Obama and the US military, tools of fascist corporate imperialism?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Poll question: Obama and the US military, tools of fascist corporate imperialism?

I'm well aware of the US having played dirty in Latin America. El Salvador, Iran-Contra, Pinochet, the CIA, Bolivia. I know it, I got it.

I also know fascism is when the national economic engine of corporations and businesses become inextricably linked to a hyper-militarized government.

And imperialism is when a state seeks to expand its control over other in an effort to feather its own nest.

That being said, is Obama REALLY a corporate imperialist fascist?

Whenever the US, with Obama as president, seems to do ANYTHING in Latin America many here rail against US imperialism. But the US can't be imperialist unless Obama directs it to be because he is the commander in chief of the US military. The US military can do nothing unless Obama orders it or at least gives his OK.

And congress has to support him by giving him the funding. And they have oversight committees such as the one Speaker Pelosi has been a part of for many years.

Either Obama is in charge or he isn't. Either Obama is aware of what is going on or he isn't. Some may not like the fact we are involved in Latin America in any capacity but I seriously, seriously doubt, Obama is an imperialist/puppet. Whatever my other complaints may be, i.e. no public option, no equality for LGBTs, to claim our president is part and parcel of every accusation leveled against his predecessor seems highly suspect on its face.

[mix]

1. Call it what is--capitalism, not fascism--and you might have an argument. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Yes, well, I'm not sure how much argument there is

I'm supposing fascism is a militarized version of capitalism.

Theoretically, capitalism could survive without being militarized. Example, NetFlix is kicking the crap out of video rental stores and even cable companies and they've done it without killing a single competitor (that I know of).

Of course I'm stunned that as of this writing over half of DU assumes our president leads a corporate, fascist empire.

If this is the case where are the calls for impeachment? Where is the effort to stymie his every agenda policy so as to reduce his power at every turn?

I mean--my God (and I'm an atheist)--if he's an imperialist we should be along side Limbaugh in hoping he fails.

I don't understand anything anymore.

[mix]

4. Capitalism was militarized long before fascism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Sadly, the entire world is militarized

But is Obama one of the malignant players?

[MellowDem]

10. It's impossible for an economic system to be "militarized"....

governments, yes, in all their various forms. Even Native American tribes.

[mix]

14. How so?

Capitalism is not just an "economic system"; human actions, driven by the profit motive in search of resources and markets constitute capitalism.

Absurd statement.

[MellowDem]

17. I disagree with your definition.

An economic system cannot exist without a government to uphold that system. An economic system cannot "do" anything. It is a theory and an idea. Governments are not abstract concepts like economic systems. They indeed can do things, like militarize. When a government with a capitalist system militarizes, is it the capitalist system doing the militarizing, or the government?

[mix]

19. Modern capitalism cannot exist without the modern state.

Figure it out.

[MellowDem]

43. Exactly...

it's the government that militarizes.

[mix]

48. To what ends and for whose interests?

The government is not separate from the economy and visa versa.

Take the commerce clause for example.

There is no such thing as a realm of pure politics, as you suggest, divorced from economic motives and interests.

[defendandprotect]

36. You're saying it's not a corporate MIC . .. ???

[MellowDem]

44. The corporate MIC is allowed to exist and ultimately controlled by....

the government. The military itself is the government. Corporations aren't capitalism. They are individual actors with their own interests, interests that can conflict with traditional ideas of capitalism quite easily.

[EFerrari]

40. Are you kidding? Either the government or the oligarchic banks

always control or try to control an economy. And one or the other also controls the military. That's how it's always been since the Greeks.

[MellowDem]

45. You can militarize the government...

but you can't militarize capitalism. Banks are not capitalism. They are individual actors concerned with their interests, which may be in conflict with ideas of capitalism. It's not about capitalism. It is about a lack of control of the government by the people.

[EFerrari]

46. The banking interests act in concert to exert control.

They always have and they always will. In the absence of a government strong enough to check them, they take control of all the strings. Same in Guatemala as it is here.

[mix]

49. Without military violence, capitalism would cease to exist.

From Manifest Destiny in the 19th century to the Oil Wars today, our economy is built upon violence to acquire resources, territory, and markets, as well as to discipline and coerce labor.

What is your theoretical understanding of capitalism, by the way? It's very romantic and wrong.

