Category: Bullshit Institutions

Chalmers Johnson (1931 – 2010) on United States’ military bases around the world

His main books:

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 2000.
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, 2004.
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, 2007.
Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope, 2010.

On Reinventing the Wheel

I am troubled by the fact that many  speakers and writers do not acknowledge or are ignorant of previous relevant writings on a topic, and really repeat saying what others have written; thus, “reinventing the wheel.”

What can explain this phenomenon? Well, it is obvious that people want to have personal success and income from their speaking and writing, and so, they try to get attention.  They want people to view their videos, read their books, and be invited to various interviews, debates, and lectures.

They succeed, in part, because they appeal to a wide ignorant audience, which is attracted by the speaker’s or writer’s entertainment qualities, rather then by his or her scholarship.

For example, what do I want from a writer on a topic such as ethics? I want him to begin with something similar to what C. D. Broad did in his Five Types of Ethical Theories (1930). This is what he wrote: “Sidgwick’s Methods of Ethics seems to be on the whole the best treatise on moral theory that has ever been written, and to be one of the English philosophical classics.” p. 143.  And the bulk of Broad’s book — 113 pages our of a total 285 — is devoted to a critical examination of Sidgwick’s ethics.

Instead of jumping right into a topic, I would like an author to start by identifying what he considers to be the best work to date on a topic and write a critique of this work.

I had tried to do something like this in my dissertation in the fields of epistemology and metaphysics . I did not outright say that Wilfrid Sellars is the best contemporary thinker on these topics, but I did so implicitly by choosing to critically examine his views and claiming that he had verisimilitude. Here is what I wrote: “The examined philosopher provides an occasion for developing one’s own philosophy, and this is especially rewarding if the examined philosophy has verisimilitude, as does that of Wilfrid Sellars. The conclusions I reach are very close to Sellars’ own — so close, in fact, that I am not certain whether what I am offering as correction are of things I am only misinterpreting.” Andrew Chrucky, “Critique of Wilfrid Sellars’ Materialism,” 1990.

I myself have not done any systematic work in ethics, but it seems that being able to pursue a critical examination of morals assumes a cultural and political  context of such things as having had an education which gives one the critical acumen to pursue such studies, as well as the leisure to do so; rather than working at some unrelated area for a wage; and the means to pursue such a study — as access to a suitable library or the means to purchase necessary books. And, most important, there is the necessity of cultural tolerance and the political right of free speech.

Although I have a concern with ethics, there are also the more basic problems of how to cope with people who do not have a concern with morals and how to cope with institutions which allow such people to flourish. It is a question how to wage war against such people and such institutions.

Reaction to Cameron Watt

Everyone should watch the videos of Cameron Watt. Why? Because he is very clear in explaining and documenting the history of the United States’ terrorist activities and the US support of various brutal regimes. And he is also very clear is explaining the nature of capitalism and of libertarian socialism (=anarchism).

However, there are three areas in which I have disagreements. The first is his opposition to Brexit. The only reason which I would have against Brexit is if this gives more power to the ruling classes of Great Britain — which it may do. Otherwise, I am for giving autonomy to smaller communities. For example, I am for the independence of Catalonia and the Basque region. I am for Kurdish and Palestinian independence. I am for ethnic groups seceding and forming their own communities. I am for a federated Europe, but not as it is now.

The second area in which I find disagreement is over his stance on free migration. The fact of the matter is that people are not only very social — craving to be in the company of other human beings, but they are tribal. Like other animals, they have a herding instinct: as it is said, birds of a feather flock together. That is why there are national states with distinct languages.

This tendency of people to group together is evident everywhere. I live in Chicago, and it is apparent that there is segregation of the city into various neighborhoods: Blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Italians, Polish, Ukrainians, rich, poor.

Striving for legal desegregation is for economic reasons. Living in a capitalistic economy, no one wants to be disadvantaged from a job, education, public transportation, a restaurant, a house, or a rental because of some bias.

From a capitalist perspective, what is wanted is an atomized potential work force. The less people have in common, the less they are likely to form work unions. In addition, from a capitalist perspective, you want an ever increasing population by birth and by immigration. The flooding of Europe by migrations benefits capitalists, and that is why it is allowed; not for any humanitarian reason. The humanitarian thing to do would have been to prevent the conditions which caused the migrations in the first place.

The third area where I find — not disagreement — but a shortcoming with Cameron — is with the idea of worker-owned factories. This must be supplemented with a universal right to free subsistence land, and by a bottom-up government by councils — rather than by individuals.

A documentary of how an American lived for 6 weeks in a Ukrainian village

Peter Santenello, an American from San Francisco with limited Russian language skills, moves in with a local family in the village of Osypenko near the city of Berdyansk near the Sea of Azov in Ukraine. From one perspective, this shows how one can live on a homestead as an alternative to living on welfare, as in the United States.

Comments on Peter Joseph’s book, The New Human Rights Movement, 2017

I have now read most of Peter Joseph’s book, The New Human Rights Movement, 2017. It can be summarized as a condemnation of capitalism because capitalism creates all the maladies arising from poverty, capitalism uses war  for economic gain, and capitalism has created our present ecological disaster because it disregards  collateral damage.  Peter Joseph proposes that we should create a consumer economy by using all the advances we have made in science and technology.

My reaction is like that of Noam Chomsky: it is a nice proposal. Chomsky, when asked for an alternative, said that he has been offering alternatives for years, which is libertarian socialism — based on worker controlled enterprises of small democratic communities federated into larger unit.

Peter Joseph seems to have missed the Marxist thesis that the necessary condition for capitalism is the existence of a proletariat.  Proletarians  are people who have been deprived of access to subsistence land.  In view of this, my proposal is — in terms of priority — to first give each person free access to subsistence land. Afterwards we can talk about the use of science and technology for mutual aid.

Joseph, Chomsky, and I have these ideals, but how do we realize them? The three of us say that it must originate with the people through a grassroots movement. However I have more specific proposals for grassroots movements. 1. Nations have to be decentralized. All groups should have the right of secession. 2. Governments should be based on the autonomy of small communities. 3. No individual should hold decisional power; all powers should belong to councils.

If this sounds utopian, then my realistic proposal is: imitate Switzerland.