-socialism. They cannot voluntarily reduce their size and power. They will not do so until forced to, for lack of the natural resources upon which they depend to survive. By then, a good fraction of human and other forms of life on earth will have disappeared also.

Sheldon Wolin points out:

“The political role of corporate power, the corruption of the political and representative processes by the lobbying industry, the expansion of executive power at the expense of constitutional limitations, and the degradation of [the] political dialogue [which is] promoted by the media, are the basics of the system, not excrescences upon it.”

“When a minimum of a million dollars is required of House candidates and elected judges, and when patriotism is for the draft-free to extol and the ordinary citizen to serve, in such times, it is a simple act of bad faith to claim that politics-as-we-now-know-it can miraculously cure the evils which are essential to its very existence” (Wolin 2008, p. 287. Emphasis the author’s).

Conclusion – Sheldon Wolin:

Empire is incompatible with Democracy: Sheldon Wolin concludes that democracy is not in synchrony with the ever-advancing tempo of our time.

The Requirements for re-democratization: Some preliminary actions which re-democratization would require, point to a different temporal perspective:

1. Rolling back the empire.

2. Rolling back the practices of a democracy managed in favor of the elite.

3. Returning to the idea and practices of international cooperation rather than the dogmas of globalization and pre-emptive strikes.

4. Restoring and strengthening environmental protections.

5. Re-invigorating populist policies.

6. Undoing the damage to our system of individual rights.

7. Restoring the institutions of an independent judiciary, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

8. Re-instating the integrity of the independent regulatory agencies and of scientific advisory processes.

9. Revving a representative system responsive to popular needs for health care, education, guaranteed pensions, and an honorable minimum wage.

10. Restoring government regulatory authority over the economy.

11. Rolling back the distortions of a tax code that toadies to the wealthy and corporate power (Wolin 2008, pp. 274 and 287).

Wolin concludes that clearly, recovering democracy presents a task which runs counter to the political dynamics of our times (Wolin 2008, pp. 144 and 276).

Global Warming – the U.S. Level of Morality

After Copenhagen:

The changed moral Landscape after Copenhagen: Unless it immediately and drastically changes course, humanity faces the prospect of a planetary ecological collapse. The global ecological deterioration is increasing in severity, and doing so at an increasingly rapid rate. The window of opportunity during which humanity can still save itself, is closing fast.

We have entered a stage of civilization in which our present conception of politics and economics no longer fits the reality of our world. In the past, global treaties have not been a solution to our inhumane treatment of each other, such as through war, and the 2009 Copenhagen Accord has shown that global treaties will not be part of the solution to global warming.

The roots of the ecological problem are in humanity’s political and economic systems, neither system having among its criteria any standard of morality, whether regarding the remediation of past, present, or future injustices.

Leaders having failed us, each one of us must now see what is happening to our planet and do something about it. Anything less is to be an accomplice to the greatest wrong humans can ever perpetrate. The end of the anthropocene period, during which humans have dominated the planet, is at hand (Foster 2010, p. 1. Garvey 2009, p. 3).

In his article, “We’re all Eco-warriors now, after World Leaders failed us in Copenhagen” (2009), James Garvey, Secretary of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, London, UK, points out:

“It is likely that Copenhagen is a long-term disaster for the planet and its people, but it might have another, more immediate consequence for you right now. Your moral obligations might have just changed dramatically. In situations like the one we’re in now, the demand for action shifts from our leaders to us. They missed what might have been our last chance to take concerted, worldwide action on climate change, so the rest of us have to do something about it. Their failure means that we’re all eco-warriors now” (Garvey 2009, p. 1).

In this context, the morality of the U.S., the world’s greatest polluter, must be assessed.

Moral Criteria to assess Climate Change Treaties: In The ethics of climate change – right and wrong in a warming world (2008), James Garvey suggests four minimum moral requirements which must be satisfied by any proposal addressing climate change – historical responsibilities, present capacities, sustainability, and procedural fairness.

The Copenhagen Accord was initiated by the United States, outside of, and in parallel with the December 2009, 15^th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark. It was negotiated and signed by five countries (Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States), on the last day of the Conference.

The morality of the Accord can be assessed on the basis of the four minimum criteria suggested by James Garvey.

Historical Responsibilities:

Principle: This principle makes the connection between causal and moral responsibility. It is “the Polluter Pays Principle.”

As heavy polluters, the industrialized countries have extra duties, deeper responsibilities, and more obligations than the “developing” world.

The UNFCCC: The UNFCCC (1992) declaration calls on the “Historical Responsibilities Principle” (as it calls also on the “Present Capacities Principle,” see below), when it calls for:

“the need for developed countries to take immediate action . . . [and] take the lead in combating climate change . . . [The] energy consumption [of the developing world] will need to grow” (Quote in Garvey 2008, p. 119).

