Michigan And The War

Related to James Bovard’s question about the war and the Michigan primary, here are some indications of how the war may be affecting the primary.  According to Strategic Vision, 39% of Republicans support withdrawal for American forces from Iraq in the next six months, which hints that Michigan should be receptive to an antiwar message.  However, as he noted about the exit polls from New Hampshire, antiwar voters seem to have backed McCain there for some reason, which suggests that the war was either a low priority for most of these voters or they did not identify McCain with the ultra-hawkish wing of the GOP.  According to Rasmussen, Ron Paul has 8% support, which is one of his best poll results since his fifth-place finish in New Hampshire last week.  Based on the crosstabs of that Rasmussen poll, 92% believe Iraq is “very important” or “somewhat important,” but those who rate it as very important tend to be “conservative,” among whom Paul does not poll as well as among “moderates.”  To the best of my knowledge, all the leading candidates have been running heavily on domestic, economic issues, given Michigan’s high unemployment rate.  The wild card remains Democratic crossover voters who have no stake in the essentially one-sided Democratic primary, where Clinton is the only leading named candidate on the ballot because of a DNC ruling againt Michigan for its early primary.  These Democrats could follow the lead of Kos and back Romney, or antiwar Democrats could vote on principle for Paul and boost his final result.

57 thoughts on “Michigan And The War”

  1. A third possibility of why antiwar republicans dont vote for Ron Paul.. The MSM has bambooseled a nieve and dim witted public.

    1. That my neighbors have been deceived by the main stream media (MSM) is probably true. Your scorn may be justified. But cultures across America are falling into the collective unconscious when enticed, cajoled or commanded by media manipulators. Even though talking to those so affected often leaves me thinking that they wanted me to “shut up” I am not willing demonize them or even call them names. Those media already have cast me as their enemy, I intend to prove them wrong.

  2. Why is Kos pushing Dems to vote Romney? Romney is a total bore, and his past attacks on McCain and the Huckster have not worked out well. If the Dems want to throw a monkey wrench in the machinery of the Republican presidential race, they should vote Ron Paul all the way. Paul will stick it to the neocons and RINOs for their support of the Iraq war, destruction of our civil liberties, and expansion of big government.

    1. Romney is for doubling the size of Guantanamo Bay, refuses to say that drowning people is torture, and has several close aides who make their money from “tough love” gulags for teenagers.

      Markos Z. has described the CIA as ‘a wonderful place to work.’

      … maybe that’s why Kos is pushing Romney? Both sadists?

  3. All antiwar voters in Michigan and other upcoming primary states would create a political tsunami if all or most voted for Ron Paul. Persons who lost their jobs because of the WTO and other globalizing schemes could get even with the Clinton’s and other Democrats and Republicans for having approved it. Those who have lost their homes because of the predatory policies permitted by the Federal Reserve give the voters the best examples why the Federal Reserve should be abolished. Most candidates voted in favor of the Patriot Acts destructive of our Bill of Rights and Constitutional protections and should send a strong message by voting for Dr. Ron Paul – the only candidate champion of Constitutional Government.

  4. Yes, definitely, Democrats who want to prevent a war with Iran should vote in the Repub. primary, for Ron Paul. Thanks for all this info.

  5. Are the people of this country that stupid? I just don’t get it. Six years after 9/11 and we still don’t have the truth. A war that’s killed thousands of innocent people and based on lies. How can anyone support the garbage running for President? I wish the anger would start a real revolution in this country. I’d love to see people start going after the msm who are backing these traitors. To me, the msm is the root of all evil in this country. They’re the ones who are preventing Dr.Pauls message from getting out.

    1. AMEN BROTHER . the MSM in this country is nothing more than what pravda used to be. take a look at what passes for “Conserative talk radio hosts” these days . rush limbaugh , sean hannity , marc levin. and the masses keep on falling for it and wonder why it is that things dont change.

