Ideology survey

Extremely interesting statistics.

This is a national survey of 1,000 US adults, a couple weeks ago, 95% confidence interval is +/- 3 percentage points.

Which is a better system – capitalism or socialism?

53% Capitalism
20% Socialism
27% Not sure

That is, pick 1,000 random americans off the street, ask them to choose between capitalism and socialism, and 200 will answer socialism; another 270 will be unsure.

Those 20% hold that belief in spite of a century of capitalist propaganda, in spite of nearly a century of Soviet propaganda that socialism means the USSR, in spite of the opinion being heresy in all respectable circles everywhere in the world, and in spite of no serious model of a desirable functioning socialist system in existence, or possibly even in theory.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

Also, Bill Blum mentioned in his most recent anti-empire report (also including some discussion of his socialism) an interesting statistic, which has been around for a while.

“In 1987, nearly half of 1,004 Americans surveyed by the Hearst press believed Karl Marx’s aphorism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was to be found in the US Constitution.”

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer68.html

Socialists have no seriously worked out alternative, have no elite support, very few serious political parties with significant support, and a deafening chorus unanimous in its condemnation among all the great and the good of the world.

And yet, they have 20% of the population of the most fiercely capitalist nation on earth behind them. Never underestimate the resiliency of the heretical belief in social justice!

Imagine if they got their act together.

On dinner parties and war criminals

“Oh, your prudery; oh, your squeamish respectability; all the abominations are allowed to *happen*, but no one may mention them. Delicate women must not know anything or say anything about blood and filth… There is nothing indecent about death and killing as far as you are concerned, you well brought up little ladies…”

“[T]he way [respectable] conversation customarily handles a new movement that strives to create a big upheaval: with an expression of prudent doubt and reservation, gentle ridicule, condescending recognition of the noble cause — and all of that against a background of unmoving, rigid indifference.”

— Bertha von Suttner, 1889

Fwd: John Bolton, April 14th, 5pm: The Coming War on Sovereignty


With Rice on present faculty, Rumsfeld immediate past “Distinguished Visiting Fellow”, Powell given recent fawning invitation, who’s next?

John Bolton! Speaking April 14, 2009, at Stanford.

In May 2008, the British journalist George Monbiot attempted a citizen’s arrest on Bolton. Monbiot’s indictment, which he attempted to serve on Bolton, appeared in the British press:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2042636/John-Bolton-charge-sheet-George-Monbiots-list-of-accusations.html

Monbiot appeared on Democracy Now afterwards.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/30/alleging_war_crimes_british_activist_writer

“This is not an ordinary political mistake which was committed in Iraq. This was the supreme international crime, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Those people were not killed in the ordinary sense; they were murdered. And they were murdered by the authors of that war, who are the greatest mass murderers of the twenty-first century so far.”

Topic: “The Coming War on Sovereignty”, no less. Presumably that means arguing against international criminal indictments that may be issued against those involved in the commission of vast war crimes, like himself. As far as sovereignty is concerned — a central principle of international law — it is precisely the principle most egregiously violated by aggressive wars. Bolton has already participated in waging war on sovereignty and sovereign nations. The “coming war on sovereignty” he presumably refers to is, in fact, a legal and political struggle to restore the most basic aspect of sovereignty — the prohibition on invading other nations — by making accountable those who violate this most fundamental obligation of international law.

One imagines that, as a criminal defendant, Bolton would be making a very similar speech about the illegitimacy of law. Except there he would be laughed out of court and into prison, instead of being received with polite applause in a prestigious law faculty.

Bolton’s involvement in perpetrating war on Iraq, as detailed by Monbiot, however pales in comparison to the role of Rice, as detailed in the open letter.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/antiwar/cgi-bin/mediawiki/index.php?title=Condi_coalition_letter_draft

Stanford student elections

I am finding these election emails increasingly disturbing. Not because of the volume of emails, because I get a lot of emails, like I’m sure all of you do. Nor because a lot of students are getting involved, which is great. And not because of the general tenor, because a lot of them seem quite progressive and socially concerned. And not least, because the Democrats and Conservatives enter into an unholy alliance at precisely the time the *Left* should be uniting; the Democrats reveal themselves by uniting with the Right! (See below.)

