|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
|| [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
|| It's the method of historical analysis that is at issue -- the
|| imputation
|| of inordinate power (including the power to coordinate and to keep
|| secrets) to elites. Hence events that are artifacts of boring and
|| indistinct social and cultural forces are imputed to little groups
|| and plans. History as detective story. That is the tendency to
|| which your posts are susceptible is Chip's point, I think. I should
|| admit I have a weakness for this sort of stuff myself. I don't think
|| you are a right-wing conspiracist. I do think some of your posts
|| slide into reductionism of the sort alluded to above.
||
|| An additional point is the political uselessness of these stories,
|| even when true. The stuff of constructive agitation is what people
|| can readily see and feel, or think they can. Facts that are the object
|| of endless speculation and counter-fact don't lead to mobilization,
|| only to confusion and resignation.
||
|| mbs
||
You may think it's reductionist ot that it's not useful, and you're entitled to prove it. That's fine with me. You are clearly demonstrating that it's possible to discuss covert history theories, or to disregard them, without throwing fits of puerile dissing.
If you feel like discussing further perhaps I could ask you to clarify the following:
1 - How powerful do the inordinately rich have to be for their power to become inordinate? They finance, lobby, and pressure politicians and the media. They have direct contacts with the intelligence and defence community. They can raid the treasury and the environment and fire workers to increase their profits while the country is purportedly at war. Doesn't all this that they can get away with not reflect "inordinate power"?
2 - Can you give any examples of events that I have referred to re Afghanistan, the Gulf War, and the US demonization of Gaddafi, which you would qualify as artifacts?
3 - When you compare my reading of the Afghan war and, e.g. Carrol's, my conclusions are quite clear and straightforward: The US threatened a war if the Taliban wouldn't deal, it made good its threat, and the reason is oil. Carrol says there's no way of knowing why the US is doing what it's doing. Which of these analyses leads to greater confusion and resignation?
Hakki