|
|
The
Silent Takeover : Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy
by Noreena Hertz
From Publishers Weekly:
Cambridge University economist Hertz asserts that Reagan's and
Thatcher's brand of free market capitalism has had dire social
and political repercussions, although it has triumphed as the
dominant world ideology and brought prosperity to many. She
sensibly argues that with government in retreat from its traditional
rule-setter role, multinational corporations have grown so powerful
51 of the hundred biggest economies in the world are corporations
that they determine political policies rather than operate subject
to them. Market success may rule, but Hertz laments that the
state, in appearing to serve business, may be nullifying democracy's
social contract to represent and protect the rights of all citizens
equally. |
|
The
Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons,
Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters by Greg Palast
In this polemical indictment of globalization and political
corruption, Palast (a reporter with the BBC and London's Observer)
updates the muckraking tradition with some 21st-century targets:
the IMF, World Bank and WTO, plus oil treaties, energy concerns
and corporate evildoers of all creeds. Greg Palast, the last
journalist. |
|
Globalization
and Its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz
Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz had a brilliant
career in academia before serving for four years on President
Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and then three years
as chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank.
His book clearly explains the functions and powers of the main
institutions that govern globalization--the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization--along
with the ramifications, both good and bad, of their policies.
He strongly believes that globalization can be a positive force
around the world, particularly for the poor, but only if the
IMF, World Bank, and WTO dramatically alter the way they operate,
beginning with increased transparency and a greater willingness
to examine their own actions closely. Of his time at the World
Bank, he writes, "Decisions were made on the basis of what
seemed a curious blend of ideology and bad economics, dogma
that sometimes seemed to be thinly veiling special interests....
Open, frank discussion was discouraged--there was no room for
it." |
|
Idea
Brokers : Think Tanks And The Rise Of The New Policy Elite by
James A. Smith
From Book News, Inc.:
Tracing the rise of the think tank from the turn of the century
to the present, historian Smith provides a portrait of this
policy elite and concludes that "experts" have preempted
the public debate by helping to remove complex issues from the
ken of ordinary citizens. |
| |
|
Postmodernism,
Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism by Fredric Jameson
Frederic Jameson, an American Marxist social theorist, draws
the attentions to the differences in culture between the modern
and postmodern periods.
|
|
I Watched a Wild Hog Eat My Baby: A Colorful
History of Tabloids and Their Cultural Impact by Bill Sloan
From Publishers Weekly
This overview comes from a tabloid insider: Sloan has been an
editor for the National Enquirer and for the tabloid publisher
Globe Communications. Sloan recalls the business genius of former
boss Generoso Paul Pope Jr.; with the financial backing of major
crime boss Frank Costello, Pope took the struggling National
Enquirer in the early 1960s from a mainstream publication to
one that celebrated graphic sex and violence. Then, recognizing
the potential of marketing to housewives standing in supermarket
lines, Pope refashioned his paper again in the late 1960s to
one that often highlighted miracle cures and terminally ill
children. Later, Pope again saw tremendous new opportunity in
exploiting the lives of celebrities, and tabloids flourished
at their peak in the 1970s and '80s with a circulation of 12
million. Since the 1990s, Sloan argues, the emergence of sensationalism
in mainstream print and nonprint media has caused tabloid circulation
to drop off. |
| |
|
Nineteen
Eighty-Four: A Novel by George Orwell
Thought Police. Big Brother. Orwellian.
These words have entered our vocabulary because of George
Orwell's classic dystopian novel, 1984. The story of one man's
nightmare odyssey as he pursues a forbidden love affair through
a world ruled by warring states and a power structure that
controls not only information but also individual thought
and memory, 1984 is a prophetic, haunting tale.
|
|
| |
|
Columns:
Note: Anyone who wishes to
become a columnist
or submit a column or a response
to a column
please contact Alllie.
|
|
Black and White
You are the CEO of a modest little oil company, you've
just been told of a new oilfield discovery in a little country over
in the middle-east, only your scientists know about it. What do
you do? Call the Emir, the ecology nut with very conservative opinions
on modernisation, a person you don't really know? Or, do you call
… The President?
