"Black Hawk Down" - Hollywood's "War on Realism"?
Mark Dillon
Forwarded from
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Chin010302/chin010302.html
"Black Hawk Down" --
Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens
By Larry Chin
January 3, 2002
True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned
role as US war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released
"Black Hawk Down," a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 US
raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production,
pleased for an opportunity to "set the record straight." The film
is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation
itself.
Somalia: the facts
According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a
humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order
morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an
undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was
hostile to foreign interests.
Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a
"Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton
administration inherited an operation that was already in full
swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert
Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser
Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after
Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of
the Joint Chiefs.
The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or
Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil
companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were
positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies
had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large
portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US
President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office
housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure"
Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the
coast of Arabian Sea.
UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord
Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to
US corporate interests.
Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food
shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the
true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and
form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's
warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce
resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated
Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were
victims and pawns of UN policy makers.
The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia
Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants,
and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But
even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative
American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in
Mogadishu.
Bowden writes: "Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the
hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted
six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his
lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted
in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a
surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of
the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian
ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the
missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many
of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the
United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan
was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never
realized."
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course
of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book
The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported
facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military
led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower,"
Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali
casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and
children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the
operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . .
I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included
direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings.
Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well.
Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not
duplicated by the US or other governments."
Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in
this regard:
"Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time
numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made
claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the
number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and
intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say
that 500 dead is probably accurate.
The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden:
"The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison,
testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any
more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most
soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they
fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."
After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final
Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US
helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US
soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis.
Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left
Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short
period, but eventually left in futility.
The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the
military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs
itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal"
Clinton administration.
The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his
presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.
Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White
House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the
architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the
rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.
What a perfect moment to "clean up" the past.
Hollywood to the rescue
In promoting the film, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (who rewrote
another humiliating episode of US military history with "Pearl
Harbor") is seeking to convince Americans that the Somalia
operation was "not America's darkest hour, but America's brightest
hour;" that a bungled imperialist intervention was a noble
incident of grand moral magnificence.
CNN film reviewer Paul Tatara describes "Black Hawk Down" as
"pound for pound, one of the most violent films ever released by a
major studio," from "two of the most pandering, tactless
filmmakers in Hollywood history (Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley
Scott)" who are attempting to "teach us about honor among
soldiers."
More important are the film's true subtexts, and the likely
emotional reaction of viewers.
What viewers see is "brave and innocent young American boys"
getting shot at and killed for "no reason" by "crazy black
Islamists" that the Americans are "just trying to help." (Subtext
one: America is good, and it is impossible to understand why "they
hate us." Subtext two: "Those damned ungrateful foreigners."
Subtext three: "Those damned blacks." Subtext four: "Kill Arabs.")
What viewers will remember is a line spoken by one of the "brave
soldiers" about how, in the heat of combat, "politics goes out the
window." (Subtext one: there is no need for thought; shoot first,
talk later. Subtext two: it is right to abandon one's sanity,
morality and ethics when faced with chaos. Subtext three: when the
Twin Towers went down on 9/11, America was right in embracing
radical militarism and extreme violence, throwing all else "out
the window.")
In the currently lethal political climate, in which testosterone
rage, mob mentality, and love of war pass for normal behavior
(while reason, critical thinking, and tolerance are considered
treasonous), "Black Hawk Down" will appeal to the most violent
elements of American society. Many who have seen the film report
leaving the theater feeling angry, itching to "kick some ass." In
short, the film is dangerous. And those who "love" it are
dangerous.
Considering the fact that Somalia is one of the targets in the
next phase of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism," the
timing of the film is no coincidence.
As Herbert London of the Hudson Institute said of "Black Hawk
Down," "I would never deny the importance of heroism in battle,
but just as we should recognize and honor heroes, we should also
respect the truthfulness of the events surrounding their heroic
acts. In the case of 'Black Hawk Down,' we get a lot of the former
and almost nothing of the latter."
