Finding good news while trying to avoid neo-colonial assassination and Bradley Manning guilty stories:
Taliban tunnel more than 480 out of Afghan prison
By Mirwais Khan and Heidi Vogt
Associated PressKANDAHAR, Afghanistan – During the long Afghan winter, Taliban insurgents were apparently busy underground.
The militants say they spent more than five months building a 1,050-foot tunnel to the main prison in southern Afghanistan, bypassing government checkpoints, watch towers and concrete barriers topped with razor wire.
The diggers finally poked through Sunday and spent 4 1/2 hours ferrying away more than 480 inmates without a shot being fired, according to the Taliban and Afghan officials.
The second piece of good news is that someone in the inner circles of power, this time former Bush Jr. staffer David Frum, in Both parties abandon the jobless has broken the main mainstream taboo in our post-democracy. And, yeah Dave, it’s weird:
The recovery is weak, and job creation is slow. Everybody knows that. But here’s something that we don’t know, or anyway don’t think about enough: Isn’t it weird that in this dismal economic situation, neither of the two great U.S. political parties is offering a plan to do anything about the job situation?
(hip tat to dakine01)
P.S. Colin Crouch originated the post-democracy concept. Here is Nick Anstead’s quick summary:
… In the early years of the century, the manual working class was lauded as the dominant class of the future. According to Crouch, this prediction reached fruition in the years immediately after the second world war, when the working class, coupled with fellow travelers in the middle and upper classes, were able to construct an electorally dominant political coalition. This led to the creation of modern welfare states, a focus on employment as the primary economic objective of government and the adoption of Keynesian economic policies. However this dominance proved to be short-lived, as the manual industries that had fostered working class identity declined. …
Parties of the left, who could no longer rely on the electoral power of the working class to propel them to power, had to adjust to a world where voter identities were far less clearly defined. Furthermore, de-aligned voters proved to be far more fickle than those in their parents’ generation, and were willing to move their vote from one party to the other. They tended not to join political parties; they consumed politics, but did not partake in it. In order to win and retain their support, parties moved away from any kind of substantive ideological discourse, promising both lower taxes and better public services. Additionally, parties stressed valence issues (that is questions of management and efficiency where there is no major partisan distinction, only claims that “it can be done better”) as well as non-economic political issues, such as crime and immigration. These messages were conveyed in soundbite format to cope with the decreased interest and political attention span of the electorate.
This observation become especially significant when coupled with the Crouch’s second point, a critique of neo-liberal economic thought. The architects of this approach, such as Friedrich Von Hayek and Milton Friedman, made two claims. Firstly, that markets were far more efficient at the allocation of resources than other methods. Secondly, that human nature, embodied in the profit maximizing firm and micro side of a market, would guarantee the efficiency of the macro element of the system. These assumptions, however, present a problem when coupled with the circumstances of modern electoral politics. The two neo-liberal assumptions can, in certain circumstances, be at odds with each other. In short what would rational human beings do if profit maximization did not not occur through the efficient allocation of resources, but instead through the development and use of political influence? In the middle years of the twentieth century, the electorate acted as a powerful counterbalance to the corporate interests. However, in the post-industrial environment, weak relationship between parties and the electorate has left a huge vacuum at the heart of politics; a vacuum that can be exploited by corporate interests.
… Crouch argues that the inevitable conclusion of his first two observations is a political system that is returning to a form of democracy that is more akin to the late nineteenth century than the democracy of the middle years of the twentieth century. In other words, whilst many of mechanisms and institutions and democracy exist, power is, in actuality, focused in the hands of a narrow elite.



23 Comments

I was a union man at the height of union strength and power. The unions and the Democrats were united. But the Democratic Party was not a Labor Party. And when Bill Clinton got a better offer – he took it. Organized Labor has been a political orphan ever since.
We need a Labor Party. The Unions will reestablish themselves when they are again represented in Washington. And a Labor Party would represent the most disenfranchised people in the country. The working poor.
We could have two parties again. The Uni-Party and The American Labor Party.
Oh yeah. The Taliban jail break. I have one word for those guys. RUN!
fairleft: good to see you’re back.
The jail break portion of your post kinda reminded me of “Hogan’s Heroes” with the Afghans being the heroes.
As far as Colin Crouch’s observations, I am afraid he is right. For most of human history vast polarization between the rich and poor has been the norm. The middle class was
probably a fluke. Odds are this 45 year accident out of 6,000 years of (recorded) history will never pass this way again.
If your time frame is 6000 years the norm is slavery. I’m not going peacefully.
Workingclass:
What is this is all we are?
I’d like to point out two things in the prison break.
As Du points out in his diary on this, among those escaping are bomb builders. His life and the life of others just got much more dangerous. Not to mention the victims to come.
Second, I can’t believe this happened without complete and utter complicity.
My bet is this was arranged US policy move to create more horror, providing a reason to STAY there, and likely to stay in Iraq as well.
This escape ensures more violence against both Afghan civilians and innocents, and against US troops.
I’d recommend reading Du’s diary for his take on it all.
Your framing of the story of the prison break is very revealing.
