Yuku free message boards

I'm sure you know the often sited President Eisenhower's statement about the military industrial complexes gripping power.

Indeed. You should know the context of it though.

Eisenhower's address reflected an ambivalence about the centrality of America's contribution to the defense of a free world. In the Cold War, America proved to have the more vibrant, resilient economic system that allowed it to triumph. None of that was then known during Eisenhower's presidency. Eisenhower looked at the world and saw a massive Soviet army that would not be repelled with traditional military power should it decide to invade Western Europe. There were simply too many Soviet divisions. Eisenhower feared the implications of building up a massive army to meet the Soviets. It meant making a free society into a militarized one. Instead, he relied on naval power, nuclear weapons, and a doctrine of massive retaliation (aka MAD). He wanted to guard against America becoming a militarized state.

This is altogether different than the current context. The Soviet divisions have all gone home, and there are few nations left on the map that do not have positive orientations to the global economic system America has built. Today, everyone wants to be the next South Korea. There are a few holdouts: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, for instance that are not about to integrate; but almost all others have implemented or are attempting to implement the rule of law, usually a democratic system, mass systems education, and a liberal capitalist economic system to attract investment and development based on the American business model. All these things are usually in the interests of big corporations. So what? The outstanding point is that these developments are in America's economic and security interests as well. Who cares if the corporations like it?

The Marxist analysis you subscribe to is not wrong; it was relevant especially during the 19th century and, to a lesser extent, in Eisenhower's time. It is now outdated.

I'm against the overwhelming influence of corporate power that now seems to control this country.

Your analysis is not original. I've run into it many times before. It is indeed an offshoot of Marxism. That certainly doesn't make you a commie. It doesn't even mean that you're wrong. The popular conception of Marx is that he was a pure evil ideologue. In reality, he was one of the greatest sociologists and theorists of his time, having many interesting insights to offer that are still relevant. His class warfare paradigm continues to be relevant today; but his main thesis -- his prediction that class disparities would give rise to revolutions followed by dictatorships of the proletariat -- was incorrect. I've not accused you of subscribing to this prediction, or of promoting revolution. So, take it easy. What your analysis has in common with Marx is the sense of economic determinism, or the notion that political outcomes can be explained with reference to economic phenomena. This is no crime and this is why I did not consider it a slur to say that your analysis was "Marxist." In fact, economic determinism can be a useful paradigm for understanding the world.

In this case, I'm guessing you believe that corporations encourage an "imperial" policy by their ability to mold public opinion through the various media outlets that they control, convincing ordinary Americans that it is in their interests for America to act as world policeman. This is what you meant when you said that TNR is a 'corporatist enabler.' Have I understood correctly?