    2. The msm is not the “root of all evil in this country,” but it is certainly part of the problem.

      And I don’t think people are stupid, but they’re definitely ignorant and ill-informed. What else could explain the sorry pack of losers on both sides currently leading the race for U.S. President?

  6. We can also vote our conscience and vote for Dennis Kucinich, who is still on the ballot.

  7. Not a real fan of Kuncinich’s liberalism but he would be preferable to any of the other candidates except Paul. All of the mainstream candidates are evil.

  8. For loyalty reasons, the active duty military and veterans support McCain, even though the war is a failure and has cost 4,000 lives and huge amounts of tax dollars spent.

    Don’t these people realize they are setting up their sons and grandsons for a life of war?

    It was always my understanding that men who saw war didn’t want that for their sons or daughters. What has changed?

    Vote Ron Paul, not some misguided loyalty to a warmonger like McCain.

  9. the dems aren’t going to vote for Paul. have yuo been to DU recently? they HATE us. they don’t even allow links to articles at antiwar. it’s like the DPRK online

  10. The MSM sickens me. Why have “This Week,” “Meet the Press” and all the other pundit shows avoided Ron Paul since New Hampshire? Hell, he may not be the most charismatic-looking candidate, but he makes the most sense. I love reading and listening to his positions. The economy is beginning to tank and he speaks truth about the economy and about its interrelationship to the war. Go Ron Go!

  11. I live in Northern Michigan. The economy has been terrible here for years. What I find interesting is the “focus” on the economy. No matter how much McCain and Romney pander I know fully well that they will do nothing for Michigan if elected. Once the election is over it will be business as usuall. Ron Paul’s defense of the dollar and the reduction of big government would do more for Michigan and the nation than these pandering punks would ever do.

    As for the war issue, it is very mixed here. Michigan has been in a recession for years, Northern Michigan is in a depression. This has led to what is called the economic draft. So on the one side you have many people who are againts to the war, and on the other large groups who support the troops and still think we can win.

    This has been the most devicive issue I have ever seen. I have many friends that have and are arguing bitterly about this. One of my friends wives screamed at me “coward coward coward” when I stated I would never fight or support fighting in Iraq. She still believes that Iraq was involed in 9/11. She was finally convinced that there were not but this is not about to change her mind. The NeoCons have her believing the fear.

    Others I know feel that we must support the troops so we can win. I ask, what are they going to win? Is this a football contest, do they get a superbowl ring? I am a two time combat vet. Trust me it’s not a sporting event. However, it seems like this is one of the messages that is being repeated over and over.

    I don’t know how it’s going in the rest of the country. But here in Michigan the economy has driven many people into the military. This leaves some people “supporting the troops” some wanting to “win the war” and some like me saying support the troops bring them home and to hell with the war. In war there are no winners.

    One last question, How many of you have friends and family that have been subjected to the “economic draft”? Does anyone out there feel that maybey just maybey keeping the economy in the dumps help us avoid the coming real draft?

  12. “war is a failure and has cost 4,000 lives”

    I guess all the Iraqis the US military has murdered don’t count eh?

  13. It is very frightening to see how brainwashed much of the populace is, the MSM is a very real threat to truth and democracy, long live the web and long live Ron Paul!

    America is getting very Un-American and very scary.

  14. The war IS the big issue. No candidate can talk about the economy without addressing America’s growing empire abroad. It is bankrupting the country, so they continue to print more money and borrow to fund it, eroding our buying power and killing our economy.

    If anyone is serious about ending our economic woes, in Michigan and in the whole country, Ron Paul is the only choice. The antiwar left is always betrayed by the Democrat establishment. Just look at 2006. That was a vote on the war, the antiwar left gave the vote to them, and nothing has happened since. The Dems, just like the neo-cons serve special interest, and that is a fact.

    Paul is the only one willing to stand up to both the neocons and the Dems on this issue. If he does well or wins the Michigan primary, this might be enough for people to see that he is not just a fringe candidate with crazy ideas, he stands for something real that Americans believe in (like civil rights). The crossover antiwar left is needed in this case, and it is a great way to stick it to their own party for all the betrayal.