In student politics, all establishment parties should usually be regarded as the far right; Stanford is an exception, because Stanford is establishment, but this time maybe less so. But here is my problem. Nobody, absolutely nobody, I have seen so far, has been willing to make any stand with respect to war criminals on campus. At least last year there was one such candidate. I wonder if there is anything we can do about this.

All this self-advertising, earnest students advertising commitment to activism and human rights — are they willing to take a stand with respect to quite possibly the most immediate and important human rights issue on campus: the presence of faculty against which there is a strong prima facie case of crimes against humanity. Faculty commit massive war crimes and lead the supreme crime against international war, and nobody makes a peep.

The silence is deafening, and the hypocrisy is reaching a crescendo. Or so it seems from my point of view.
———- Forwarded message ———-

Dear Stanford Community,

There’s been a lot of talk in this ASSU election campaign about
politics—who’s liberal, who’s conservative, and what this means for
the Stanford population. We believe politics are important. It’s what
we spend most of our time doing.

But this election transcends traditional political divisions. We need
leadership that unites us and does not attempt to use our political
differences to divide us. Both of us have worked closely with [names deleted], and we know them to be the kind of guys who bring people together. And that’s exactly what Stanford needs right now.

Budget cuts are affecting all aspects of academics and student life –
every community will be affected. We need leadership who will unite
the entire student body and represent the interests of students, just
as we are united in this letter today.  Please learn more about them
at [link deleted].

Sincerely,

[name deleted]
President, Stanford Democrats

[name deleted]
President, Stanford Conservative Society

Relevant articles & videos

Some articles and videos of relevance for those interested in peace and justice.

1. San Francisco — your tax dollars at work.

Footage of police violence at SF antiwar rally last weekend. About 2:50 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWlSbdCmPcU

“The State is authority, it is force, it is the ostentatious display of and infatuation with Power. It does not seek to ingratiate itself, to win over, to convert. Every time it intervenes, it does so with particularly bad grace. For by its very nature it cannot persuade but must impose and exert force.”
— Mikhail Bakunin

2. Afghanistan escalation

The good and the bad of President Obama’s plan for Afghanistan
From Peace Action West
http://www.groundswellonline.org/groundswell/2009/03/the-good-and-the-bad-of-president-obamas-plan-for-afghanistan.html

3. Iran

White House ducks issue of Iran request
The White House has given a cautious response devoid of any real
content to an Iranian call for concrete change in US policy toward
Tehran.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=89471&sectionid=351020101

4. Sri Lanka

The silent horror of the war in Sri Lanka
Arundhati Roy
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4331986.cms

Guardian investigations in Gaza

Gaza war crimes investigation
Civilians, medics and investigators talk to the Guardian about
allegations of war crimes during Israel’s 23-day campaign in Gaza
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/gaza-war-crimes-investigation

Under attack: how medics died trying to help Gaza’s casualties
Israeli military says medical staff ‘take the risk upon themselves’
(Including video)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/gaza-war-crimes-medics

The Nation Reimagines Socialism

There is a lot of discussion happening on broad vision at the moment. In particular, the Nation has a whole Forum on “Reimagining Socialism”. This looks fantastic. I haven’t read everything there yet, but it looks great. There’s a lead article by Ehrenreich and Fletcher, and then a whole bunch of articles in response.

Reimagining Socialism: A Nation Forum
By Barbara Ehrenreich & Bill Fletcher Jr.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/ehrenreich_fletcher

Ehrenreich and Fletcher mention participatory economics, which I think is something worth thinking about — in my opinion, it’s a leading candidate for what a desirable economy looks like, at least among those I have heard about. Michael Albert, who is one of the people who wrote down this vision, wrote a response to them, but the Nation did not print it.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20826

The Venezuelan consul also wrote a response, which again the Nation has refused to print, so far as I am aware. In it, she talks about various programmes of the Bolivarian government, and remarks positively about participatory economics.
http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/view/2906

This is precisely the right time for these discussions. It’s a pity
there isn’t more radical infrastructure in place to take advantage of
the situation and press for radical change.