TVWho: Russ Baker on RT, with Syria Update

Reading Time: 1 minute

WhoWhatWhy Editor Russ Baker interviewed by RT  on recent developments in the Western war with Syria you won’t hear about while all eyes are on the constructed “news” of the political conventions.

[box]WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

GRAPHIC:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSgx7H1FK295hmrjlOg4_zA64J7wDvI8QoCIHJTj7YXnMHZe5r&t=1

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8pZ3p2IfQhtky-FhPW8pfJz7jOXicSoldyYVYZH0KVr_rQz8ACA

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

2 responses to “TVWho: Russ Baker on RT, with Syria Update”

  1. Vivek Jain says:

    This is taken from an interview of Michael Parenti by Carl Boggs:

    CB: You have written quite extensively on questions of American global power and the dynamics of U.S. imperialism going back to World War II and earlier. It has been fashionable, even on the left, to dismiss classical theories of imperialism (such as those, for example, derived from Lenin, Luxemburg, and Hobson or later from Williams and Baran/Sweezy) as outmoded, as dwelling too much on economic factors. How do you view the main sources of U.S. military interventions?

    MP: To say that U.S. global intervention is motivated by economic factors does not mean that resource acquisition is the prime or only factor in the empire’s aggrandizement. The goal of imperialism remains what it has always been, the striving for dominance over others in order to expropriate their land, labor, natural resources, markets, and capital. The complimentary goal is to uproot and destroy any leader, government, or movement that seeks an alternate route (usually a more communitarian or collectivist one) outside the global imperial system. Such people have to learn that their country does not belong to them; it belongs to the imperium and its transnational corporations.

    The U.S. empire sees only two kinds of nations beyond its shores: (1) satellites (also called “client states”) that are politically obedient and completely open to foreign expropriation, including our allies who are economically wedded to the western corporate world and who cooperate with Washington on most things; and (2) enemies or potential enemies, countries that pursue independent self-development outside the global free market system, “troublesome” countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq, Cuba, Panama (under Noriega), Haiti (under Aristide), Nicaragua (under the Sandinistas), Libya (under Gaddafi), Venezuela (under Chavez); one could go on.

    Instead of educating themselves about the economic imperatives of empire, most present-day writers, such as Chalmers Johnson, claim imperialism is all about aggrandizement, power for power’s sake, military bases, and messianic hegemony—as if these things were mutually exclusive of economic imperialism. One central goal of these writers is to avoid any informed discussion of the underlying imperatives of class power in service to class interests. Relatively little is offered on how power (in the hands of the few) is used to accumulate wealth, and how wealth is used to secure power. In one of my books I call them the “ABC theorists,” (Anything But Class).

  2. Vivek Jain says:

    See also Russ Baker’s article referenced early in the piece: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/08/28/syria-we-can-learn-a-lot-from-the-small-stuff