    Get out and vote for Paul. Not only will it screw up the neocons, it might just force the Dems to get in line with their antiwar supporters on this issue, instead of being a bunch of cowards like Nancy Pelosi. Hillary and Obama don’t need your support, the younger generations do. Either put the country on the right track now or subject the younger generation to a life of serfdom. That is the choice we have at hand. Single payor healthcare will mean nothing when we are all slaves.

  15. The reason Paul will not go anywhere is because the Israeli lobby cannot stand him. I am sorry, but this is true. Call me the names you want I just do not care anymore.

    Wake up people. The foreign policy of this country is driven by the drivel of a cult of warmongers who want all-war-all-the-time for the sake of whipping the Middle East into a giant Israel-friendly zone. And the price is to be paid by guys in northern Michigan and other poor parts of the country who need the work and will take on the dirty work. No one is more anti American than this criminal group of “patriots” and this country is becoming a total hollow shell with idiots for voters and the cult of mediocrity for a so-called elite. As long as the “citizenry” is playing on YouTube and surfing Google and sozzing its brains out on Ipod and on gizmos all day long and all night long…anything just as long as its brains are so blighted no one–no strong “critical mass”–will take the time to look a bit closer to see what is really going on. Our neocon pals love this and they couldn’t care less whether it is Democrat or Republican which comes in as long as he/”she” (if you truly believe as I do not Hilary is a female) will tow the right line on Israel. Anything having to do with the domestic cares of the country they couldn’t care a rat’s….

    I am sorry for the appearance of an “anti Semitism” but this is something about which I have grown more and more convinced–this Lobby’s stranglehold on the country. As one poster said earlier, nothing less than revolution on the streets is going to change things. Meanwhile, I will vote for/write in Paul as I hope all the intelligent readers here will also do.

    1. To Michigan Chick…

      I agree, the lobby does control congress. The fact that you are apologizing for appearing “anti-semitic” just goes to show how much they do.

      The myth that if you don’t support Israeli policies you somehow hate Jews is complete bullshit. This is why Nancy Pelosi turned her back on the antiwar left; she was booed off the stage at an AIPAC meeting. God forbid she looks like an anti-semite (political suicide)…anti-American, well that’s ok I suppose. Ron Paul is the only one willing to pull out of the middle east and the rest of the world and end the nonsense. So don’t be afraid to speak your mind and tell all your friends to vote for Ron Paul even if they call you a racist and anti-semite.

  16. I find it disappointing that not one of you ,obviously bright people, have yet to figure out that it is the capitalist economic system that is the root cause of all our ills. You complain about the MSM. Who do you think owns it? Huge corporations who support candidates for election and also happen to make money from defense spending! In turn for their support they get special treatment. That is the real situation people. Ron Paul supports completely unfettered capitalism. This approach would lead to even more concentration of wealth in even fewer hands with even greater direct control of the political process and content and further enviromental degradation. It does not matter who is running for office only how accommodating they are to the interests of the ruling class. These swine could care less about us. Money talks! Don’t you get that already? How is this going to change anything? Dan Rather anyone? The Bush administration made ‘a call’ to the head of CBS when Rather tried to expose Bush’s dirty little secret. What happened? The only way for the majority of us, the working class, to have any power is through economic democracy! The right to vote under the capitalist system in the United States is at best a sop to keep discontent from challenging the status quo. Always has been. That is why the establishment is heavily favoring the Democratic candidates hence the disparity in media coverage in favor of them. Neither Hillary nor Obama, despite their populist rhetoric, will challenge the dominance of corporations. The ruling class is trying to mitigate the disaster Bush and Co. has created to prevent a total loss of confidence in the U.S. governing institutions. Had it not been for the determined resistance of the Afghan and Iraqi people to foreign occupation we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now because the opposition to the war would be contained to only those of us who see it correctly as neo-colonialism. The Democrats and Republicans both aided and abetted this administration until they could no longer look the other way as the economic crisis deepened and began to effect everyone including their ruling class patrons. The working class must build a movement based on solidarity with it’s peers world-wide to challenge the status quo and the economic system that is bringing misery to the majority of it’s inhabitants and the planet to the brink of destruction. This movement must be democratic in the true sense of the word, it must be from the bottom up, it must be international and above all else it must fight for and gain economic power! Only when the abundant resources available to us are democratically apportioned to sustain our collective well being will the individual truly be free to develop their ultimate potential! This is not utopian but necessary if there is to be peace at any time in our future. The time has come to stop holding our noses and start holding meetings! Organization allowed us to develop into human beings with the ability to reason. Now let us put reason ahead of self defeating self interest. We have nothing to lose except our bondage…………….

