portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

corporate dominance | imperialism & war | political theory

Iraq - the main front in the war against 'Globalization'

According to the President's speech at the United Nations, Iraq is the main front in the 'war against terrorism.' History repeats itself : the British fought a protracted Vietnam style conflict against 'terrorism in Iraq' earlier in the century. Now that the unelected 'government of Iraq' is auctioning off the country and generously 'liberalizing capital outflows' it has occured to me that Iraq is now the main front in the war against 'Globalization'. (PEOPLE POWER!)
This week, at the meeting of the IMF and World Bank at Dubai, Iraq's unelected 'government' floated the idea of privatizing Iraq's oil industry. Prior to this they had already decided, as tyrants do decide, to sell off the entire country, while making an exception for the oil industry, not because they are fond of socialized oil, but because they are sensitive to American corporate concerns, which are also American government concerns. While the wholesale 'privatization' of Iraq must go forward, for the sake of appearances an exception must be made for the only thing in Iraq actually worth selling these days, the oil industry, so that it won't appear that American's invaded Iraq to seize oil.

Now that American's are concerned about oil is obvious, since the first thing U.S. troops did during 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was send troops to 'secure' the oil fields. This week a special rapid response Oil PipeLine protection force was established, and will be charged with protecting the oil industry infrastructure from suffering any more of that sabatoge.

The agenda being forced upon Iraq is nothing new. 'Privatization' and 'liberalization of capital' have been buzzwords since the time of Reagan, although if you want to dig a little deeper you would have to go back to a previous Republican Administration, that of Nixon, and if you want to dig deeper still, you would have to go further back to another Republican Administration, that of Lincoln.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln


Lincoln could have been speaking about our time, in that currently the money-power is working on the prejudices the people against 'Muslim Terrorists' since this is apparently the ancient modus operandi. If it worked in Lincoln's time, it will still work today, and the end result is not only the looting of Iraqi oil, but the enormous transfer of wealth to the top that has been taking place since the time of Reagan, and which continues today. Following the process to its conclusion, the result is not just the destruction of the Iraqi nation, but the destruction of the American republic as well.

Given that America is a capitalist country, the battle is never ending, and it has been fought daily since the birth of the nation.

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson

"The rich and the powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes." Andrew Jackson


The decades after Lincoln became known as the age of the Great Robber Barons of America. A similar situation exists today, except the development of technology has created a new phenomena, that of the Great Global Robber Barons. The monopolies that existed in the past are dwarfed by the huge monopolies that exist today in the age of 'Globalization'.

The end result of this process of 'Globalization' is the destruction of democracy. As Einstein noted,

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands ... The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists ... Unemployed and poorly paid workers do not make a profitiable market... The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions ... This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Albert Einstein - Why Socialism


As Einstein noted, the competition among capitalists to accumulate wealth at the top eventually destablizes and the capsizes the entire economy causing those notorious Great Depressions (which happened over and over during the 1800s). This occurs because by firings and layoffs and low wages and sweat shops, the base of the market is eventually eroded, and thus a great collapse takes place.

Einstein was on an FBI watch list established by J. Edgar Hoover and there was a movement to have him declared an 'enemy alien' during the age of the Witch Hunts under McCarthyism. However throughout American history, there were other loony leftists, "class warfare proponents", and socialist freaks who were saying similar things.

"Abolish plutocracy if you would abolish poverty." Rutherford B. Hayes

"If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to do it ... There was a time when corporations played a minor role in our business affairs. But now they play the chief part, and most men are servants of corporations ... The masters of the Government of the United States are the combined capitalists and manufacturers of the United States." Woodrow Wilson

"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains." Theodore Roosevelt



What is currently taking place in Iraq is no different from what has been taking place in other countries around the world, with one exception. Around the world the process of privatization and the auctioning off of the planet to place its into the hands of monopolists is taking place behind a veneer of democracy, a democracy which in fact no longer exists. No country on earth can disobey the dictates of liberalized international capital, or they will find their nation crushed, the people in revolt, and so governments always obey the orders which are fed to them through the mouth pieces of international capitalists. Even when these polcies are ruinously harmful to the population at large, governments ram them through, usually using the fable that states that it is 'tough medicine' that is required. Tough medicine is never administered to powerful monied interests, who then proceed to ransack and loot the entire planet (notice the wide spread looting of the American treasury taking place, for which ordinary Americans will be paying to the tunes of trillions in debt for a long time, and for which ordinary Americans will surrender Medicaid and Social Security and natal care for poverty stricken babies and Welfare and just about any other program that does not benefit rich tycoons, and all so that they can transfer trillions of dollars of wealth to rich tycoons. The pattern is clear and it is simple to see whose interests are served by the 'cut taxes' policy which is also part of the 'globalization' recipe.)

