Reply #95: Sound and fury signifying nothing.

[1932]

How many times must I repeat? Clark lauds soft/virtual empire -- the IMF, development loans, globalization -- everything but war in Iraq (yet, IIUC, he had no qualms about Panama). John Perkins says that Iraq was the third step in a three step process which, since the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, goes to step one in just about every country in which the IMF and the US does busines, has gone to step 2 in Ecuador, Chile, Venezuela and a bunch of other places, and has goine to step three in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq twice.

I cite Venezuela as an example of soft empire doing bad things (and that's just the step one activities). As I said, during the oil strikes, Venezuela was broke, despite having some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and despite having been pumping oil of something like seven decades. Soft empire left them in a position where, in order to guarantee literacy for their citizens, they had to borrow a millioin dollars worth of books from Cuba. That's not a sign of soft empire working.

I never alleged that Clark made decisions that influence Venezuela. I'm only saying that the things he lauds perhaps deserve criticism instead. And even though Clark might not have "conducted policy towards Venezuela" he is on the board of the N.E.D. which has been very active in opposing that government which placed such a high value on literacy and in retaining the profits of its natural resources for its citizens. Venezuela has been in the news a lot recently. Maybe Clark will clarify his role on the NED boar in relationg to Venezuela. However, I'll be surprised if the story we hear is that he did everything he could to discoruage the undermining of a government that was rejecting soft empire.

What links was I "provided" that rebut any of these claims? This is a rich statement from someone who says he doesn't have the time or interest in reading Perkins, Parkers, or any of the other books I've cited. Not only have I not seen any links that refute anything I've said, I ask, who are you to tell anyone they're ignoring facts? I read Clark's books. I'll read anything you ask me to read. Yet, you won't do the same.

As for Chapter 6 being merely descriptive, do you know that Clark has encourged people to read that chapter because he says it is the fullest argument of his vision? It is not merely descriptive. It is a prescription.

If you really want to address welshTerrier2's TPM post, why don't you (or someone with a star) link to the post here at DU discussing it?

By the way, I asked you a question not as a smokescreen. I asked it with Socratic intention. Furthermore, it was a question that you made relevant with the quesiton of yours which I italicized. I'll ask it again. Do you think you're better off because ChevronTexacoMobilEnron make money of your energy consumption, or do you think maybe we'd have a better world today if Indonesians, Nigerians, South Americans and Central Americans had been making more money off their natural and labor resources over the last thirty years?