Globalization and Democracy: Some Basics
The goal of the transnational corporation is to become truly transnational, poised above the sovereign power of any particular nation, while being served by the sovereign powers of all nations. Cyril Siewert, chief financial officer of Colgate Palmolive Company, could have been speaking for all transnationals when he remarked, “The United States doesn’t have an automatic call on our [corporation’s] resources. There is no mindset that puts this country first.”[i]
With international “free trade” agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, and FTAA, the giant transnationals have been elevated above the sovereign powers of nation states. These agreements endow anonymous international trade committees with the authority to prevent, overrule, or dilute any laws of any nation deemed to burden the investment and market prerogatives of transnational corporations. These trade committees–of which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a prime example—set up panels composed of “trade specialists” who act as judges over economic issues, placing themselves above the rule and popular control of any nation, thereby insuring the supremacy of international finance capital. This process, called globalization, is treated as an inevitable natural “growth” development beneficial to all. It is in fact a global coup d’état by the giant business interests of the world.
Elected by no one and drawn from the corporate world, these panelists meet in secret and often have investment stakes in the very issues they adjudicate, being bound by no conflict-of-interest provisions. Not one of GATT’s five hundred pages of rules and restrictions are directed against private corporations; all are against governments. Signatory governments must lower tariffs, end farm subsidies, treat foreign companies the same as domestic ones, honor all corporate patent claims, and obey the rulings of a permanent elite bureaucracy, the WTO. Should a country refuse to change its laws when a WTO panel so dictates, the WTO can impose fines or international trade sanctions, depriving the resistant country of needed markets and materials.[ii]
Acting as the supreme global adjudicator, the WTO has ruled against laws deemed “barriers to free trade.” It has forced Japan to accept greater pesticide residues in imported food. It has kept Guatemala from outlawing deceptive advertising of baby food. It has eliminated the ban in various countries on asbestos, and on fuel-economy and emission standards for motor vehicles. And it has ruled against marine-life protection laws and the ban on endangered-species products. The European Union’s prohibition on the importation of hormone-ridden U.S. beef had overwhelming popular support throughout Europe, but a three-member WTO panel decided the ban was an illegal restraint on trade. The decision on beef put in jeopardy a host of other food import regulations based on health concerns. The WTO overturned a portion of the U.S. Clean Air Act banning certain additives in gasoline because it interfered with imports from foreign refineries. And the WTO overturned that portion of the U.S. Endangered Species Act forbidding the import of shrimp caught with nets that failed to protect sea turtles.[iii]
Free trade is not fair trade; it benefits strong nations at the expense of weaker ones, and rich interests at the expense of the rest of us. Globalization means turning the clock back on many twentieth-century reforms: no freedom to boycott products, no prohibitions against child labor, no guaranteed living wage or benefits, no public services that might conceivably compete with private services, no health and safety protections that might cut into corporate profits.[iv]
GATT and subsequent free trade agreements allow multinationals to impose monopoly property rights on indigenous and communal agriculture. In this way agribusiness can better penetrate locally self-sufficient communities and monopolize their resources. Ralph Nader gives the example of the neem tree, whose extracts contain natural pesticidal and medicinal properties. Cultivated for centuries in India, the tree attracted the attention of various pharmaceutical companies, who filed monopoly patents, causing mass protests by Indian farmers. As dictated by the WTO, the pharmaceuticals now have exclusive control over the marketing of neem tree products, a ruling that is being reluctantly enforced in India. Tens of thousands of erstwhile independent farmers must now work for the powerful pharmaceuticals on profit-gorging terms set by the companies.
A trade agreement between India and the United States, the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA), backed by Monsanto and other transnational corporate giants, allows for the grab of India’s seed sector by Monsanto, its trade sector by Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, and its retail sector by Wal-Mart. (Wal-Mart announced plans to open 500 stores in India, starting in August 2007.) This amounts to a war against India’s independent farmers and small businesses, and a threat to India’s food security. Farmers are organizing to protect themselves against this economic invasion by maintaining traditional seed-banks and setting up systems of communal agrarian support. One farmer says, “We do not buy seeds from the market because we suspect they may be contaminated with genetically engineered or terminator seeds.”[v]
In a similar vein, the WTO ruled that the U.S. corporation RiceTec has the patent rights to all the many varieties of basmati rice, grown for centuries by India’s farmers. It also ruled that a Japanese corporation had exclusive rights in the world to grow and produce curry powder. As these instances demonstrate, what is called “free trade” amounts to international corporate monopoly control. Such developments caused Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad to observe:
We now have a situation where theft of genetic resources by western biotech TNCs [transnational corporations] enables them to make huge profits by producing patented genetic mutations of these same materials. What depths have we sunk to in the global marketplace when nature’s gifts to the poor may not be protected but their modifications by the rich become exclusive property?