Congratulations! You are the reason the US Grand Strategy exists.
What's good for corporate business is good for the US admin. and
it's leaders. You now have at your disposal, the good offices of
the President, built on a foundation of neo-liberal economics; world-class
neo-conservative protection, pre-emption and hegemony; the willing
support of the religious fundamentalists; the amoral freedom of
postmodernism; and all the other right-wing skulduggery that money
can buy.
Picture the 'US Grand Strategy' as a giant whale, a leviathan, only
ever seen in pieces and parts, and very rarely seen as a whole.
We do not see the whole, and might be forgiven for believing that
we are seeing, in fact, parts of quite different animals, with no
bodily connection between one manifestation or another. This is
the strategy of the new post-modern right-wing movement that sees
it's highest level of expression in the USA, a movement that is
also never seen as a whole, just in pieces and parts, all seemingly
unconnected and discrete, the pieces and parts that the benefactors
and beneficiaries of the movement hope will allay fears amongst
the populace, that we will be convinced that the leviathan does
not exist and that it is harmless and frequently beneficial.
Capital has a project, to survive and thrive. The visible face of
major capital is connected with the largest capitalist enterprises,
the global corporate monopolists. What you will read is that everything
starts and ends here - with the capital.
In order for global capitalism to survive it needs to grow, and
growth in existing markets is no longer sufficient, it requires
the development and exploitation new markets, and in order to be
able to sell into new markets they first need to be created. This
is globalization, which is a way to encourage countries to open
up to global corporations in return for certain reciprocal arrangements.
We sell them the crap we no longer want, they get to sell us the
best they can produce. Of course, once a market has been created
it must be secured and nurtured.
So, if you are the CEO of a big corporation with revenues to match
a small country, just how do you encourage 3rd world countries to
open up to your business? Well there are many ways: sponsoring thought,
debate and publications that deal with the positive effects of globalisation;
personal contacts between senior corporate executives and 3rd world
leaders; propaganda actions such as the creation of model factories
in 3rd world countries; and, getting your own government to persuade
other leaders to formally open up their markets.
Of course, a leader of a wealthy country can easily twist the arm
of anyone looking to improve the lot of their fellow citizens, or
indeed, of just their own businesses. Just imagine the arm-twisting
potential of the biggest single economic and military power. Why
bother to go cap in hand to the President of a far away country,
when you can get your President to give them their orders.
The 2000 US Presidential election results must have
been a power capitalist dream. A republican President availed of
a plan that would potentially allow US corporations to capitalize
on the full range of power of the the United States Government,
with its military and economic superiority which is then leveraged
to gain unchallengeable superiority, in all markets possible, through
all means necessary, including militarily. As President Bush might
have said himself: if it's good for corporate America, it's good
for America and for me. This is the main link, between Corporate
Capital and the US Government. Bush was installed with a plan, and
it only needed a series of events to trigger it.
So, who made the plan that Bush has? In simplistic
terms the plan comes from two main branches: neo-liberalism which
promotes a brand of imperialist globalisation, and the neo-conservatism
which focuses on working on the technology, logistics and strategies
of globalisation and US miliary hegemony.
The four main tenets of neo-liberalism are: i. Deregulation as a
way to increase profitability and reduce competition whilst at the
same time pretending that deregulation boosts economic growth; ii.
Greater choice means that people are taxed less in the short term
and that people are provided with less in the mid-term; iii. Privatization
which is in essence the selling off state owned concerns (i.e. enterprises
owned by all of the people) by government (representatives of the
people) to private interests (capitalists) - at sale prices; iv.