The Copenhagen Accord: The Copenhagen Accord does not recognize the “Historical Responsibilities Principle.” It contains no legal commitments from countries with regards to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

This is despite the fact that, since 1850, “developed” countries have been responsible for 76 percent of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide which has been emitted into the atmosphere, while “developing” countries have been responsible for 24 percent. There are no morally relevant historical grounds for this unequal use of the CO₂ absorptive capacities of the planet (Garvey 2008, pp. 70 and 109).

There is at present no basic equitable entitlement for CO₂ emissions. Even the 2004 global average of 5 metric tons per capita, is too high to forestall catastrophe (Hall 2009b, p. 68. Garvey 2008, p. 126).

Present Capacities:

Principle: A sense of fairness, equal rights, and equal entitlement, points to the conclusion that a finite precious resource should be distributed equally, unless there is some morally relevant criteria for departing from equality. This is especially so when those who most use this precious resource (the precious resource, in this case, being the planetary “carbon sinks”), are also those who are most capable of taking action, and when it is not clear whether indeed there is any level at which everyone could be allowed a “subsistence” level of emission.

According to this criterion, the United States and the industrialized world, should take on proportionally a much greater share of the burdens associated with mitigation and adaptation than the “developing” world.

The UNFCCC: The UNFCCC declaration calls on the “Present Capacities Principle” (as it calls also on the “Historical Responsibilities Principle,” see above), when it calls for the cooperation and participation by all countries:

“in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities, and respective capabilities, and their social and economic conditions” (Quote in Garvey 2008, p. 119).

The Copenhagen Accord: The Copenhagen Accord does not recognize the “Present Capacities Principle.” It contains no legal commitments from countries with regards to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

If everyone else is emitting greenhouse gases without limit, then would the U.S. be foolish to limits its own emissions? The answer is no. The requirement for morally demanded action, is not contingent upon the actions of others. If doing something is the right thing to do, it remains the right thing to do whether or not others are doing it too. If it is wrong, it is still wrong, even if everyone else does it.

Ethical demands are placed upon the users of scarce and valuable resource (the absorptive capacities of the planet, the “carbon sinks”) just because the scarce and valuable resource is being used. It does not matter whether a country signs a treaty, whether it meant or not to deprive others, or whether other countries are pitching in too. The moral demand is there, no matter what others do (Garvey 2008, pp. 108-109).

Sustainability:

Principle: The demand for sustainability reflects the value to us of the lives of future people – their rights. In a sense, this is the criterion which constrains the first two. This criterion falls upon all countries equally. At this point, it is not certain whether there is a sustainable level of greenhouse gas emissions. We may not know exactly if and how much emissions is sustainable, but it is clear that drastic cuts are necessary, and that any proposal should justify the risk at which it puts us and those who come after us.

The UNFCCC: The UNFCCC declaration recognizes the “Sustainability Principle”:

“The ultimate objective is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner” (Quote in Garvey 2008, p. 120).

The Copenhagen Accord: The Accord fails on the “Sustainability Principle.”

In his July 2009 essay, “Strategies to address global Warming, and Is Sundance Kid a Criminal?” James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies [part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)], makes the connection between science and needed policies. A morally adequate treaty would base its policy targets on science. The Copenhagen Accord fails to do this. Each country has its own individual target, based not on science but arrived at by “horse trading.”

Hansen suggests that there is no safe sustainable level of greenhouse gas emissions:

“We have already caused atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase from 280 to 387 ppm (parts per million). What science has revealed in the past few years, is that the safe level of carbon dioxide in the long run is no more than 350 ppm. The optimum CO₂ level to support civilization may be less than 350 ppm, but more precise knowledge is not needed immediately for the purpose of establishing present policies.”

(Moral Criteria to assess Climate Change Treaties, Sustainability, continued)

“The conclusion that CO₂ must be reduced to a level <350 ppm was startling at first, but obvious in retrospect. Earth’s history shows that an atmospheric CO₂ amount of say 450 ppm eventually would yield dramatic changes, including [a] sea level tens of meters higher than today. For reference, 450 ppm yields global warming about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level. Such a level of atmospheric CO₂ and global warming imply that we would hand our children and grandchildren a condition that would run out of their control, a situation that should be unacceptable to humanity” (Hansen 2009a, p. 1. Partial quote in Foster 2010, p. 3).

