Joan's Answer #3: Foundations were not hijacked by the deep state, they were co-conspirators. Like the other elements of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century, the creators of the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Sage and other foundations took seriously many criticisms of the "free enterprise" system made by the increasingly threatening socialist movements. They wanted to clean up capitalism, to preclude its demise by socialism; some were genuinely disturbed by the murder and mayhem of unfettered laissez-faire. Thus they were servitors of the "cold war," which I say began in 1848, the year of the Communist Manifesto-and hasn't ended. The capitalists took Marx very seriously, and worked to make sure his were self-denying prophecies.
In the mid-twentieth century, when the Ford Foundation became national in scope, it was the soft cop of US imperialism. Kai Bird's biography states: "John J. McCloy, for many years Chairman of the Ford Foundation's trustees, 'thought of the Foundation as a quasi-extension of the U.S. government. It was his habit, for instance, to drop by the National Security Council in Washington every couple of months and casually ask whether there were any overseas projects the NSC would like to see funded.'" [Kai Bird, John J. McCloy and the Making of the American Establishment (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 519]
The Rockefeller Foundation, predecessor of the UN World Health Organization among other institutions, supported medical education worldwide, including in China, which facilitated a globalized economy.
A major theme in Foundations and Public Policy is evidence that the large liberal foundations channeled and co-opted the activist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. For research and humanitarian motives, I became a member of the Haymarket People's Fund board, a radical foundation, and the book includes information on its impact.
The foundations and the co-opted nonprofit sector not only prevent radical change, they, along with governments, often provide the rudiments of civilization that free enterprise neglects, although most of the world remains unjust, environmentally destructive, and subject to nuclear annihilation.
I don't have very hopeful hints on how to change the world. I believe the first step is for those concerned with the sorry state of things take some time to work together to figure out how to produce change, in the light of history and the current circumstances, and some detail about desired outcomes. There is too much individualism among the communards.
Jeff's Question #4: Your Counterpunch article entitled, The Political Economy of the Weapons Industry www.informationclearinghouse.info/49914.htm In Russian: Click Here
reminds me of great documentary movie that came out in the early 2000s, and I can't remember the title, unfortunately (https://www.imdb.com/list/ls059705680/). Capitalism is based on war, which Marx and Lenin wrote about. Capitalism and war are a tautology.
You write how the military-industrial complex (MIC) should add the "legislative" to its name, like parting US President Dwight Eisenhower warned about, and who gave us the moniker. Just like deep state coopting foundations and NGOs, the MIC corrupts all the aforementioned institutions, charities, governments at all levels, as well as the sports, entertainment and prison industries.
In my interviews with John Potash, he reported that the US Department of Defense is the publisher of 1,200 magazine titles around the world (Click Here and Click Here). This, not to mention putting some kind of military institution or program in every congressional district in the USA.
It's no better in France, where the military facilities and armament factories are spread all over the country. We just had a platoon of soldiers come to our village to spend the weekend and their money, handing out promotions, awards and filling up all the restaurants and souvenir shops. Who's going to protest against that?
You paint a pretty grim picture of resignation and hopelessness. The MIC is embedded in Western economies like the sand in concrete. What to do?
Seems to me that as long as there is global capitalism, there isn't much we can do. It really gets my goat, all these many antiwar organizations who do not see or refuse to see that capitalism and militarism are co-joined twins. Environmental groups rarely mention that the world's biggest polluter is the US military and by extension, NATO.
Joan's Answer #5: I have tried to reach the peacemongers, urging them to consider what we are up against. It is not merely the weapons makers seeking huge profits. The military budget is a huge prop of the economy (see "Military Keynesianism Marches On." Click Here). It underpinned the industrialization of the South, and it mitigates the corrosion of the rustbelt, which has accelerated with the offshoring of civilian manufacturing. From "The Military Industrial Complex in New Hampshire" Click Here
Readers of specialty publications, such as the NH Business Review, may learn that: "In New Hampshire, the F-35 program supports 55 suppliers - 35 of which are small businesses - and over 900 direct jobs, much of them located at BAE Systems in Nashua. The F-35 program generates over $481 million in economic impact in the state" (9-21-17). (Incidentally, this aircraft, considered the most expensive weapon in history, has been rated unfavorably by military experts.)
The city of Nashua's website informs us that BAE is the largest employer in the city, and in addition: "A total of 130 defense contractors were awarded contracts between 2000 and 2012, which is indicative of how robust the defense industry has become in Nashua. "Not coincidentally, Nashua has been rated the #1 place to live by Money Magazine.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