Individuality, the only community worth having is a corporation
and that outside of the corporation there should only be rugged
individuality. In order to fully exploit the dynamics of a globalized
economy and in order to maximize profits, the industrial core must
be prepared to shift centers of production and services rapidly
and effectively, from one part of the world to another part of the
world, and, this requires that the industrial core must give the
developing periphery rapid access to sufficient technology and know-how
(through the controlled transfer of technology) in order for them
to fulfill what is required of them, this also means that the developing
periphery must adopt educational practices that produce educated
people who can effectively serve the requirements of the industrial
core - nothing more or less. In order to fully exploit the dynamics
of a truly globalized economy it is important that full and easy
access to all required resources is given, and, in return for this
participation governments and regimes will be allowed to survive
and thrive - making poor countries rich, relatively speaking, since
the idea is that the poor countries will become rich enough to buy
the crap we no longer need. In this way, some countries will become
richer for periods of time, at least up until their economic development
and government expenditure forces up prices which may lead to corporations
moving their production and services centers to more profitable
countries or regions. To ensure that the developing periphery fully
understands the nature of the deal they must remove all their barriers
to international trade. It is irrelevant that Governments can or
cannot run state owned business effectively, as part of the deal
of participation in the globalised economy governments should hand
over their largest state owned corporations to private investors,
which in effect is the selling of public property, means of production
and services at knock-down prices. In fact, the governments of the
developing periphery and even of some of the industrial core nations,
should become solely administrators of essential services and some
infrastructure responsibilities no one else wants, in essence removing
the need for governments to be overly involved in politics or even
economics.
On the other hand, the old fashioned neo-conservatism could be seen
as marked by five major traits: i. Anticommunism, neo-conservatives
share common values with regards to communism; ii. Social revolutions,
firmly believing that social revolutions as a result of social injustice
and alienation were illegitimate; iii. Regime change, arguing that
it is valid for the USA to sponsor regime change; iv. Dictatorships,
the maintenance of dictatorships that are installed optionally by
the US and remain friendly to US interest; v. Unilateralist, The
USA has the right to carry out military action alone
So, who needs the religious fundamentalists? Well, the President
does, they are useful. First of all the religious right provide
a lot of electoral fodder for a Republican Presidential hopeful.,
secondly their endorsement also finds resonance with many undiscerning
voters. The religious fundamentalist connection buys a lot of votes
for the GOP. The neo-conservatives also share a lot of the values
that are usually associated with religious fundamentalism, even
neo-liberalism has points of convergence with religious fundamentalism
- usually their convergence is associated with sex, drugs, scandal,
Israel, Islam or Democrats. There is an interdependence of beliefs
even in politics, like most neoconservatives and neo-liberals alike,
many of the most fervent right-wing pro-war supporters are to be
found amongst the religious fundamentalists of the USA.
So who provide the philosophical foundation for this new vision
of the future? Well, the last twenty years has witnessed the rolling
back of the advance of social democracy in the USA and it's disposition
by a form of right-wing system called liberal democracy. The ideologies
that lie behind liberal democracy and globalized capital have come
out of essentially right-wing neo-conservative or neo-liberal think
tanks, such as The Heritage Foundation; the American Enterprise
Institute; the Hudson Institute; the Hoover Institute; the Cato
Institute; the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs ;
The Claremount Institute etc. In terms of the number of foundations
that the parties have the liberals got a jump on the right in the
early 1960's and then the ex-secretary of treasury figured it out
there were no right-wing tax-free foundations (think tanks). Thanks
to Bill Simon the right now has as many "think tanks"
as the liberals - if not more.
So who pays for all of this thinking? Grand projects do no materialize
out of thin air, there is no fairy godmother when it comes to funding
costly politically oriented activity, and only capital makes the
wheels and cogs go round in the west. I mean, serious money must
have been spent over an extended period of time to keep the neo-liberal
flame alive and to sponsor work into grand strategic plans and boundless
initiatives.
Funding of the many think-tanks comes from a lot of sources, amongst
them: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; The Sarah Scaife Foundation;
The Carthage Foundation; The Allegheny Foundation; The Castle Rock
Foundation; The John M. Olin Foundation. Indeed, a large number
of organizations and institutions owe their existence to the liberal
generosity of Richard Mellon Scaife one of the richest men in the
USA, and allegedly the money behind the vast conspiracy that hounded
Clinton at every step. Another outstanding philanthropist and civic
activist is Holland Coors who is the founder/president of Women
of Our Hemisphere Achieving Together and has served on the Board
of Trustees of the Adolph Coors Foundation, a private family foundation.