Signed in December 2009, five months after Hansen wrote these words, the Copenhagen Accord does not relate national targets to what science tells us is necessary. It contains no standard against which national targets can be assessed for their effectiveness in meeting either the need for a “below 2 degrees Celsius warming” (which the Accord itself “recognizes”), or the need for a 350 ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

In addition, the Accord contains no statement about the risk various targets for CO₂ reduction imply for people’s lives, present and future.

Any argument against action must present something more valuable than a better future for humanity. It is difficult to imagine what that something could possibly be (Garvey 2008, p. 112).

Procedural Fairness:

The Principle: Morally adequate proposals must be the result of fair procedures. At a minimum, all parties to the agreement should have an equal share in the information relevant to a decision, and an adequate understanding of the facts. The process for arriving at the agreement should be an open and transparent one. There should be freedom built into the process, to ensure that no one is forced to consent. All must participate fully in the proceedings. No one should take advantage of anyone else.

The UNFCCC: Carried out under the auspices of the United Nations, the negotiations leading to the UNFCCC declaration met the requirement of procedural fairness. The declaration, however, was only a framework specifying a set of principles. It was neither mandatory nor binding on the signatories. With regard to negotiations within its Framework, the UNFCCC specifies that formal decisions should be taken by consensus (Garvey 2008, p. 120. Pew Center for Global Climate Change undated, p. 3).

The Copenhagen Accord: The Copenhagen Accord does not meet the criterion of procedural fairness. It was negotiated outside the UNFCCC – that is, outside the framework of the United Nations. Its basic terms were brokered directly by President Obama and the representatives of four other countries. It is not binding and charts no clear path toward a treaty with binding commitments.

Over the bitter objections of some governments, countries working within the UNFCCC agreed to “take note” of the Obama agreement, and thereby open the way for greater participation. However, as some of the parties strongly opposed this procedural step, the decision to enter the Accord into the proceedings of the Conference, is technically not an acceptance by the Conference of is substantive content. The status of the Accord relative to the UNFCCC remains uncertain.

The Morality of the U.S. Position in Copenhagen: The U.S. position in December 2009, during the 15^th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was immoral. It exemplifies the result of a political and economic system which is inflexible, remaining ingrained in its search for power, hegemony, and the accumulation of private riches, and, therefore, unable to respond to the new threat of a collapse not only of civilization, but of planetary life itself.

(Garvey 2008, pp. 114-120. Garvey 2009, pp. 1-3. Foster 2010, pp. 1-4. Pew Center for Global Climate Change undated, pp. 1-3. Hansen 2009a, p. 1).

Conclusions

The May 22, 2009, quote from President Obama, reproduced on the title page of the present document, points to the need for flexibility in the face of new threats. The “full spectrum of threats” to which Obama was referring, consist of:

“the conventional and the unconventional, the nation-state and the terrorist network, the spread of deadly technologies and the spread of hateful ideologies, 18^th century-style piracy and 21^st century cyber-threats” (Obama 2009b).

Obama was not referring to global warming, but he should have been. All these other threats pale in comparison with the number of lives, both present and future, expected to be lost in the chaos engendered by global warming.

At present, the principal reason why we are unable to take commensurate action, is inflexibility, an inability to change our way of life in the face of a new type of threat. We are climate dinosaurs. Homo petrolatum is so specialized, so narrowly adapted, so encrusted in his ways, that he will die rather than adapt to a new way of life – and in his dying, will bring down with him the whole of nature as we now know it. Apres moi le deluge.

There seems to be little hope that the climate catastrophe will be averted. The data gathered in the present document show little commitment by any high-polluting country, to the egalitarian, universal development of humanity.

Global Warming: To stabilize the earth’s temperature, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases need to be at near-zero levels well within this century. Without significant mitigation, average global warming could reach seven degrees Celsius (12.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. In 2008, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were 40 percent higher than those in 1990 (Scripps Institution of Oceanography 2009, pp. 1-2).

Humanity has yet to take adequate steps to meet the threat.

Political Rigidity: Politically, the United States, the country most responsible for the global warming emergency, has still not taken action commensurate with the threat.

The reductions in emissions which Obama envisions for the United states, reflect a level of commitment which is among the lowest of any high-emitting country.

The proposed 2011 budget declares that:

“[the President will] work to enact and implement a comprehensive market-based policy that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent in 2020 and more than 80 percent by 2050” (Quote in Roberts 2010, p. 2)

The reductions are in comparison to 2005 – that is, they are of 4 percent below the 1990 level by 2020, and 67 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.

The United States is a devolving, degenerating democracy, increasingly described more accurately as a corporate totalitarian state. Caring for humanity’s survival is not in the mandate of corporations to their shareholders – and will not be until there is no more nature available as a “free gift” to be exploited for profit-making.