*** FAIR USE NOTICE: This material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes, and in the hope
that people will wake up and start using their brains at a time when
brains are sorely needed. ***
ciceroii
Mark Dillon wrote:
>
> Forwarded from
> http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Chin010302/chin010302.html
>
> "Black Hawk Down" --
> Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens
> By Larry Chin
>
> January 3, 2002
>
> True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned
> role as US war propaganda
Hollywood war propaganda? Would that include such movies as "The Killing
Fields",
"Mash", "Missing", Oliver Stone's turkeys, Dr. Strangelove etc.? The
fact is, the
vast majority of Hollywood movies since the end of WW II have been
anti-war and anti-U.S.
headquarters, Hollywood has released
> "Black Hawk Down," a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 US
> raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production,
> pleased for an opportunity to "set the record straight." The film
> is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation
> itself. (snipped)
This rant is just subjective and biased opinion. It has no validity.
>
> The intervention started out as a humanitarian mission to feed the thousands of
Somalians dying of starvation. But to the Somali Muslim leaders
it was aid from the infidels, from the Great Satan and was thus
unwelcome.
Better than thousands of their suffering people die than gratitude be
shown to infidels.
The ill-fated American mission simply proved Samuel Huntington's
premise that
no nation, no matter how great a super power, should ever get involved
in the internal
affairs of an alien civilization (in this case Islamic) where its own
interests are not
at stake. And this caveat would obtain to any situation, even if it is
a genocidal
conflict.
President George Bush Sr. was pressured into acting in Somalia by
constant video footage
shown on TV by CNN and the other networks. The majority of the
compassionate American
people demanded that something be done and forced Bush's hand. He
finally acted reluctantly.
As long as the operation was strictly humanitarian it went okay, but
then militant
Muslim warlords and tribes obstructed the delivery of the aid and
American troops were
dispatched to protect the aid workers. Later Bill Clinton expanded
these operations
and determined to punish the warlords and bring political and social
order to Somalia--
that is to engage in nation building. This was foolish, ill-advised
"mission creep" and
it ended in disaster for the U.S. forces there.
Now, not having learned its lesson, the U.S. after routing the Taliban
and al Qaeda
in Afghanistan is going to try its hand at nation building in that
Muslim country.
All I can say is, "Good luck".
The movie "Black Hawk Down" from the excerpts and reviews I have seen
and read give an
accurate rendering of what happened in Somalia and why. There is no
American propaganda
included. It tells the story like it was.
Peter Mills
>
> Forwarded from
> http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Chin010302/chin010302.html
>
> "Black Hawk Down" --
> Hollywood drags bloody corpse of truth across movie screens
> By Larry Chin
>
> January 3, 2002
>
> True to its post-9/11 government-sanctioned
> role as US war propaganda headquarters, Hollywood has released
> "Black Hawk Down,"
The terrorist attack on New York/Washington occurred well after the
film was made.
> Somalia: the facts
Or perhaps not.
> According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a
> humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order
> morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an
> undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was
> hostile to foreign interests.
In fact, it was one of the few altruistic uses of US troops on any kind
of large scale.
Most of the population was delighted at foreign intervention because
they were starving and being killed by drugged up gangs of violent
hoodlums.
> The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or
> Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil
> companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were
> positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves.
There is speculation there "might" be oil reserves somewhere in Somalia,
but that's about it. So the preceding statement is pure fantasy. No US
government is going to launch an operation of that size in order to help
oil companies explore a region which "might" contain oil in unknown
amounts. It would be far, far, far easier to simply cut a deal with a
local warlord in the area they want to explore.
>
> UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord
> Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to
> US corporate interests.
Inhospitable to human life, too. Inhospitable to families, to children,
to everyone, where madmen roared around in jeeps firing machine-guns at
each other and people starved by the hundreds of thousands.
> Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food
> shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food,
I don't recall hearing anything about Aidid prior to the US
intervention. There were many local warlords and he was just one of
them.
the
> true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and
> form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's
> warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce
> resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated
> Somalian resolve,
The US had already turned Somalia over to the UN and most of its troops
had left by the time this incident occurred. The UN was searching for
Aidid because his people had been responsible for several violent
attacks on UN soldiers, notably Pakistanis.
Mike Warren
> There is speculation there "might" be oil reserves somewhere in
> Somalia, but that's about it. So the preceding statement is pure
> fantasy.
Then why did the oil companies mentioned buy the rights to drill in
almost 2/3 of Somalia?
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
Cy Coe
<leftist bullshit snipped>
You're just bitter that Hollywood doesn't make shit like Warren
Beatty's "Reds" anymore. Too bad, so sad.