So what's left? Oh yes, postmodernism. So why the attraction of
postmodernism in political capital and profit rate politics? I can
tell you, that the neo-conservatives really adore post-modern philosophy,
even if they do not really understand it. The neo-conservatives
and neo-liberals embrace postmodernism not because it is novel,
or that it is coherent or meaningful, it's just because it provides
them with a replacement for ethics and, more importantly, it challenges
Marxism - the relationship between postmodernism and Marxism is
clearly hostile.
Postmodernism is all about working on the marginal, it homes in
on highly selective details of popular concern and expands them
from side-issues into key issues that take on a life and meaning
of their own in their own self-contained worlds, the side issues
then become the only issues and the core issues get lost in the
confusion. To this extent, a whole generation of scientists was
lost to history and consigned to oblivion simply through following
and developing the vague promises of postmodernism, and as I have
been told more than once by critical philosophers such as Ursula
Reitemeyer, that we lost a whole generation of scientists who got
mislaid in the marginal issues - the peripheral stuff, such as women's
liberation, and animal rights etc. - of course, the postmodernists
call this pluralism, but it it's a pluralism that means losing sight
of principles, losing vision of the central issues, losing sight
of general ethics, everywhere in the world - be it Indonesia or
America, Afghanistan or France etc. It ignores, obliterates or debases
human nature in favour of animal nature, it favours the jungle society
over civil society, instinct over reason, Nietzsche over Marx, Bush
over Kennedy. This was why they killed Kennedy, but not the idealism
and reason of the Kennedy era, indeed, if Kennedy had survived,
America would be different now. John F. Kennedy wrote in his manuscript
for his famous speech in Berlin: "Ish bean ine bear-leener"
his phonetic interpretation of the words he wished to say in German,
"Ich bin ein Berliner" - at one time even a US President
tried harder to make people feel less alienated.
How does post-modernism help the US Administration? Is it because
it makes it acceptable to define everything and anything as anything
or everything? Where war is peace; invasion is liberation; a lie
the truth; a conspiracy a fact; terrorism is the fight against terrorism;
hate is love and reactionary bloodlust is compassion … and
on and on?
So, a brief recap. Corporate capital needs markets, needs a friendly
President and Administration to open up markets and protect their
presence in those markets, a president needs a suitable plan that
aids the political and diplomatic work to achieve what the corporations
want, plans elaborated by neo-liberals and neoconservatives in their
think tanks, blessed by the religious fundamentalists and paid for
by the friends of big business and enemies of anything that smacks
of democratic liberalism, or god forbid, socialism - and legitimated
by a post-modern philosophy that legitimates anything you need legitimated,
as long as you carry the biggest stick.
So, what's all this nonsense about the Patriot Act and Fatherland
Security? Oh you didn't know? Well, here it is. Can your job be
exported? How about your skills, can they be found elsewhere? Did
you know that Globalisation is about free movement of capital, resources
and goods and not really about free movement of workers?
What if you lose your job and you become the victim of market forces?
What if everyone loses their job, will there be social unrest? What
if everyone has a job, but they are all in China, will anyone smash
a window, steal a car, try and burn down city hall, run naked in
the street? Chances are some people will get really angry, and want
to do something about their situation. How do you control such insurgency?
Just ask John Ashcroft, apparently he has some tools that could
also be applied in the unlikely event of internal disruption due
to the effects of long-term high-unemployment and lousy wages and
conditions. Don't forget, it's the property that counts not the
individuals rights, welfare, happiness or whatever.
But don't worry, help is at hand there too. Just tune into the National
Enquirer, Fox, CNN or whatever helps you to tune out whilst pretending
you are getting informed. You should know by know that "the
economy can be fixed whilst you dream"; that the war on terrorism
is being won; that Iraq was invaded to save humanity; that global
warming is a scam; that real allies do what they are told; and that
conservatism is compassionate.