Economic Rigidity: Economically, Obama restricts his sights to solving the global warming problem by means of the market.

Obama’s proposed 2011 budget does not question the need for the economy of the United States to grow ad infinitum, on a finite planet. It triples loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear power plants (from $18.5 to $54.5 billion), provides 0.5 billion in credit subsidy to support loan guarantees for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, and “keeps a place” for any possible revenue which might be generated from carbon “cap-and-trade.” It proposes the elimination of $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil and natural gas industry (a total of 36.5 billion, 2011-2020), and the elimination of $0.3 billion in tax breaks for the coal sector ($2.3 billion, 2011-2020). It decreases funding for the Environment Protection Agency by one percent (from $10.3 to $10.2 billion) (Roberts 2010, p. 1).

What is needed is a major turn-around, an ability to think outside the box of capitalism, and an uncompromising, all-out effort to make rational humanity’s relationship to the earth. The first step in such an approach is to make the world democratic, that is, egalitarian both politically and economically. Each life is as precious as the other, and future lives are as precious as present lives.

Morality: Morally, the United States fails on all four major criteria for morality with regards to actions on global warming.

Historically, the United States has the major responsibility. The developed world has contributed 76 percent of the total carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere since 1850, and the U.S. is responsible for the majority of these emissions.

The present capacity of the United States to act on global warming far surpasses that of any other country.

The targets proposed by the United States are unsustainable in that they are not based on the best scientific evidence available. The targets are devoid of any demonstration of effectiveness, and are not open for amendment before their final year (2020 and 2050). The policy of the U.S. does not reflect a sense that future lives matter more than the present market system will allow them to matter.

In terms of procedural fairness, the behavior of the United States in Copenhagen was authoritarian and anti-democratic.

The hope for humanity now lies in an understanding that present political leaders are unable to solve the climate emergency, and that the people must act for themselves. The goal must be a world which is equal and democratic. The lives of humanity’s children are at stake.

In his preface to The ecological revolution – making peace with the planet (2009), John Bellamy Foster, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, makes the point eloquently:

“We have reached a turning point in the human relation to the earth. All hope for the future of this relationship is now either revolutionary, or it is false” (Foster 2009c, p. 7).

The pollution of REALITY (Poem)

Francoise Hall January 3, 2009

The Pollution of Reality

A grey, foul-smelling haze hangs over the land.

It is the pollution with which we are now familiar,

The type called “particulate matter,” by those who

Would sell us anti-oxidants to counteract its effects,

And thereby profit from environmental devastation.

There is another haze in the air, one to which

Few ever refer. It is the web of lies which has

Snarled every corner of society, relentlessly

Invading our psyche and ever more blurring the line

Between truth and untruth, reality and fantasy.

It is as if poisoned milk were piped into every

House, often directly into the children’s room,

By a milk industry parading itself as a friend, a

Conveyor of truth, but in fact interested only,

As all industries are, in making maximum profit.

Television, newspapers, radio, and most Internet sites

Depend for their income, not on us, the audience,

But on the advertising industry. Ads are what the

Media are in the business of selling, not news or program

Content. Newsrooms shrink while ads expand.

Advertisers buy our attention. Programs are only their

Bait – no program, no audience. The price of ads is not

Determined by the quality of the surrounding program,

But by the potential buying behavior of the audience.

The richer the eyes and ears, the higher the price.

And let not the news or stories disturb the

Trustful, manipulated feelings of the audience,

And certainly, let not the programming ever

So much as suggest that all advertisements

Are intentional deception. Let them believe.

The United States is marching toward a major

Confrontation. In order to live on its worldwide

Fair share of resources and waste generation

(Ecological footprint), it must decrease its demands

By 4 percent a year for the next 40 consecutive years.

The total reduction must be of 80 to 90 percent.

The country can do this by increasing the efficiency

Of its economy, contracting its economy, or both.

This, while its population grows by 44 percent,

From 305 million to a projected 438 million by 2050.

To give an example. Carbon emissions must be

Reduced by 90 percent. Assuming that, by 2050,

Half of its energy consumption is provided by

Renewable sources, the country would still have

To live on 20 percent of its present consumption.

The production of bio-fuels erodes the land on

Which grains are grown, and conflicts with food

Production. Nuclear power uses non-renewable

Resources, depends on large amounts of fossil fuels,

And generates wastes which put all life at risk.

But why disturb the peace of potential

Customers? Let them think the problem

Is soluble without effort. Some new technology

Will be invented in the nick of time. We will

Go from fossil to non-fossil sources seamlessly.

Fed a tapestry of lies, the “American people”

Believe. All, that is, except the one in six

Americans who lives below the poverty line,

And the 1 in 100 who rots in prison. Only

Potential buyers have economic significance.