    1. We don’t have capitalism in this country. We have a mix of corporate-welfare statism, fascism, and socialism.

  17. Oh come on, the “working class must build a solidarity with its peers”…please…Like so-called Socialist and “former” Communist states the world over aren’t ruled by their own corporate oligarchies. They are as corrupt as anything we are seeing here…

    Furthermore, it is this beloved “working class” as you call it that is partially responsible for this mess in Washington. What we see in ruling circles is not the product of “capitalism” but the product of a democratic republic the lazy society product of which would rather distract itself with bread and circuses than to trouble itself to get on the ball and be vigilant. That goes across the economic class spectrum but also for the know-nothing element of the working class which only cares about its beer, television and free health care.

    I am a capitalist; I love to make money and the freedom to do so, and I still have the clarity to appreciate a Ron Paul and to despise a Dick Cheney.

    SIgh…the Left in this country is absolutely no more useful than the Right)

    1. I love your response. Speak on. The last thing we need is a Stalin-like revolution to solve our problems.

    1. I recommend the link above by formerbeltwaywonk. There probably was a conspiracy to sabotage Paul’s campaign by beltway libertarians. The Kirchick piece actually praises these Judases and implies that Kirchick has been talking to them about Paul. Reason had a bit too much of a scoop on this story on the day of the NH primary and if you look at their coverage, they try to portray Paul in a negative light. Dave Weigel then followed up the next day with dispiriting piece the next day attacking the Paul campaign and the rEVOLution for all its supposed failures in NH. What this is all about are a bunch of wishy-washy suck ups to power who jealous and scared by the growing popularity of Ron Paul.

  18. If no one's noticed, Joe Lieberman just pulled out of the Israeli government. Oh, I'm sorry, it was Avigdor Lieberman. Darn, they look so much alike.

  19. Example of a true terrorist network: Fox News.

    Nothing but a legacy of lies and distortions wrapped in the flag.

  20. Again, I must point out the utter lack of intelligence of some of you posting here.

    1) Stalin was NOT a communist. He was the leader of a bureaucratic class that he himself cultivated and used to destroy the workers revolution by denying democracy to the masses. Thus Stalinist Russia and Western Capitalist governments used each other, and the struggling masses of the under developed world to further their own ruling elites ends causing misery for the majority of the people (working class) everywhere. What do you think increased military spending has done for us? Get your facts straight.

    2) There has not been a true, full socialist revolution yet. All have fallen or failed to materialize because of internal contradictions made all the more destructive by the interference and even armed intervention by western imperialist nations. Must leaders or organizations in the past and present who call or called themselves Marxist, Socialist or even Communist, particularly during the time of Stalin were nothing of the sort. Your idea of socialism is polluted by these defective interpretations and the ruling class takes great delight and enthusiastically participates in your continued ignorance!