Face it, Dillon. If the United States wasn't the world's leading
exponent of free market individualism, you, Archie, Autofucker and
Noam Chomsky wouldn't give a flying fuck about whatever "atrocities"
it commits. Your outrage isn't simply selective - it's ideologically
targeted.
The alternative you would offer to "American hegemony" would be world
socialism. That would be like euthanizing an acne patient. You
leftists on this NG are a bunch of hypocrites and sore losers. I
enjoy watching the lot of you suffer and wail as democratic capitalism
spreads throughout the world, liberating those corner of the globe
that once suffered under collectivist tyranny. Unlike communism,
democratic capitalism isn't spread by military force and suspension of
individual rights, but rather by free trade and the liberation of the
individual from the crushing power of the state. Only a people who
have tasted freedom can know that it is worth fighting for.
I only hope I live long enough to see Cuba's Marxist-Leninist regime
fall, and Cuba join the family of free market democracies.
Cy
Archie Kennedy
Cy Coe wrote:
> <snipped>
> Unlike communism,
> democratic capitalism isn't spread by military force and suspension of
> individual rights...<snipped>
Perhaps if you did a little research you would find that the USA has indeed invaded countries in the
past. But I believe this was for their own good, not imperialist plunder, I'm sure. Nicaragua is an
example. Nicaraguans now know the real meaning of the term, 'Enduring Freedom'.
Archie
David Deilley
> Mark Dillon wrote:
> >
> The fact is, the vast majority of Hollywood movies since the end of WW II
> have been anti-war and anti-U.S.
Even for a pathological liar and compulsive blowhard like you, this
totally dishonest generalization is totally ridiculous. You are
outsoing yourself in the bullshit department today: what is it... not
enough medications ot too much liquor?
> > headquarters, Hollywood has released
> > "Black Hawk Down," a fictionalized account of the tragic 1993 US
> > raid in Somalia. The Pentagon assisted with the production,
> > pleased for an opportunity to "set the record straight." The film
> > is a lie that compounds the original lie that was the operation
> > itself. (snipped)
>
> This rant is just subjective and biased opinion. It has no validity.
Wait a minute. In one paragraph you make the totally unfounded claim
that "the vast majority of Hollywood movies since the end of WW II
have been anti-war," and then you accouse SOMEONE ELSE if biast,
invalid ranting? You really aere the most ridiculous person on the
internet.
Nobody except you reading this thread could possibly take you
seriously. Even people who occasionally agree with you quickly learn
to distance themselves from you for fear of being embarassed by your
lack of integrity and principles. You are a total buffoon. A
goofball. A lightweight, intellectual pipsqueak.
Thank you for once again presenting me with yet another opportunity to
dance on your face - not that this involves any degree of challenge.
Cy Coe
> Perhaps if you did a little research you would find that the USA has indeed invaded countries in the
> past. But I believe this was for their own good, not imperialist plunder, I'm sure. Nicaragua is an
> example. Nicaraguans now know the real meaning of the term, 'Enduring Freedom'.
If you expect me to shed tears about the Americans having undermined a
Soviet puppet state, you really are out of your mind. The Sandinista
government was simply another anti-democratic Soviet proxy in the
Western hemisphere, just as Cuba was, and would be today if there were
still a Soviet Union.
The Second World War defeated fascism. The Cold War defeated
communism. These two victories were morally equivalent. Only one
required massive loss of life. The reason for victory in both cases
was the same - the participation of the United States. I think
ridding the world of the Soviet menace was more important than the
preservation of a dictatorial, if popular at the time, left-wing
government in Nicaragua. The U.S. has nothing to apologize about with
regard to its Cold War-era efforts to keep Marxist tyranny out of
Latin America. Communism is a disease, and sometimes radical
treatments were called for in preventing its spread.
But I don't expect a bitter leftist like you to understand. All that
you understand is your hatred of the U.S. and its values, and your
frustration that Canada's proximity to that republic precludes the
kind of massive confisaction, regulation, redistribution and
nationalization that you so fervently desire.
But take heart, Archie. You can always move to Cuba. I see it being
at least five years before free market democracy takes hold there.
Cy
Mark Dillon
cy...@hotmail.com (Cy Coe) wrote:
> You're just bitter that Hollywood doesn't make shit like Warren
> Beatty's "Reds" anymore. Too bad, so sad.