[MellowDem]

51. How does capitalism exist then...

in all those Western European nations. In fact, how come as the world as a whole has become more capitalistic and interconnected through markets, how come wars have become much less frequent and big wars between developed nations have become non-existent. How come the European Union, a union first based on increased trade and opening markets between European countries, how come none of those countries, which had been fighting each other for centuries nonstop, how come they were able to build their economy from non-violent sources?

Capitalism will exist with or without military violence. There are a lot of examples of capitalism existing without military violence. Indeed, economies flourish under stable conditions and do badly in theatres of war.

Capitalism is an economic theory. It can't be blamed for all the evils of the world or the military industrial complex. The world is a complicated place and there are a lot of factors behind the problems we face today.

[mix]

52. Since WWII, the USA has picked up the defense tab for western Europe.

Former imperial powers like Britain and France continue to intervene in their postcolonies militarily, particularly in Africa.

Globalization did little to stop the Balkan Wars of the 90s.

NATO is fighting in central Asia now.

Hardly seems like a time of peace...rather the nature of war has changed, becoming more asymmetrical...and capitalist states such as the USA continue to arm themselves to the teeth.


Keeping the world safe for American capital.

[VioletLake]

15. He is an imperialist, and so is Limbaugh.

Limbaugh hopes Obama fails because Limbaugh wants his hard-line faction back in the seat of imperial power. Toward that end, rightist propagandists such as Limbaugh and Beck (ab)use a subset of the left's critique personally against Obama, (and against the left itself), instead of against the system, as it is intended.

It is a tricky situation to understand because in this place and time, imperialism survives only because of the fortress of lies that shields and protects it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. So you're saying their both imperialists, they're just arguing over the flavor?

I'm sorry but I have to strongly disagree.

I don't think there's an imperialist bone in Obama's body and nothing he has done leads me to even suspect such a thing. Yes, he may continue the wars left to him and he may work militarily with governments in Latin America but (I wish he would draw-down the former and the latter is no big deal) that doesn't make him an imperialist.

There's a difference between a stalker using an axe to chop down your door and a fire-fighter doing the same act but trying to rescue you from a fire. Both look the same and use the same implements but context counts.

[VioletLake]

20. Context?

The U.S.A. is an empire, (and at one time, people were not ashamed to admit it).

Emperor Obama is not using imperial power (your axe) to rescue people from fires any more than Emperor Bush did. They're both "stalkers", chopping down people's doors. Disagree as strongly as you like.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Absent any evidence Obama is an emperor demanding tribute or whatever

What's to disagree with. A premise should at least be established.

Lot's a people call Obama a Muslim Manchurian candidate but they're pretty much blowing smoke as well.

[VioletLake]

23. Here's an interesting discussion since you're not familiar with the topic:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59200/niall-ferguson/hegemony-or-empire?page=show

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. 1st: TY for the article

I haven't read it specifically but I have read plenty of others like. Still, you're obviously seeking to discuss rather than rant as many do and for this I think-you, again.

2nd: Taking everything in your article at face value it doesn't change a single thing I've written. That article was written in 2003 under the Bush presidency.

Obama is not Bush. Obama, on his worst day, is not the sort of person to instigate or continue invasions of sovereign nations that pose no threat to the US just to demand tribute or serve at the beck and call of corporate masters. Nothing in his past or present show him to be the imperialist sort.

For goodness sakes the RW despises him because they think he's too soft.

Did Obama REALLY fool so many progressives over his entire academic and political career that he could just waltz into the Oval Office and make himself emperor? One side calls him a Manchurian candidate undermining US power and our side calls him a Manchurian Fascist.

He can't win.

[VioletLake]

27. Relax, I'm being facetious when I refer to the presidents as "emperor".

But the U.S. is an empire. And whether or not Barack Obama is an "imperialist", he is leading, (presumably), an empire that is continuing invasions of sovereign nations that pose no threat to it. He is not Bush, as you say, but regarding foreign policy, (which is where the imperialism takes place), he is very similar. (The carnage continues; Blackwater (Xe) is still getting huge, taxpayer funded, contracts; the drumbeat of war against Iran continues; and the list goes on.)

As I pointed out earlier, the leftist critique is structural, and President Obama, as well-intentioned as he may be, cannot be spared.