    3) Unless you own the means of production, have large investments, collect interest on debt, employ others for profit or subsist on rent for land that you own, then whether you bring home six figures or an unemployment check you are NOT a capitalist! Your only ‘freedom’ is to sell your labor to the one who will pay the most. Even Barak Obama had to admit that the ‘middle’ class represents only 6 percent of the U.S. population. Yet this tiny stratum is used by all political hacks in this country as a fig leaf for their continued support of policies that enrich only the top 2 percent and people like you swallow it every time.

    As for the U.S. culture’s effect on the intelligence of the ‘beer’ drinkers as you like to label the majority, why is this so? Could it be that the lack of political consciousness in this country is driven by the quest of capitalists to produce and market completely useless garbage to a population that needs far less of what is produced and more of what is not because of the profit motive? Genius?

    1. Stop blaming western intervention for the failure of socialism. Socialism fails because it is run by people, and people have not and will not change. It doesn’t matter where the socialist revolution happens, there will always be an asshole like Stalin to take control of it. THAT is a fact that you need to get straight. I’ll take my chances with my freedom and the second amendment.

        1. All the more reason to make sure the state is limited and its power diffuse and decentralized, so the type of free market capitalism envisioned by the likes of Adam Smith, who is rolling in his grave at this point, doesn’t end up morphing into something resembling Mussolini’s “Corporate State.”

        2. Kirk, how do you vitiate unchecked private power? I’m sorry, but my scepticism of authority and centralized decision making extends well beyond the state and into the corporate sphere. Any consolidation of market power will tend to self-perpetuate, since large conglomerates have privileged access to credit, vast reserves of liquidity, and control over the best supplies of raw material and technical equipment as well as the elimination of transaction costs via the substitution of administrative command over the production process for the market- hence, the supranormal returns typically seen in larger businesses. Such a state of affairs would occlude any upstart competitors and entrench extant economic actors. Said firms would, barring occasional episodes of full employment, exert enormous bargaining against the workers. The freedom to choose one’s occupation means little when one is compelled to work long hours in unsafe conditions with no job security.

        3. Hmmm, well those Scandinavian socialist nations with well regulated mixed economies seem to be doing OK thanks very much. They top pretty much all the important economic/social indicators pretty much all of the time.

          There are aspects of economies that government is far more efficient at allocating. The trick is, in my view, to keep commerce out of government and vice versa.

          This is where the Scandinavian model has worked so well.

    2. Funny. You do the very thing you accuse others of doing. You confuse corporatism/mercantilism, central banking, and World Bank/WTO/IMF- style “free trade” with free market capitalism. It’s not a logically valid argument.

      Every “international socialist” I’ve ever run across completely ignores the role of the state in the situation we find ourselves in. I’m guessing the reason for this oversight is because their “solution” is premised on state power, which itself is premised on the use or threat of violence.

      What we have here is a struggle between the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left over who gets to use the power of the state to bludgeon the rest of us with.

      1. This “corporatism” as you call it is more or less an inevitable outcome of the interaction of capital and state- the wealthy have a habit of purchasing influence in government to the point where government has become a mere subset of business.

    3. I forgot to add that this exercise of the blunt instrument of state power to undermine and destroy the liberty of the individual will be rationalized in the minds of the international socialist because it will be, in their words, “democratic”, i.e., they have 51% of the mob on their side.

  21. Yes, Dan, I do regret the enormous number of Iraqis who have died since the start of this illegal war, but to this day do not know the true number of those who have perished.

    For some reason, voters are still under the impression that because McCain is pro-military he will do anything to protect the servicemen and women from being sent into harm’s way needlessly.

    They are so terribly wrong. That man loves war, not what’s best for his country or its military. He has had his day in the sun, and it’s high time we moved on about his prisoner of war experience. At least he is still alive.

    1. Totally agree with you on McCain. This clown loves war and never met a third world country he didn’t want to carpet bomb. He’s a disgrace.