The U.S. has undermined democracy in Chile (1973),

Brazil (1973), Uruguay (1974), Argentina (1976), Bolivia (1985),

Poland (1989), China (1989), Russia (1993), South Africa (1994),

Indonesia (1997), Central America (1980’s and 1998),

And within its own borders (particularly since 2001).

But when the President said that we had invaded

Iraq, in 2003, to “bring democracy to the

Middle East,” most people believed. And now

That the president-elect has shifted the focus

From Iraq to Afghanistan, people believe.

When the government declared the 9/11 (2001)

Atrocity, the work of evil Islamists who “hate

Our freedom,” people believed, never mind

The laws of physics and chemistry, and

The overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The assassinations of John Kennedy, Malcolm X,

Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Paul Wellstone –

All washed away clean. The use of depleted uranium,

The torture, the “extraordinary renditions,” the

Annulment of habeas corpus – all as if it never happened.

The scorn for the United Nations and defiance of

International law, the disdain for independent

Thought and critical dissent, the declared control

Of space, the brandishing of nuclear warheads,

The use of cluster bombs – all without accountability.

The hypnosis is directed at all who must remain

In a mood conducive to their spending money on

Commodities, whether that mood is carefree or

Fearful. They must “keep the economy growing,”

Or more accurately, keep the capitalist system afloat.

Many civilizations have succumbed, but

This is the first time in history that people

Have marched brain-washed to the predicted

Cataclysm, fed thousands of deceptive

“Messages” daily, and shopping till they drop.

Victim of a cluster bomb

The three-year-old asked,

“When can I have my arms back?”

Index of Persons mentioned

Baran, Paul ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53, 58

Bernays, Edward ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17

Boorstin, Daniel …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

Bush, George H. W. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35

Bush, George W. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1, 36-43

Carter, Jimmy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..34

Casey, George ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….45

Cheney, Richard ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………72

Chu, Seven …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49

Cleveland, Grover ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25

Clinton, Bill ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………35

Conyers, John ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..49

Cooper, James Fenimore …………………………………………………………………………………………..Title page

Corwin, Edward …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29

Darwin, Charles …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14

DeMott, Benjamin ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19

de Silva, G. V. S. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1, 2

Eisenhower, Dwight ……..…………………………………………………………………………………………………30, 33

Ellsberg, Daniel ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32

Engels, Friedrich ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

Ford, Gerald ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33

Foster, John Bellamy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………86

Freud, Sigmund ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17

Garvey, James ….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..78, 79

Gates, Robert ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..51

Hamilton, Alexander ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..23

Hansen, James …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9, 81

Hedges, Chris …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20

Henwood, Doug …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….62

Hersh, Seymour ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44

Hitler, Adolf ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14, 28

Jefferson, Thomas …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..21

Johnson, Chalmers ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….63

Johnson, Lyndon ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….32, 33

Kennedy, John …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31, 71

Kerry, John ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37

Keynes, John Maynard …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….33

Klein, Naomi ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19

Kolko, Gabriel ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

Kucinich, Dennis..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49

Kundera, Milan………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18

Lincoln, Abraham ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24, 28

Lippman, Walter………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17

Luxemburg, Rosa ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

Obama. Barack …………………………………….……………………………………………….Title page, 44-52, 76, 83

Orwell, George ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3, 17

Madison, James…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22, 71

Marx, Karl …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1, 54

McCain, John …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..50

McKinley, William ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25

McNamara, Robert ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42

Meszaros, Istvan …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2, 4

Mussolini, Benito ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14, 28

Nixon, Richard …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33

Pershing, Jonathan ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48

Pilger, John ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20

Pinter, Harold …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19

Plato ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22

Reagan, Ronald …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30, 33, 34

Roosevelt, Theodore ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

Roosevelt, Franklin…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28, 30

Schumpeter, Joseph ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..53

Shah, Idries ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16

Stalin, Joseph ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14

Steindl, Josef……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33

Smith, Adam ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14, 21

Sweezy, Paul ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..53, 58

Taft, William Howard……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27

Truman, Harry ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29, 30

William, Bernard ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..40

Wilson, Woodrow ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..27, 28

Wolin, Sheldon ………………………………………………………………Title page, 14, 19, 37, 43, 70, 75, 76, 77

References

About.com,

Undated a. “How the U.S. federal Debt and Deficit differ, and how they affect each Other.” (Kimberly Amadeo).

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Us_Debt, Accessed February 4, 2010.

Undated b. “U.S. Budget Spending for Fiscal Year 2011.” (Kimberly Amadeo)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Budget. Accessed February 6, 2010.