If the current behavior of the rich countries is anything to go by, globalization simply means the breaking down of the borders of countries so that those with the capital and the goods will be free to dominate the markets.[vi]
Under free-trade agreements like General Agreements on Trade and Services (GATS) and Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), all public services are put at risk. A public service can be charged with causing “lost market opportunities” for business, or creating an unfair subsidy. To offer one instance: the single-payer automobile insurance program proposed by the province of Ontario, Canada, was declared “unfair competition.” Ontario could have its public auto insurance only if it paid U.S. insurance companies what they estimated would be their present and future losses in Ontario auto insurance sales, a prohibitive cost for the province. Thus the citizens of Ontario were not allowed to exercise their democratic sovereign right to institute an alternative not-for-profit auto insurance system. In another case, United Postal Service charged the Canadian Post Office for “lost market opportunities,” which means that under free trade accords, the Canadian Post Office would have to compensate UPS for all the business that UPS thinks it would have had if there were no public postal service. The Canadian postal workers union has challenged the case in court, arguing that the agreement violates the Canadian Constitution.
Under NAFTA, the U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation sued the Canadian government for $250 million in “lost business opportunities” and “interference with trade” because Canada banned MMT, an Ethyl-produced gasoline additive considered carcinogenic by Canadian officials. Fearing they would lose the case, Canadian officials caved in, agreeing to lift the ban on MMT, pay Ethyl $10 million compensation, and issue a public statement calling MMT “safe,” even though they had scientific findings showing otherwise. California also banned the unhealthy additive; this time a Canadian based Ethyl company sued California under NAFTA for placing an unfair burden on free trade.[vii]
International free trade agreements like GATT and NAFTA have hastened the corporate acquisition of local markets, squeezing out smaller businesses and worker collectives. Under NAFTA better-paying U.S. jobs were lost as firms closed shop and contracted out to the cheaper Mexican labor market. At the same time thousands of Mexican small companies were forced out of business. Mexico was flooded with cheap, high-tech, mass produced corn and dairy products from giant U.S. agribusiness firms (themselves heavily subsidized by the U.S. government), driving small Mexican farmers and distributors into bankruptcy, displacing large numbers of poor peasants. The lately arrived U.S. companies in Mexico have offered extremely low-paying jobs, and unsafe work conditions. Generally free trade has brought a dramatic increase in poverty south of the border.[viii]
We North Americans are told that to remain competitive in the new era of globalization, we will have to increase our output while reducing our labor and production costs, in other words, work harder for less. This in fact is happening as the work-week has lengthened by as much as twenty percent (from forty hours to forty-six and even forty-eight hours) and real wages have flattened or declined during the reign of George W. Bush. Less is being spent on social services, and we are enduring more wage concessions, more restructuring, deregulation, and privatization. Only with such “adjustments,” one hears, can we hope to cope with the impersonal forces of globalization that are sweeping us along.
In fact, there is nothing impersonal about these forces. Free trade agreements, including new ones that have not yet been submitted to the U.S. Congress have been consciously planned by big business and its government minions over a period of years in pursuit of a deregulated world economy that undermines all democratic checks upon business practices. The people of any one province, state, or nation are now finding it increasingly difficult to get their governments to impose protective regulations or develop new forms of public sector production out of fear of being overruled by some self-appointed international free-trade panel.[ix]
Usually it is large nations demanding that poorer smaller ones relinquish the protections and subsidies they provide for their local producers. But occasionally things may take a different turn. Thus in late 2006 Canada launched a dispute at the World Trade Organization over the use of “trade-distorting” agricultural subsidies by the United States, specifically the enormous sums dished out by the federal government to U.S. agribusiness corn farmers. The case also challenged the entire multibillion-dollar structure of U.S. agricultural subsidies. It followed the landmark WTO ruling of 2005 which condemned “trade-distorting” aid to U.S. cotton farmers. A report by Oxfam International revealed that at least thirty-eight developing countries were suffering severely as a result of trade distorting subsidies by both the United States and the European Union. Meanwhile, the U.S. government was maneuvering to insert a special clause into trade negotiations that would place its illegal use of farm subsidies above challenge by WTO member countries and make the subsidies immune from adjudication through the WTO dispute settlement process.[x]
What is seldom remarked upon is that NAFTA and GATT are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the preamble of which makes clear that sovereign power rests with the people: “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Article I, Section 7 gives the president (not some trade council) the power to veto a law, subject to being overridden by a two-thirds vote in Congress. And Article III gives adjudication and review powers to a Supreme Court and other federal courts as ordained by Congress. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” There is nothing in the entire Constitution that allows an international trade panel to preside as final arbiter exercising supreme review powers undermining the constitutionally mandated decisions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
True, Article VII says that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the land,” but certainly this was not intended to include treaties that overrode the laws themselves and the sovereign democratic power of the people and their representatives.