US Grand Strategy passes for an innocent and coincidental concurrence
of ideas, that appear to be modest and fragmented. Don't be fooled,
it is not a coincidence, it is reality. However, what the new right
do not grasp is that, as in Moby Dick, they might just get what
they wish for. In this respect, the US Grand Strategy is the giant
leviathan - the leviathan of capital, only seen in pieces and parts,
the uncontrollable leviathan that will eat neo-conservatism alive
when it needs to.
This is the real world, the here and now, wake up already!
© 2003 Martyn Richard Jones
All Rights Reserved
Reader Response
Mail to Alllie
|
|
|
Home
Announcements
Books
Chatters Page
Columns
Contact
Us
Food
4 Thought
(Chatter Recipes)
Forum
Friday Night Quiz
The
Garden Party
Java Chat
911:
Looking Back
Media
Links
Newsgarden
Compost
Off Center
The
Poet's Garden
Server
List
Techie
Tips
WackyWorld
What's new
Words
of the Wise
Search
the Site
|
|
|
|
Articles
of Interest
Bush and the Assassination
of JFK by Paul Kangas
ANNALS
OF DEMOCRACY : COUNTING VOTES by Ronnie Dugger (Nov
7, 1988)
Computerized
Systems for Voting Seen as Vulnerable to Tampering by David
Burnham,
The New York Times (July
29, 1985) plus emphasis, links and comments
|
|
Sigmund Aas
 The
Terrorist's Achilles Heel: An Alternative Blow to Terrorism
(June 24, 2004)
|
Apocalypse
Number Nine
(mp3,
2.9 meg, Oct 4, 2002)
Souces:Artist: Kumi Tanioka
Album: Final Fantasy XI Original Soundtrack (CD
TWO)
Track :The Awakening
Vocals: George W. Bush
Plus Additional sounds & subliminal track
Editing by Aleister
Fun
with Paperdolls
(May 19, 2003)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arachne & TaoUrso
TURTLE
TALES: Exodus in a Tin Can on Wheels
Part
1 -
Part 2 -
Part 3 -
Epilogue
Turtle
Tales II: The Road Warrior (November
2004)
|
|
Jimmy2k^
What
is the American Way of Life
(Jan27, 2003)
America is Under Siege
(Dec 3, 2002)
Ozzy Osbourne - American Idol (Nov 26, 2002)
Thomas Jefferson
and Ann Coulter - Comparison and Contrast (Nov 21,
2002)
Some Thoughts on American
Media (Nov 11, 2002)
Some Thoughts on Addiction (Oct 28, 2002)
What Color is the
Sky? (Oct 25, 2002)
The End is Near - And Other
Truths (Oct 7, 2002)
|
|
Hoopie
News_Asylum
(Sept 15, 2002)
|
|
ItsMarty
Virtue
is not chosen, the chosen becomes virtuous
(October 14, 2003) Conspiracy
Theory This!(November 18, 2003)
Black & White (November
21, 2003)
From Cordoba to Jerusalem
(November 25, 2003)
Free Speech and Intolerance
(January 20, 2004)
State
of the Old Union seen from the New Union (Febuary 2,
2004) |
|
KG4ZMP
Lunar Cheese And Federal Pork (January
20, 2004)
|
Lester
Michaels
Morality
& Ethics: A case study of the Carlyle Group |
|
Marij
Bush's
Folly
|
|
Samurai_Liberal
Election
2000-Highway Robbery and a Supreme Court Disgrace-
Part
1 (May
23, 2003)
Part 2 (May
29, 2003)
Part 3 (June 12,
2003)
Part 4 (July 8,
2003)
|
|
TaleWgnDg
Bush
Is Packing The Federal Courts: What Can I Do? (June
28, 2003)
|
|
Thargor
The
Rantings of an Angry, Fed Up Conservative
BUSH
BASHING DONE WITH LACK OF EVIDENCE OR CONCERN FOR ACCURACY
(July 1, 2003)
A
RECAP OF THE USSC'S 2002 TERM (July 5, 2003)
|
|
Warpster
The
Myth of Free Trade (Febuary 3, 2004)
|
| More Columns |
|
|