Answers.com, undated. “Rationality.”

http://www.answers.com/topic/rationality. Accessed January 12, 2010.

Associated Press, 2010. “Obama: cutting Deficit as important as Job Growth.” (Darlene Superville). January 30.

http://federalnewsradio.com/?nid=27&sid=1877081. Accessed February 6, 2010.

Azpiri, Jon, 2008. “Barack Obama named 2008 Marketer of the Year by Advertising Age.” NowPublic. October 20.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world. Accessed January 3, 2010.

Berger, Matthew, 2009. “Obama going to Copenhagen with 2020 greenhouse Gas Target.” SolveClimate. November 25.

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091125. Accessed January 1, 2010.

Bush, Vannevar, 2009. “The Struggle of Man against Power is the Struggle of Memory against Forgetting.” Vannevar.blogspot. March 24, 2009.

http://vannevar.blogstpot.com/2009/03. Accessed January 2, 2010.

BusinessWeek, 2010. “Obama proposes $3.8 trillion Budget focused on Jobs (Update2)” February 3.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-03. Accessed February 3, 2010.

Center for Public Integrity, 2000. “Pentagon-trained Troops led by Officer accused in Columbia Massacre. Washington, D.C. March 30.

http://www.publicintegrity. Accessed January 6, 2010.

Climate Action Tracker, 2009. “Unclear whether Copenhagen Accord meets 2 degrees Celsius.” December 3. (Climate Action Tracker is a web-based policy assessment system developed by Ecofys, an international renewable energy research and consultancy company, based in Utrecht, Netherlands; Climate Analytics, an international non-profit organization based in Potsdam, Germany; and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, based in Potsdam, Germany. Support comes from the European Climate Foundation, which promotes climate and energy policies in Europe to mitigate climate change).

http://www.climateactiontracker.org. Accessed January 5, 2010.

Clinton, Hillary, 2009. “Speech by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at the UN Copenhagen Climate Negotiations.” Copenhagen, Denmark. December 17. United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/cophc/cophc.aspx. Accessed January 4, 2010.

Colburn, David, 1995. “Review: Kolko, Gabriel. 1963. The triumph of conservatism – a reinterpretation of American history, 1900-1916, New York, N.Y.: The Free Press of Glencoe.” Modern America. Fall 1995.

http://miltenoff.tripod.com. Accessed February 10, 2010.

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6^th Edition. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University/Gale Group.

Cooper, James Fenimore. 1841. The deerslayer, or the first warpath. New York: New American Library (1963), p. 78.

Democracy Now!,

2010a. “U.S. Climate Envoy blames ALBA for Copenhagen Failure, backs side-lining U.N.” Headlines. January 14.

http://democracynow.org/2010/1/14/headlines. Accessed January 14, 2010.

2010b. “Shell and Exxon sign Iraq Oil Deals.” Headlines. January 19.

http://democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines. Accessed January 24, 2010.

2010c. “Obama seeks $44 billion Increase for Pentagon; $5 billion for nuclear Arsenal.” Headlines. February 1.

http://democracynow.org/2010/2/1/headlines. Accessed February 1, 2010.

2010d. “Despite non-proliferation Pledge, Obama Budget request seeks additional $7 billion for nuclear Arsena.” Headlines. February 2.

http://democracynow.org/2010/2/2/headlines. Accessed February 2, 2010.

Ecofys, 2009. “Copenhagen Climate Deal headed for 3.5 Degrees Celsius global Warming, and close to 800 ppm CO₂-equivalent greenhouse Gas Concentrations.” Press Release. Potsdam/Cologne/Copenhagen. December 3. (Ecofys is an international renewable energy research and consultancy company, based in Utrecht, Netherlands).

http//www.ecofys.com/com/news/pressreleases2009/pressrelease. Accessed January 5, 2010.

Economic Policy Institute, 2010. “Unemployment drops to 9.7 percent despite more Job Losses.” (Heidi Shierholz, with Kathryn Edwards and Andrew Green). February 5.

http://www.epi.org/authors/bio/shierholz_heidi. Accessed February 8, 2010.

Environmental News Service, 2009. “U.S. State Department OK’s Pipeline from Canada’s Oil Sands.” Washington, D.C. August 21.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2009/2009-08-21-091.asp. Accessed January 8, 2010.

Federation of American Scientists, undated. “The international Arms Sales Code of Conduct Act of 1999.”

http://www.fas.org. Accessed January 6, 2010.

Foster, John Bellamy.

2006. Naked imperialism – the U.S. pursuit of global dominance. New York, N.Y.: Monthly Review.

2009a. “Economy, Ecology and Empire.” Speech. Portland, R. October 2. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org.