Actually, I've never seen it. I *did* like "Bob Roberts" though....
> Face it, Dillon. If the United States wasn't the world's leading
> exponent of free market individualism, you, Archie, Autofucker and
> Noam Chomsky wouldn't give a flying fuck about whatever "atrocities"
> it commits. Your outrage isn't simply selective - it's ideologically
> targeted.
I agree with you on one point: I *do* target ideologies. One of them
is the myth of "free market individualism."
Does "free market individualism" actually exist anywhere in the
world? Certainly not in the United States, with its dominant
corporate structures and a playing field geared towards the
demands of capital instead of the needs of individual citizens.
Even if it did exist, somewhere, somewhen, how long would it last
before the wealthiest and most powerful participants bought themselves
monopolies and "market dominance"? One month? One week?
But back to your argument....
Another ideological target, for me, is the concept of Empire,
and right now the United States is *the* empire in the world
today. There was a time when we faced the
Russian empire, too, and before its collapse I was very
outspoken in my opposition to its crimes as well -- remember
the invasion of Afghanistan (the last one, not the current one)?
I rejected that invasion as strongly as I reject this one.
Back in those days, you could have accused me of being
anti-American, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-Cambodian,
anti-South African and anti-Cuban as well (did I forget to
mention Romania, Poland, Iran and Indonesia?) But my quarrel
had nothing to do with the people of those nations, and everything
to do with the brutal regimes that made -- and make --their
lives a living hell.
> The alternative you would offer to "American hegemony" would be world
> socialism.
Right on. But don't forget that socialism bears little resemblance --
if any -- to the nationalized, bureaucratized, state capitalist
monopoly on power we've seen in Cuba, China and Russia... or to
the "welfare state" redistribution we have in Canada and the
European nations. For "socialism" to really *be* socialism, it has
to be decentralized, directly democratic (elected delegates
can discuss and debate policy but cannot under any circumstances
*form* policy), without divisions of class (no ruling Party or
bureaucracy!), and all forms of production must be owned and
managed locally by the people who do the work. Period.
So much for Leninism, Bolshevism, Maoism, Castroism and
all the other phony "socialisms" and "communisms" of the past....
> I enjoy watching the lot of you suffer and wail as democratic capitalism
> spreads throughout the world, liberating those corner of the globe
> that once suffered under collectivist tyranny.
How can capitalism be democratic? Seems more like collectivist
tyranny -- of the plutocrats! And what about those other collectivist
tyrannies like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund,
NAFTA, the FTAA, the WTO? We could use a bit of liberation from
them, too.
> Unlike communism, democratic capitalism isn't spread by
> military force and suspension of individual rights, but rather
> by free trade and the liberation of the
> individual from the crushing power of the state.
(Actually, communism requires, as a prior condition, elimination
of the State; you can't have both at the same time. But that's
beside the point....)
You might want to read up on the history of imperialism and
gunboat diplomacy. Consider, for a start, the American invasion of
the Phillipines, the Belgian atrocities in the Congo, the "opium wars" in
China... and then go on to the history of French, British and
Japanese interventions in the "Third World" -- all in the name
of capital. It was *precisely* through military force that capitalism
spread throughout the world -- and it requires military force to keep it
in place. Just ask Bill Clinton or George W. Bush!
Or you might recall the famous words of Major General Smedley Butler,
USMC: "I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism." He knew what
he was talking about:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for
the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the
raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of
Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in
1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to
the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China
I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
-- http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
That was back in 1933, but little has changed since then... except, of course,
for the body count....
> Only a people who have tasted freedom can know that it is worth fighting for.
Let's not be pessimistic. After all, the merest *anticipation* of human
freedom has been enough to motivate popular resistance throughout
history: freedom from the priest, the politician and the almighty
dollar. Despite our lack of freedom, we have always fought for it
and always will.
And if we liberate ourselves from the tyranny of capital, the struggle
for further liberty will go on in other realms of life; future
generations will demand freedoms inconceivable to us today.
That is, if we succeed. If we, as a species, survive.
Mark Dillon
Quebec, Canada
Cy Coe
> cy...@hotmail.com (Cy Coe) wrote:
> > Face it, Dillon. If the United States wasn't the world's leading
> > exponent of free market individualism, you, Archie, Autofucker and
> > Noam Chomsky wouldn't give a flying fuck about whatever "atrocities"
> > it commits. Your outrage isn't simply selective - it's ideologically
> > targeted.