If it makes you feel better, I will vote for him if it prevents Sarah Palin from becoming Empress of America.

[L0oniX]

11. You mean the capitalism that allows corporations to own our government?

[mix]

16. It's been that way in the USA since the second half of the 19th century.

The New Deal reforms gave a brief respite from this tyranny.

Capitalist corporations have nothing to do with Mussolini's corporatism or fascism for that matter.

[Aramchek]

3. Glenn Beck, is that you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. If I may point out:

I'm the one absolutely dumb struck that so many people are accusing Obama of being a fascist.

At worst I think SOME of Obama's military policies are misguided but I have no doubt his intentions are for the best with a deep and abiding respect for humanity as a whole. Maybe he's politicking too much on DADT and such but I don't presume for half an instant that he's an imperialist in truck with corporatists that would overtake the world if given half a chance.

Like I said in the OP, I'm not 100% happy but policy discontent is a BIG leap from accusing him of being a fascist.

From the looks of this poll a solid percentage of DU inhabitants are the ones who would side with Beck (and yet Beck is vilified on DU).

[tom_paine]

7. This polls needs more choices, please. My answer - OTHER - combination of #2 and #5

But it matters not the whys and wherefores behind the scenes which we can never know. The results speak for themselves.

We needed FDR. We got Clinton. Clinton wasn't a terrible president but in retrospect the booming economy was even then more and more built on bullshit and financial trickery.

So, that's my guess - some combination of #2 and #5. But it doesn;t matter because the reality is the same no matter the why.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Who are the others in #5

In your honest opinion?

BTW - thank-you for the reasonable and open discussion.

[Radical Activist]

33. FDR? Really?

There was no better empire builder in American history than FDR. He created the framework that exists today.

I agree that a return to Clinton-era policies in Latin America are a disappointment. Trying to stabilize Afghanistan and weaken the Taliban before we leave in a few years is at least rationally defensible. But his actions in Latin America are the most disturbing sign that he doesn't intend to make any significant changes to the direction of U.S. foreign policy over the last 40 years.

[MellowDem]

9. You are very confused in your use of terms....

Fascist regimes would be more described as "socialist" in how they ran their economy. Hence the National Socialists. And Imperialism can be practiced by any kind of government with any kind of economic system. And you are probably confusing corporate with corporatism, which is not the definition many here think it is.

Regardless, the replies to this poll shows just how much confusion there is over these terms and also how many don't think very critically.

[Posteritatis]

12. Ackthptptbt, buzzword overload. (nt)

[Junkdrawer]

13. Zbigniew Brzezinski n/t

[lib2DaBone]

21. It's called ..."Cut Throat Capitalism"...

or sometimes known as "the good-old-boys-network". The rich get rich and the poor work a little harder...

[Odin2005]

25. The PTB will never allow anyone that is NOT a supporter of Empire and Corporatism be elected.

Every president since WW2 has been a supporter of Corporatist Imperialism, even JFK, who is wrongly thought of as some anti-Imperialist saint by conspiracy nuts and the historically ignorant, and Jimmy Carter.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. .

Every president since WW2 has been a supporter of Corporatist Imperialism, even JFK, who is wrongly thought of as some anti-Imperialist saint by conspiracy nuts and the historically ignorant, and Jimmy Carter.

Too much irony in one post.

[Odin2005]

29. So Noam Chomsky is a conspiracy nut?

Every president since WW2 has been a war criminal by the standards of Nuremberg, waging aggressive imperialistic war. There is no "conspiracy" these facts are out there as plain as day, people are just brainwashed by Imperialist ideology to ignore them.

[Radical Activist]

30. True, which is why the media promoted Dean as the peace candidate in '03-'04.

Dean promised to maintain Pentagon spending levels and stay in Iraq for at least several more years. Kucinich wanted to get out immediately and dramatically cut defense spending. GE, Time Warner and others had to find a distraction to keep voters away from a real peace candidate and that distraction was Howard Dean.

[defendandprotect]

37. We could use more JFK who refused to nuke Cuba, Russia -- and was bringing troops back from VN ...

JFK spoke against a "Pax Americana" --

You have to understand the betrayals of the MIC/intelligence --

they betrayed not only JFK but Ike, as well --

In fact, Ike tried to include "Intelligence" in his speech re the MIC.