2009b. “John Bellamy Foster: ‘We can’t shop our Way out of the ecological Crisis.’” Interview of John Bellamy Foster by Max van Lingen. December 10. (van Lingen is a student in Political Philosophy and Modern History, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The interview was first published in MRZine.

http://bermudaradical.wordpress.comp/2009/12/10/ Accessed December 20, 2009.

2009c. The ecological revolution – making peace with the planet. New York, N.Y.: Monthly Review.

2010. “Why ecological Revolution.” Monthly Review. Vol. 61, No. 8, January.

Foster, John Bellamy, and Fred Magdoff. 2009. The great financial crisis – causes and consequences. New York, N.Y.: Monthly Review.

Garvey, James.

2008. The ethics of climate change – right and wrong in a warming world. New York, N.Y.: Continuum International.

2009. “We’re all Eco-warriors now after World Leaders failed us in Copenhagen – Our political Leaders failed to do the right Thing. Now it’s up to us to push them into Action, or get on with it without them.” The Guardian. December 21.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/21. Accessed December 22, 2009.

Goldenberg, Suzanne, 2009. “Obama makes nuclear Compromise to pass clean Energy Bill – Endorsement of nuclear Revival suggests President is open to further Compromises in order to pass Climate Change Bill.” Guardian. July 8. (The Guardian is reporting the testimony of Steven Chu, U.S. Energy Secretary, to the Environment and Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate).

http://www.guardian.co.uk.environment/2009/jul/08. Accessed January 4, 2010.

Greenwald, Glen, 2009. Interview by Amy Goodman. Democracy Now! December 31.

http://www.democracynow.org.

Hall, Francoise,

2004. “When the Waters were changed – a Dervish Tale.” November 9 (1 page, unpublished). From Shah, Idries. 1967. Tales of the Dervishes – teaching stories of the Sufi masters of the past thousands years. New York, N.Y.: Penguin/Compass.

2007a. “Global Warming – an Assessment of possible Solutions.” May 26 (64 pages, unpublished).

2007b. “Parallels – Germany (1930’) and the United States (2000’s). December 22 (126 pages, unpublished).

2008. “The Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (97 pages, unpublished).

2009a. “The Pollution of Reality” (Poem). January 3 (3 pages, unpublished). Reproduced at the end of the text portion of the present document.

2009b. “Global Warming – pre-Copenhagen.” June 21 (108 pages, unpublished).

Hansen, James,

2009a. “Strategies to address global warming, and: Is Sundance Kid a Criminal?” Essay. July 13.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713. Accessed February 3, 2010.

2009b. Interview by Amy Goodman. Democracy Now! December 22.

http://democracynow.org/2009/12/22/leading_climate_scientist. Accessed January 8, 2010.

Hedges, Chris,

2009a. “Buying Brand Obama.” Truthdig. May 3, 2009.

http://www/truthdig.com/report/item/20090503. Accessed January 2, 2010.

2009b. Empire of illusion – the end of literacy and the triumph of spectacle. New York, N.Y. : Nation Books (Nation Institute and the Perseus Books Group).

2009c. “Empire of Illusion.” Speech, Seattle, WA. July 22. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org.

Hersh, Seymour, 2009. “Syria calling.” New Yorker. April 6.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/06/090406. Accessed January 3, 2010.

Indiana Department of Workforce Development, undated. “Labor Force Estimates, non-seasonally adjusted.” Strategic Research and Development/Research Analysis, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Indianapolis, Indiana.

http://www.indiana. Accessed February 5, 2010.

Martin, Patrick, 2010. “Obama Budget – War, Debt and Cuts in social Services.” February 2. World Socialist Web Site.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/budg-f02.shtml. Accessed February 3, 2010.

Morgan, Jennifer, 2009. “Reflections from Copenhagen – the Accord and the Way forward.” World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., December 29.

http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/12. Accessed January 5, 2010.

Nairn, Allan, 2010. “Obama has kept the Machine set on kill.” Democracy Now! Interview by Amy Goodman. January 6.

http://www.democracynow.org.

New York Times, 2010. “Obama Budget freezes much domestic Spending.” (Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear). January 30.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/politics/31budget.html?. Accessed February 4, 2010.

Obama, Barack,

2007a. “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs” (as prepared). Foreign Policy. April 23.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga. Accessed January 2, 2010.

2007b. “Renewing American Leadership.” Foreign Affairs. July/August.

http://www.foreignaffairs/com/articles/62636. Accessed January 2, 2010.

2009a. “Remarks, Hradcany Square, Prague, the Czech Republic.” April 5.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office. Accessed January 1, 2010.