  22. Let’s see, Scotty thinks communism never existed. And those 100+ million people who were killed along the way, that only happened because the commie program was not properly implemented and we therefore need to give it another try. Interesting parallels there to neocon claims about their failed program. Need I also point out that both catastrophies were the result of certain pathological ethnocentric elements gaining power and then unleashing their murderous hostility on the rest of humanity? Suffice it to say that the neocon line traces back to Trotsky. Different mass murder, same participant, same excuses.

    1. Allow me to comment. Since I don’t want to be red-baited and hounded accordingly, I’ll start out by saying that I’m not a communist, nor sympathetic to it, much less to the Soviet variety. That being said, it is intellectually lazy to simply categorize two different ideologies the same way on the basis of select rhetorical similarities. It is pure guilt by association that skirts the actual issues and serves as a prophylactic against reasoned debate. Highlighting talking points on which neoconservatism and communism converge and concluding that all such social experiments must necessarily end in failure because of this is a remarkably shallow excuse for an argument that creates an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere and stymies inquiry on the subject.

      1. I recommend you get to work on your intellectual laziness. Start by reading some of professor Kevin McDonald’s work. The similarities and motives are far from rhetorical and the guilt is enormous on a stand alone basis. And how compassionate of you to refer to both mass murders as social experiments. Perhaps you could be roused from your shallow pseudo-intellectual posing by being on the receiving end of such an experiment.

        1. Since their are so many similarities, why not enumerate some? Indeed, what about the peculiar parallels readily uncovered between libertarianism and communism? Such as, for instance, an extreme emphasis on ideological purity? Vilification of political opponents? Assorted arguments from intimidation and various other forms of intellectual bullying? Imagining that feigned outrage and various genetic fallacies obviate the need for substantive, rational argument? You are certainly guilty of these, if I’m correct at presuming you to be some kind of libertarian, which, judging by the tone and tenor of your shallow excuse for an argument, you almost certainly are.

          “And how compassionate of you to refer to both mass murders as social experiments.”

          Experiment is a neutral term that doesn’t obscure the underlying reality. Experiments can be cruel or benign. There is simply no other way to describe any concerted effort at radical social change, whether for good or for ill. Why not enlighten us on the nature of the “experiment” that occurred in Chile sometime between 1973 and 1989?

  23. However, as [Bovard] noted about the exit polls from New Hampshire, antiwar voters seem to have backed McCain there for some reason, which suggests that the war was either a low priority for most of these voters or they did not identify McCain with the ultra-hawkish wing of the GOP.

    Since this data was taken from exit polls, I guess that rules out “Diebold voting machines” as the reason for this anomaly. This would lead one to assume that the majority of Michigan’s “anti-war” voters, like those of IA and NH, are not “anti-war” at all, but are simply tired of seeing the Bush administration “losing” a war that they naively believe to be winnable.

  24. In reponse to Kenneth’s posts above (the “inevitability” of corporatism and the question of how to vitiate unchecked private power):

    [A couple of my earlier responses aren’t showing up, so I’m still figuring out the nesting limitations. Third times a charm.]

    Corporatism is only “inevitable” as you put it in the sense that any political system, regardless of whatever “ism” banner you are flying, is corruptible. It may be that the problems posed by the human condition are inherently insoluble over the long run. I think the best that you can do is put some reasonable checks and balances in place so that both the public and private spheres are kept in check. A little revolution now and then doesn’t hurt.

    The root of corporatism lies in the legal fiction known as “corporate personhood”, which came about in the late 19th century, whereby corporations were granted the status of natural persons under the constitution and given all of the rights that go along with that status that were only ever meant to apply to natural persons. Rights such as the right of representation before congress (read the right to bribe politicians) for example. Or the right to free speech (read the right to act as a propaganda organ on behalf of the state and private concentrations of wealth with conflicts of interest). As if a transnational conglomerate with revenues that exceed that of most countries is the equivalent of a human being.