To exclude the Senate from deliberations, NAFTA and GATT were called “agreements” instead of treaties, a semantic ploy that enabled President Clinton to bypass the two-third treaty ratification vote in the Senate and avoid any treaty amendment process. The World Trade Organization was approved by a lame-duck session of Congress held after the 1994 elections. No one running in that election uttered a word to voters about putting the U.S. government under a perpetual obligation to insure that national laws do not conflict with international free trade rulings.
What is being undermined is not only a lot of good laws dealing with environment, public services, labor standards, and consumer protection, but also the very right to legislate such laws. Our democratic sovereignty itself is being surrendered to a secretive plutocratic trade organization that presumes to exercise a power greater than that of the people and their courts and legislatures. What we have is an international coup d’état by big capital over the nations of the world.
Globalization is a logical extension of imperialism, a victory of empire over republic, international finance capital over local productivity and nation-state democracy (such as it is). In recent times however, given popular protests, several multilateral trade agreements have been stalled or voted down. In 1999, militant protests against free trade took place in forty-one nations from Britain and France to Thailand and India.[xi] In 2000-01, there were demonstrations in Seattle, Washington, Sydney, Prague, Genoa, and various other locales. In 2003-04 we saw the poorer nations catching wise to the free trade scams and refusing to sign away what shreds of sovereignty they still had. Along with the popular resistance, more national leaders are thinking twice before signing on to new trade agreements.
The discussion of globalization by some Marxists (but not all) has focused on the question of whether the new “internationalization” of capital will undermine national sovereignty and the nation state. They dwell on this question while leaving unmentioned such things as free trade agreements and the WTO. Invariably these observers (for instance Ellen Wood and William Taab in Monthly Review, Ian Jasper in Nature, Society and Thought, Erwin Marquit in Political Affairs) conclude that the nation state still plays a key role in capitalist imperialism, that capital-while global in its scope–is not international but bound to particular nations, and that globalization is little more than another name for overseas monopoly capital investment.
They repeatedly remind us that Marx had described globalization, this process of international financial expansion, as early as 1848, when he and Engels in the Communist Manifesto wrote about how capitalism moves into all corners of the world, reshaping all things into its own image. Therefore, there is no cause for the present uproar. Globalization, these writers conclude, is not a new development but a longstanding one that Marxist theory uncovered long ago.
The problem with this position is that it misses the whole central point of the current struggle. It is not only national sovereignty that is at stake, it is democratic sovereignty. Millions, of people all over the world have taken to the streets to protest free trade agreements. Among them are farmers, workers, students and intellectuals (including many Marxists who see things more clearly than the aforementioned ones), all of whom are keenly aware that something new is afoot and they want no part of it. As used today, the term globalization refers to a new stage of international expropriation, designed not to put an end to the nation-state but to undermine whatever democratic right exists to protect the social wage and restrain the power of transnational corporations.
The free trade agreements, in effect, make unlawful all statutes and regulations that restrict private capital in any way. Carried to full realization, this means the end of whatever imperfect democratic protections the populace has been able to muster after generations of struggle in the realm of public policy. Under the free trade agreements any and all public services can be ruled out of existence because they cause “lost market opportunities” for private capital. So too public hospitals can be charged with taking away markets from private hospitals; and public water supply systems, public schools, public libraries, public housing and public transportation are guilty of depriving their private counterparts of market opportunities, likewise public health insurance, public mail delivery, and public auto insurance systems. Laws that try to protect the environment or labor standards or consumer health already have been overthrown for “creating barriers” to free trade.