In most nations the harmful policies of 'globalization' are rammed through by governments who at least maintain the veneer of democracy (although in such places as Brazil or Argentina the veneer is wearing pretty thin...this process of becoming aware that democracy does not exist takes some time, but after electing one government after another and getting that same 'globalization' rammed down their throats no matter who gets in, people suddenly awaken and understand that the end result of globalization is the destruction of their Republics, as Lincoln so astutely prophecied would be the case. This process is brought into sharp relief when one considers the contemporary example of Brazil, where the restless population, being hurt and harmed for years by 'globalization' has just elected a 'Communist/Socialist/Labor/Leftist coalition government, which is proceeding to continue to implement the policies of globalization and liberalization, which is remarkable, for a bunch of 'commies'.)

The example of Brazil, a supposed technical 'democracy' and the example of Iraq, a tyranny, when considered together demonstrate clearly that democracy no longer exists, and the planet is currently sliding into a new age of tyrannical dictatorship, covered with the veil of non-functioning democracy, until after one to many elections that doesn't work any more (a process now in its advanced stages in South America, as one example). The one must presume that we will enter into the age of absolute tyranny, which would be the same as it is today, except without the embarrassing need to have 'democracy' which in the end only reveals how tyrannical the planet has become under the regime of 'globalization'. This tendency towards naked tyranny is evident both in the naked tyrannical method of imposing 'globalization' on Iraq, and in the constant pushing to destroy liberty in the United States (where the Americans are now being faced with such pleasantries as 'secret arrest' and other bits and pieces of the forming totalitarian despotism, which is the future of the planet under 'globalization', since that democracy scam is already coming apart at the seams in poorer countries all over the world. Inspiring bigotry and prejudice will continue to be the favored method to force through dictatorship, as Americans 'fight muslim terrorists' and surrender their freedoms while doing so, when actually what is happening is that they are looting Iraq, in a very naked fashion, and indeed the world is being looted for a select few, the monopolists and tycoons who are proceeding on plan, and destroying both the economy and the republics of the world while they are enriching themselves.

This is referred to as 'globalization' and that bag of tricks is a mix of policies that hurts everyone and benefits only tycoons and monopolists, and perhaps those politicians who become chummy with them, and thus get an invite to go in and out through the famous revolving door which has been conveniently installed between the tycoon's office and the government's office.

In Brazil, as one example, the country is being sold down the river by castrated elected politicians (including castrated communists). In Iraq, the auctioning of the country is being done by unelected tyrants. The process is exactly the same - hold a fire sale and auction off the country, and then deregulate, to increase profits, and then liberalize, to allow capital to flow out of the country like oil. To paraphrase then, to the Iraqis fighting in the insurgency against American troops, this policy translates as "they will take the oil, then declare that it is sacrosant private property, and then they will sell all the oil and take all the money.' Its called 'Globalization' and 'privatization' and 'liberalization of capital' and 'deregulation', not to mention 'The Free (Slave) Trade' (which promotes the destruction of jobs and the substitution of sweat shop labor, a policy which once again only serves the interests of capitalists, while working against the interests of ordinary people ... because the interests served by globalization runs directly contrary to the interests of most people on the planet. As Lincoln correctly described the process it is required to keep playing on the bigotry and prejudice of the population until finally all Iraq's oil and wealth is concentrated in just a few hands and Iraq (and America along with it) is finally completely destroyed at the end of the process).

Which makes Iraq the front line in the war against Globalization. Iraq proves to be useful for a number of reasons. First, it is a naked tyranny, stripped of the usual facade of democracy that is disintegrating in any case in places such as Argentina or Brazil as just a couple of noteworthy examples. Second, the agenda of Globalization which is being imposed on Iraq is also stark naked and completely self evident. (Claim the oil as 'private property, sell the oil, and keep the money : in Orwellian talk this translates as ... privatization, restructuring the economy to encourage investors, deregulating and liberalizing capital flow). The usual crappola lines just won't work to muddle the heads of the people (the bit about 'the strong need for foreign investors to develope Iraq' being the classic piece of shit among so many other brain washing pieces of shit people get told...when you consider how many countries are being 'developed' by all those 'outside investors' running high pollution, low health quality, buck and hour sweat shops' and you get a pretty good idea of how much dedication there really is for 'development'...)

Now other democracies have already been completely corrupted and destroyed, so they can vote and then all those wonderful 'restructuring policies' of 'Globalization' can be rammed through (even if it takes a bunch of communists and socialists to ram those policies through, like in Brazil, right now). Iraq cannot have a democracy however, due to the fact that they never had one before, and thus the place has not yet had the time to become completely rotted out and corrupted. Thus it would be quite likely that democracy would actually work in Iraq, and given the wide spread devastation of their country (an estimated trillion dollar price tag to fix the place after twelve years of bombings, war, and sanctions) you can understand how the Iraqi people might vote to just keep that oil socialized and not give it to tycoons. Rather than give their oil to tycoons, they would rather fight another one of those long protracted Vietnam insurrections, and since there is no way that tycoons are going to walk, in particular when it involves walking away from such super cheap to pump and refine oil such as that in Iraq, for that reason the Americans will be fed their daily bullshit diet of bigotry and prejudice, not to mention all that bullshit Orwellian 'globalization' talk, as a long, long protracted Nuremburg War Crime is committed on Iraqis, simply because democracy might actually work in Iraq, since they haven't had time to make sure it won't work, just like it doesn't work in Argentina, Brazil, or America for that matter, or any other country in the world.