    Before the Civil War–which destroyed state sovereignty (which folks like Jefferson saw as one of the most important bulwarks against state tyranny over the individual) and swept away the Republic of the founders–and the legal fiction of “corporate personhood” which followed closely on its heels, corporate charters at the individual state level entailed heavy restrictions on corporate behavior. Once corporations bribed the state into granting them “corporate personhood”, they went to court armed with their new “constitutional rights” and effectively overturned all of the restrictions that the individual states had placed on their behavior.

    Reform starts with the recognition that corporations are not people. They are not even market entities for that matter. They are collectives premised on state power. Their defining characteristic is limited liability, which is, like their “personhood” status, a state-proffered advantage. Corporate personhood and limited liability need to be done away with.

    Your overall point is well made, especially your comment about full employment. There are a number of national policies which preclude full employment, or anything remotely close to it. Central banking policies. Tax policies. Immigration policies. Some of the primary culprits. Even cultural changes that our society has undergone. Once again, we see how the corporations and the state have colluded in bringing about such policies and changes to the culture. Such policies can be reversed, but that is another discussion.

    In the final analysis, while we should strive for meritocracy, equality of outcomes is a utopian pipedream. Speaking only for myself, I’m not willing to sacrifice liberty on such utopian and ultimately ruinous pursuits.

    1. I fully agree with you on the issue of corporate personhood- it is a legal fiction whose continued existence baffles me. On the other hand:

      Your overall point is well made, especially your comment about full employment. There are a number of national policies which preclude full employment, or anything remotely close to it. Central banking policies. Tax policies. Immigration policies. Some of the primary culprits.

      A brief foray into history would indicate otherwise. American capitalism was given to frequent and wild gyrations long before the institution of the income tax, the corporate tax, and the central bank. The Long Depression, a twenty year global downturn, unfolded during the height of classical laissez-faire. Note, as well, that unemployment rates in both Europe and America were considerably lower than they are now, despite the increase in labour market flexibility in the latter (and certain countries, such as Britain, in the former) in the wake of stagflation. Unemployment seems to me a structural outcome of capitalism, since any undue increase in the bargaining position of labour hampers profitability and hence continued investment. I suspect this is because the state no longer mediates conflicts between business and labour effectively via domesticated labour unions (enabling a stable consensus that combines low unemployment with stipulated wage increases that do not impinge upon the rate of return), and so the market naturally generates less-than-full employment as a requirement for capital’s profitability. My other points about the technical and institutional conditions prevailing in industry still apply as well. What of monopoly, of market power, of vast resources and command over credit and inputs that, even under a regime of unlimited liability, would still suffice to overwhelm most newcomers to the market?

      1. Correction: I meant to say that unemployment rates were considerably lower in both Europe and America during the postwar boom than they are now.

  25. We are seeing a replacement of democracy with clandestine Nationalism. I fought the Cold War thru the Intelligence Wars during the Cold War. I learned there was no threat of Communism just as there is no threat of Al Qaeda. These Grendals are created by those institutions in power to guarantee their own job security. Does a general want peace? Does a policeman want crime to end? Does Northrup Grumman want an end to war? Does the DEA want the shipment of drugs to totally be conquered? No. They would lose their jobs or at least major cut backs. Plus the DEA is to guarantee the price of drugs is high so the military machine can fund its black projects.

    Most importantly, does the US and Britain want to see a united Mideast? No. Peace is not in the Middle East because Israel and the US does not want Mideast unification. We can’t see the forest for the trees — and THAT is the secret of propaganda.

  26. True Communism has never been realized, as the corruption of man has made it impossible. When Lenin and the Bolsheviks tried to implement it, it failed as the professional class(doctors, lawyers, etc) pretty much rebelled so he came out with the NEP in the mid 20’s to get them on board. US foreign aid helped alot also!!! Didn’t necessarily pay them more, but gave them access to stuff the average worker never would have dreamed of. Read Hedrick Smith’s “The Russians”. The Soviet elite had their own gated communities, etc. Doesn’t sound too far off from our elites here today. It is human nature to want more or keep up with the jones’ if you will.

Comments are closed.