What also is overthrown is the right to have such laws. This is the most important point of all and the one most frequently overlooked by persons from across the political spectrum. Under the free trade accords, property rights have been elevated to international supremacy, able to take precedent over all other rights, including the right to a clean livable environment, the right to affordable public services, and the right to any morsel of economic democracy. Instead a new right has been accorded absolutist status, the right to corporate private profit. It has been used to stifle the voice of working people and their ability to develop a public sector that serves their interests. Free speech itself is undermined as when “product disparagement” is treated as an interference with free trade. And nature itself is being monopolized and privatized by transnational corporations.
So the fight against free trade is a fight for the right to politico-economic democracy, public services, and a social wage, the right not to be completely at the mercy of big capital. It is a new and drastic phase of the class struggle that some Marxists–so immersed in classical theory and so ill-informed about present-day public policy–seem to have missed. As embodied in the free trade accords, globalization has little to do with trade and is anything but free. It benefits the rich nations over poor ones, and the rich classes within all nations at the expense of ordinary citizens. It is the new specter that haunts the same old world.
Michael Parenti’s recent books include The Assassination of Julius Caesar (New Press), Superpatriotism (City Lights), and The Culture Struggle (Seven Stories Press). For more information visit: www.michaelparenti.org.
© 2007 Michael Parenti
[i] Quoted in New York Times, May 21, 1989.[ii] See Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza, The WTO (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2000); and John R. MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade: Nafta, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy (New York: Hill and Wang, 2000).
[iii] New York Times, April 30, 1996 and May 9, 1997;Washington Post, October 13, 1998.
[iv] See the report by the United Nations Development Program referenced in New York Times, July 13, 1999.
[v] Project Censored, “Real News,” April 2007; also Arun Shrivastava, “Genetically Modified Seeds: Women in India take on Monsanto,” Global Research, October 9, 2006.
[vi] Quoted in People’s Weekly World, December 7, 1996.
[vii] John R. MacArthur, The Selling of “Free Trade”: NAFTA, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy (New York: Hill & Wang, 2000; and Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, “Nafta’s Unhappy Anniversary,” New York Times, February 7, 1995.
[viii] John Ross, “Tortilla Wars,” Progressive, June 1999
[ix] For a concise but thorough treatment, see Steven Shrybman, A Citizen’s Guide
to the World Trade Organization (Ottawa/Toronto: Canadian Center for Policy
Alternatives and James Lorimer & Co., 1999).
[x] “US seeks “get-out clause” for illegal farm payments” Oxfam, June 29, 2006,
http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060629_wto_geneva
[xi] San Francisco Chronicle, June 19, 1999.
In this single brief essay, Parenti gets to the heart of the major economic realities of our time and makes them clear for the rest of us. We need more of this clear-eyed concise analysis.
Thanks MP
Michael Parenti for US Trade Representative!
Ummm. Globalization sounds like another “Manifest Destiny” in which U.S. citizens were sold the idea that U.S. movement to the West Coast was more than inevitable; it was “destined.” It was a crock then and it is a crock now. Just more of the golden rule- them’s with the gold, rules.
Michael Parenti has explicitly stated and explained what so many of us feel — we are being disempowered by the capitalist monster.
Lawyers and busy-ness-men now rule the planet with no concern for communities, towns, neighborhoods or countries.
It really could be a new argument for socialism or communism. Ownership of the means of production by the state — which now seems like a friend compared to the corporate masters who don’t even pretend to respect nations, as the corporate Colgate jerk showed.
The myth of the beauty of “private” property is finally exposed.
Laborers are ultimately the creators of all supply.
Consumers are ultimately the creators of demand.
Laborers and consumers have been unable to properly exert an influence in the market to their benefit because they do not act collectively.
Merchants are able to exert an influence in the market because they can negotiate in a collective manner the value of commodities created by their labor.
Merchants are also able to exert an influence in the market because they are consuming in a collective manner from their supplier.
In general, the distortion that wealth causes in capitalist systems is due to the ability of that wealth to represent the collective actions of multiple players, undemocratically.
As corporations grow larger, then so must unions.
In fact a proper combination consumer and labor union could replace the government’s market regulations, and could enforce them without violence, but by cooperation and non-cooperation. And such a system could exist even in a laissez-faire free-market.
I pledge allegiance to (insert name of multi-national) and to the profits for which it stands, one corporation under God with consumerism and slavery for all.