There is much more that could be said here - in particular about 'People Power' and 'internationalism'. The old days of the sovereign nation state are over, and globalization is here to stay in one form or another. The strategy of divide and conquer has been so successful that even communist coalitions such as that in Brazil obediently force their citizens to forfeit what is good for them to benefit the monopolists. As well, as Einstein pointed out, politics has been so corrupted by corporations that all that remains is Internationalism and people power. Those who are looking backwards and dreaming about 'restoring our national soveriegnty' and who believe in 'writing our congressman' or 'lobbying my MP' are looking in the wrong places for answers. People power has been tried before, in such places as the Phillipines, where it was hijacked and went nowhere, and people power in Argentina or people power in brazil will similarly be either hijacked, by people who want to get in the lead of that movement to make sure it don't go nowhere, or it will be crushed (divide and conquer). People power is a lot more challenging than simply finding some less involved way to run the planet (by lobbying politicians) but if there is going to be a way out of the morass, and if human culture is to avoid a disaster and survive, it is required that the principles advocated by Anarchists for years be brought to the fore...

If there are those who still believe that there is a political solution to be found to this current mess, then my advice would be as follows. If you are in the process of choosing a Democract to run against Bush, my advice would be to ignore the policies of that Democract. You see behind the scenes World Com and Tyco and Enron will make all the policies, whether you vote Democract or Republican, and globalization will proceed under either a Democrat or a Republican, so why bother concerning yourself with policies. What you want when choosing a Democrat is to look for smoothness and a slick performance. You want someone who can talk the Orwellian double talk of Globalization and make it saleable and who is slick and smooth enough to not be as nakedly gross and hamhanded as the Bush Administration, thus exposing to the world the full obscenity of American culture. All the policies for Iraq, privatization, liberalization, and so on, will go through, Democrat or Republican, and what you want is some swanky Democrat who can hide the obscenity of it all by talking that Orwellian Globalization talk in a real slick smooth way. Then people can say, 'Well finally, at long last. Well that's a lot better than that crudely naked methodology of that Bush adminsitration.' So a good speech for a Democrat, that includes all the Orwellian double talk would be as follows : Now first, we should begin with the raw naked truth, which is what you get from the Bush administration. "We are going to steal their oil, claim it as our private property, and then sell that oil and take all the money and put it in the Chase Manhattan bank in New York.' Now the smooth, slickered down Democrat speech. "For Iraq to thrive, they need policies that will encourage outside investors to invest in the infrastructure and industry of Iraq, bringing on a new day of prosperity. By adopting policies that will encourage investment and growth, the industries of Iraq will be rehabilitated and the future of the Iraqi economy will be ensured. Iraqis must adopt policies that will integrate them into the global community and help their economy to make the transition to becoming a full partner in the global economy. Previous policies that discouraged investment and growth must be abandoned, and onerous regulations that discourage capital growth must be abandoned if the Iraqi economy is to revive. The forces of terror and violence in Iraq must not be allowed to prevent the revival of the economy, and so threaten the future of the Iraqi people. Blind muslim fanaticism must not cower us. We must remain firm in our commitment to the revival of a healthy prosperity in Iraq, free of the ravages of religious extremism and fundamentalist violence. We will maintain our committment to the people of Iraq, until the day comes when peace and order are established and the people of Iraq are ready to assume their place among the nations of the world, as a free and democratic people."

Certainly, that should satisfy great hordes of Democratic voters. Look for someone who can talk the Orwellian talk while walking the globalization walk. The alternative is to give up on 'nationalism' and turn to International People Power. The agenda of 'globalization' benefits only a handful of rich tycoons, while hurting everyone else, and that agenda is also coming home to Americans (slashing services, slashing taxes, liberalizing capital outflows, privatization of services which jacks up the prices while leaving the infrastructure in woeful condition, job destruction and downward pressure on wages in concert with upward growth in profits, and on and on and on it goes...)

Index
Well done and true- but what is people power 28.Sep.2003 19:10

Paul Louis casafasa@aol.com

My wife and I enjoyed this post. Very colorful, great quotes, and all very true. We are wondering why the author did not go a little into what he means by "people power" as the only hope? I have my own ideas for personal survival, and I certainly won't wast my time voting, by the way, that was a great democratic speech the the author invented, he could be a speech writer. Anyway, I was wondering what he had in mind.