2009b. “Commencement Speech, United States Naval Academy.” Annapolis, MD. May 22.

http://enduringamerica.com/2009/05//22. Accessed January 1, 2010.

Pew Center for Global Climate Change, undated. “Summary – Copenhagen Climate Summit, December 7-18, 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark.” (Elliot Diringer).

http://www.pewclimate.org/international/copenhagen. Accessed February 1, 2010.

Pilger, John, 2009. “Imperialism in the Age of Obama.” Speech at the Conference of the International Socialist Organization. San Francisco, CA. July 4. Broadcast by Alternative Radio, Boulder, CO.

http://www.alternativeradio.org.

Pinter, Harold, 2005. “Harold Pinter’s 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech.”

http://www.fowlesbooks.com/PinterSpeech.htm. Accessed February 13, 2010.

Quinn, James,

2009a. “Orwell’s 2009 – Big Brother is watching.” January 16. Financial Sense Editorial.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quinn/2009/0116.html. Accessed February 13, 2010.

2009b. “Animal Farm – 2009.”

http://www.theburningplatform.com/economy/animal_farm-2009. Accessed February 13, 2010.

Reuters, 2009. “Factbox – Main Points of the Copenhagen Accord.” Copenhagen, Denmark, December 18.

http:://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091219/india_nm/india448546/print. Accessed January 5, 2010.

Roberts, David,

2007. “WTF happened to a ‘new Direction’? – Obama condemns mining Reform Package as too hard on the mining Industry.” Grist. November 8.

http://www.grist.org/article. Accessed January 3, 2010.

2010. “Digging into Obama’s 2011 Budget on Energy and the Environment.” Grist. February 1.

http://www/grist.org/article. Accessed February 6, 2010.

Search.com, 2005. “The World Economy –Gross World Product (GWP): Data compiled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), on 179 Countries, at Market Exchange Rates.”

http://www.search.com/reference/World_economy. Accessed January 29, 2010.

Shah, Idries. 1967. Tales of the Dervishes – teaching stories of the Sufi masters of the past thousands years. New York, N.Y.: Penguin/Compass.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004. November 9 (1 page, unpublished).

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 2009. “Climate Change accelerating beyond Expectations, say leading Scientists – New Research emphasizes the Urgency of large and rapid Reductions in global Emissions of greenhouse Gases, especially Carbon dioxide.” Scripps News. Richard Somerville. University of California, San Diego. November 24.

http://scrippsnews/ucsd/edu/Releases/?releaseID=1033. Accessed November 25, 2009.

United States Government,

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

2009a. “Gross Domestic Product, Seasonally adjusted annual Rate.”

http://www.bea.gov/national/pdf/nipaguid.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2010

2009b. “Gross Domestic Product, percent Change from preceding Period, Seasonally adjusted annual Rates, based on current Dollars.”

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls. Accessed January 28, 2010.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. “Economic news Release – Employment Situation Summary.” February 5, 2010.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. Accessed February 5, 2010.

White House, 2001. News Release. September 20.

http://www.SourceWatch. Accessed January 26, 2010.

United States Government Spending, undated. “Federal Deficit, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2010.”

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year. Accessed February 4, 2010.

Vidal, John, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg, 2009. “Low Targets, Goals dropped – Copenhagen ends in Failure. Deal thrashed out at Talks condemned as Climate Change Skepticism in Action.” Guardian. Copenhagen, Denmark, December 19.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen. Accessed January 5, 2010.

Washington Post, 2010. “Obama Budget calls for new Spending to lower Unemployment, help middle Class. (Lori Montgomery and Michael Fletcher).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02. Accessed February 3, 2010.

Wikipedia,

2009. “Socialism or Barbarism.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated December 3. Accessed January 25, 2010.

2010. “Economy of the United States.” (The version before February 4^th, stated unemployment at 12 percent. The February 4^th version states unemployment at 10 percent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 4. Accessed February 3, 2010

2010. “Energy Task Force.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 7. Accessed January 13, 2010

2009. “Gabriel Kolko.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 14. Accessed February 10, 2010

2010. “Military budget of the United States.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 1. Accessed February 1, 2010.

2010. “2008 United States federal Budget.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 1. Accessed February 6, 2010.

2010. “2009 United States federal Budget.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 2. Accessed February 5, 2010.

2010. “2010 United States federal Budget.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 4. Accessed February 5, 2010.

2010. “2011 United States federal Budget.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 5. Accessed February 5, 2010.

2010. “United States public Debt.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated February 2. Accessed February 4, 2010.

Wolin, Sheldon S. 2008. Democracy Incorporated – managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University.

Zinn, Howard. 1980/1995. A people’s history of the United States, 1492-present. New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins/HarperPerennial.

***