Granted, TPB, supported now by those they have pre-BRIBED and pre-OWNED can block

a true populist from coming forward -- especially when they have tools like hackable

computers. We can probably question ever election back to Nixon/Humphrey.

Keep in mind what they did to Howard Dean -- with little challenge from DLC/Democrats.

That they also tried to kill FDR --

And the undermining of Carter -- Carter who gave us Brzezinski's "Chess Game" of going

into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians were there . . . "in order to bait the

Russians into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience" -- !!

But first we created the Taliban/Al Qaeda thru ISI Pakistan and financed it up to the

moment of 9/11!

Carter -- whose failed desert rescue missions were headed up by Ollie North --

with Secord second in command!

Presume you'll see this as just another opinion by "conspiracy nuts and the historically ignorant"

-- so be it!

I'm sure sufficient numbers of others here will bow to your opinion of your superior intelligence!




.

[Odin2005]

39. Read some Chomsky some time.

JFK had no problem with Imperialistic garbage. It was he that ordered the coup and assassination in South Vietnam.

[defendandprotect]

42. That's a Howard Hunt lie . . . You remember Howard Hunt ...plumber.. forger of fake cables??

Catch up . . . when they opened his safe, guess what came tumbling out . . . ?

His attempts at forging cables suggesting that JFK had ordered the coup -- he had not.

JFK was killed two weeks after the coup -- likely he was going to expose whomever had

ordered the coup.

Since this is common knowledge, I doubt that Chomsky is saying anything like that --

specifically. And if he has said that, he's completely wrong.

This was yet another MIC/Intelligence betrayal of JFK --

[Radical Activist]

28. He's the President of a global empire.

There's no question about that. He's also someone who believes in creating change through organizing rather than waiting for a violent, revolutionary overthrow of the government.

So the question is, will he take action to expend the empire, dismantle it, or simply change some of its policies? The most optimistic expectation is that Obama will set the US on a gradual course away from military domination of the world. A few policies, like nuclear disarmament, suggest he wants to begin shrinking the empire. More actions, like his disappointing Latin American policy, suggest he's maintaining the empire while curbing its most brutal mistakes. That's definitely an improvement, but not sustainable in the long term.

My worry about Clinton as SOS was that she might influence the administration to continue Clinton-era Latin America policies. I don't know if that's part of the reason for his actions, but Obama is ultimately the one responsible.

[Odin2005]

31. He is continuing that status quo in all the ways that matter.

Resource Imperialism in the middle east (we will be keeping 50,000 soldiers in that giant "embassy" in Baghdad), continued support for Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, continued anti-democratic action in Latin America, and propping up his biggest donors, the investment banks.

[Radical Activist]

34. Nuclear disarmament matters.

Reducing combat operations to a level that doesn't kill hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq matters.
Setting a goal of leaving Afghanistan in a few years, rather than staying for another 8, matters.
Not instigating the kind of coups that happened under Nixon/Ford/Reagan (and that there were attempted under Bush) matters.

There are things worth criticizing Obama for and it's clear that he's working to maintain US power around the globe. But there's a real tangible difference compared to what happens under conservative Republican Presidents. The difference in civilian body count matters. Ignoring that just to score a few rhetorical points against Obama is too cynical for me.

[VioletLake]

32. Good comment. n/t

[Radical Activist]

35. Thanks.

I like your blog post about the comment that was banned on HuffPost. The greatest modern threats to free speech come from private companies.

[VioletLake]

38. Thanks back :)

Joined the Net Neutrality fight at http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[EFerrari]

41. What you call it is not as important as that you understand it.

The Obama administration has already exceeded Bush's interference in Latin America. Hillary, to her shame, is defending a coup whose governors are raping and torturing and killing still.

What do you call that? Does it matter? What matters is that people know about it and that they object to this misuse of our resources and our name.

[Orsino]

47. Binary logic won't help, when Big Money has its thumb on the scales.

The US presidency was never a dictatorship, and President Obama's being "in charge" of one branch of government doesn't support the OP's either/or contention.

The president is in charge of some things, and has only the veto and the bully pulpit elsewhere.

[unkachuck]

50. nah....

....he's 'part and parcel'....or else he wouldn't be there....