>
> I agree with you on one point: I *do* target ideologies. One of them
> is the myth of "free market individualism."
>
> Does "free market individualism" actually exist anywhere in the
> world? Certainly not in the United States, with its dominant
> corporate structures and a playing field geared towards the
> demands of capital instead of the needs of individual citizens.
The relationship between "capital" and citizens is more complex than
you portray here. Corporations are owned by groups of individuals.
People who squirrel away retirement savings in a mutual fund or other
equity-related investment also form part of what you call "capital".
Does a middle-class guy have the same kind of options as the
billionaire corporate guy? No, of course not. But he still has more
freedom and autonomy than he would under a socialist regime,
particularly if he is a skillful and productive person. If you have
something to contribute, and have the work ethic and drive to put your
talents to productive use, then chances are you will do better under a
capitalist system than you will a socialist one. If you are lazy,
willfully ignorant or irresponsible, or if you consider yourself a
victim of circumstance rather that the captain of your own destiny,
then yes, socialism will cushion your fall much better than a free
market system. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that is in fact a
good thing.
> Even if it did exist, somewhere, somewhen, how long would it last
> before the wealthiest and most powerful participants bought themselves
> monopolies and "market dominance"? One month? One week?
Monopolies are a genuine danger. Microsoft has abused its monopoly
power to an outrageous extent. I was disappointed that the U.S.
government wasn't able to take them down. But at least the U.S.
recognizes the importance of anti-trust laws and the promotion of
competition. In Canada, the government often picks a winner in a
given industry and hands it a monopoly, albeit a "regulated" one. Air
Canada's monopoly is no less dangerous than Microsoft's. In fact, I
would argue that it is *more* so.
> But back to your argument....
>
> Another ideological target, for me, is the concept of Empire,
> and right now the United States is *the* empire in the world
> today. There was a time when we faced the
> Russian empire, too, and before its collapse I was very
> outspoken in my opposition to its crimes as well -- remember
> the invasion of Afghanistan (the last one, not the current one)?
> I rejected that invasion as strongly as I reject this one.
Then that places you in a small minority among Canadian leftists. I
doubt Archie Kennedy or Autofucker shared your concerns in that
regard.
> Back in those days, you could have accused me of being
> anti-American, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-Cambodian,
> anti-South African and anti-Cuban as well (did I forget to
> mention Romania, Poland, Iran and Indonesia?)
Anti-Cuban? Well, then you're practically a minority of *one* in the
Canadian leftist community. The New Democrats would award Castro the
Order of Canada if they could.
> > The alternative you would offer to "American hegemony" would be world
> > socialism.
>
> Right on. But don't forget that socialism bears little resemblance --
> if any -- to the nationalized, bureaucratized, state capitalist
> monopoly on power we've seen in Cuba, China and Russia... or to
> the "welfare state" redistribution we have in Canada and the
> European nations.
Socialism, even in it's "perfect" paper form, diminishes the place of
the individual within society. That alone earns it my scorn.
> For "socialism" to really *be* socialism, it has
> to be decentralized, directly democratic (elected delegates
> can discuss and debate policy but cannot under any circumstances
> *form* policy), without divisions of class (no ruling Party or
> bureaucracy!), and all forms of production must be owned and
> managed locally by the people who do the work. Period.
It is the fact that socialism (in its pristine academic form) ignores
the issue of power and human ambition that dooms it to failure.
Elites will form in any social model. Only a system that recognizes
the existence of the human drive to acquire power and influence can
structure itself in such a way that power is *divided* rather than
concentrated. The naive belief that taking away individualist social,
political and economic systems will turn man into a selfless, communal
creature is socialism's greatest flaw.
Individualism represents an inherently human point of view.
Collectivism (at least outside the primative context of family and
tribal unit) is not. It is an artificial social construct that runs
against our basic natures. There is no "brotherhood of man".
"Community" is at best a loose coupling of individuals.
> So much for Leninism, Bolshevism, Maoism, Castroism and
> all the other phony "socialisms" and "communisms" of the past....
When capitalism falls short of its ideal state, the result is still
acceptable. When socialism or communism falls short, the results are
disastrous. I'll take the experiment that gives me a slight shock
over the one that destroys the lab (and me with it).
Cy