Since you think the escapees–among which are 100 or so mid-level Taliban commanders who have and will lead forces that bomb and attack U.S./Coalition soldiers–are ‘resistance fighters’ and ‘patriots’, I must assume you are a Pashtun(not necessarily an Afghani) who sides with the Taliban and cheers the deaths of American and Coalition soldiers. I guess it is worthwhile to read a foreign anti-American viewpoint here once in awhile.
While I think that after ten years we should leave Afghanistan, I’m still an American and I don’t want any more American/Coalition soldiers or Afghani civilians to die.
There is the possibility that the escapees have been surreptitiously tagged with gps markers and were allowed to “escape” so that they can lead drones to their Taliban brethren.
@ czed April 25th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
No there isn’t.
du
@ Larue April 25th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I’d agree about complicity. Not about the US policy move ‘though. Occam’s razor suggests greed/corruption on the part of prison guards and their commanders.
du
Who are you commenting to? Sorry, it’s not clear who “you” is.
I don’t see anyone referring to the escapees as resistance or patriots, so I’m confused by that reference.
Thanks.
Thanks du.
I can appreciate your Occam’s Razor view of the greed/corruption locally . . . you know much more on the ground than any of us do here . . . but if nothing else this is the sort of thing US policy MIGHT have created for the reasons I mention.
I’ll just suggest the overbearing arm of US foreign policy reaches far and deep and despite all that is known of our corruption and horrid abuse of power abroad . . . that US corporate oligarchs are capable of anything. And have fucked up the planet for a while now.
Great read from Tomgram, Tom Engelhardt, terrific work by Mr.’s McCoy/Reilly regarding “Empire Of Failed States”.
A good review of US foreign policy incursions, failures and more.
Best to you and yours and may all be well.
maddow did a short segment on the break, watch it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7CEZ6IvFA
I agree. But note that even a party named ‘the Labour Party’ can be bought out by big money. Surely though, the U.S. can do better than obvious prostitutes to money running our entire political system.
And how do you and/or Du know that “among those escaping are bomb builders”? You don’t have any idea, of course.
It seems obvious to anyone with a brain that many bomb builders are allowed to roam free in Afghanistan if they have the right connections. The biggest bomb builders and deployers of all, U.S. soldiers, are the military rulers of Afghanistan.
That’s how imperialism works, the most evil but militarily strongest run the system while militarily weak patriots resort to the resistance tools of the weak. Don’t let that conflict divert from the ultimate evil, affecting by far the most Afghans, the corrupt puppet rule and the economic exploitation that U.S. imperialism has been inflicting on Afghan civilians for nearly a decade.
Pretending that non-violence will rid Afghanistan of the U.S. occupation is absurd. Try something else, something realistic.
No, I’m an anti-imperialist.
I cheer anti-imperialists whereever they raise their patriotic heads, whether the effective resistance is violent or non-violent. Obviously I think patriots fight to rid their country of neocolonial rule, which always exploits the victimized country for the economic benefit of the invading country and its corporations. I believe nations all over the world, without exception, should have sovereignty, and not be ruled by military occupiers like the U.S. or by Western neo-imperial institutions like the IMF.
“While I think that after ten years we should leave Afghanistan, I’m still an American and I don’t want any more American/Coalition soldiers or Afghani civilians to die.”
czed: You used the term “Anti-American”. Question: if being pro-American causes one to be Anti-humanity which would you chose? Before your Nationality, your ethnicity, your Religion you are Human. Most Liberals do not support
their country “right of wrong” we (liberals) default to what is right and humane.
The present empire is American led ergo if you are anti-imperialist you are anti-American.
I detest imperialism, but that doesn’t mean I would ever cheer for the fundamentalist Taliban or Al Qaeda(Pakistan and Afghanistan were cobbled together by the British and are countries only in name. They are ungovernable tribal regions with state sovereignty a mirage). I despise all fundamentalists a wee bit more than imperialists, regardless of the religion, since their goal is to turn the world back to the 7th century.
Then again, I’m not 100% sure it is worse to revert to a more primitive lifestyle due to religious zealotry rather than to the environmental destruction of the planet by imperialists.
Being pro-Taliban and pro-AlQaeda IS anti-humanity. Like fundamentalist Christians and Jews and Hindus, these fundamentalist Muslims would be more than delighted if Humanity was completely destroyed in a nuclear conflagration.
Perhaps if you had young family or friends who fell into the maw of the military due to lack of opportunities you might not be so quick to condemn everyone in the military. Besides, how will the military ever change if there are no good decent people in it willing to change it from the inside.
Read the post’s title.
You and mainstream media/propaganda make the choice “pro-Taliban/AlQaeda” OR “pro-U.S. troops,” not me. I notice (but it’s never in the mainstream news) that there’s widespread support in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, parts of which the U.S. is also at war with) for some sort of coalition among all significant tribes and ideological groups, including the Taliban. The Taliban supports such a compromise/coalition government, _if_ it is included in it and if the U.S. leaves, of course. Al Qaeda is not even in the picture.
I’m “pro-sovereignty” not “pro-U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.” I’m “anti-imperialism” not “anti-U.S. troops.”
Of course I’m not anti-American if I oppose my country’s morally obscene imperialism. Were those who opposed the Vietnam War anti-American?