Good article to cut through the sophistry from the right. The right argues that their neoliberal trade policies will benefit the whole of the global population eventually, but they rarely point to the fine print that such is true only under certain conditions (from the extremely unlikely to the impossible), and not only do they know that pigs flying are more likely, but they make sure of it!
Dear macchendra:
I’m no French-person (PC) but I thought laissez faire free-market meant let the marketplace decide all questions. That surely does not work eh? Labor unions are not part of the free market but are checks (in theory) on its iron grip of control.
No, I think the “free” market is alot like “free” trade and we are all paying a terrifyingly high price for this precious freedom.
(continuing) In fact, such a combination consumer and labor union, when reaching the size of a large country, would have the ability to issue its own currency, backed by its labor, and protected from shorting by the demand of its consumer base.
Such a currency could be managed democratically, with democratically designed loan programs for bringing the means of production to everyone.
Such a system would have to be global due to the ability of multinationals to pit labor in one country against labor in another.
Practically speaking I have not seen much value in the labor unions. Recently having worked in both government and a in retail environment I see that there is no worker support for unions and absolutely no protection for union organizers in the workplace.
Most retail workers, especially the young, don’t even know how to spell the word union. Much less do they understand the idea of questioning the boss or having labor protections.
Besides there is virtually no union contact with workers so no possibility of organizing.
I agree with a massive uprising but unions don’t seem to have a clue how to help this along.
Awaken,
Free-markets are always “regulated” by negotiation, even if they are not regulated by the government. If we can create a world movement where we seek to act collectively in our negotiations, then we can more effectively control the markets than any government could. The purpose of labor unions is not to create regulation, but to negotiate collectively. Our collective negotiation could force corporations to practice fair labor, respect the environment, and anything else which they should be doing.
In fact, a free market has to allow this collective negotiation or it is not free!
“Practically speaking I have not seen much value in the labor unions…”
and I don’t see much value in governments, especially authoritarian ones. They are always a miserable failure. Cooperation and non-cooperation is a better way, I think.
Mr. Parenti lays out the economics but does not explain that the consequence of deregulated markets that are dependent upon large capital is chronic poverty. Liberty and freedom without opportunity are hollow gestures . . . corporate and private wealth count on us not understanding this crucial idea.
I usually like Parenti alot (I recommend “Against Democracy” every chance I get, esp. to those who haven’t come around yet, politically speaking). But there are problems with this essay.
We heard alot about “transnational corporations” in the ’90s. Negri and Hardt’s book “Empire” was the nadir of this period. The argument went like this: corporations are no longer tied to the nation-state, it is withering away, but not the way Marx said it would (in fact, most who talk about “transnational corporations” usually make it a point to dismiss Marx: “Don’t look there; there’s nothing to see, move on”).
What happened to all that ’90s talk about transnationals? Bush and Iraq happened, that’s what. It’s suddenly become clear again, the postmodernists couldn’t cover it up anymore: corporations are intimately linked to the nation state; it’s the very raison d’etre of the nation state to organize production, maintain capitalist property relations, etc. Corporations are organized within the nation state, and is in competition with other imperialist rivals. Iraq is where the battle is currently being fought, as the US seeks to outdo its imperialist rivals, the EU, China, Japan, etc.
Parenti is in danger of going off the tracks if he isn’t careful in his analyses. Especially in attempting to resurrect a theory that has been proven by historical events to be patently false, and serves no useful purpose except to obfuscate current events such as the Iraq War (that is, why the US invaded). Look, dialectical tensions are the engine that drive history. Do corporations seek to transcend borders and boundaries and to exist in a kind of free-floating, transnational statelessness? Yes. But it *can’t*. It is too intimately linked to the nation-state; the two are in fact the same thing. Factories may move; capital flows across borders; workers migrate seeking employment; money may be deposited in foreign banks; investors and stockholders may have an international composition - but don’t mistake the cloth for the matadore.
Macchendra:
It’s a good idea I agree. The problem seems to be that people are brainwashed to be good followers because they are desperately afraid of losing what little they have, at least in the context of the non-wealthy working class.
Government has failed, unions have failed so what is left? Some kind of groundswell for change. I guess we are both anarchists in the best sense of the word — no leaders so we are all leaders.
This is a great essay and very enlightening, it gets to the heart of the movement away from “free trade” perpetrated by organizatons masquerading as free trade oriented groups. The specific examples are excellent and necessary to spread the knowledge of what is happening throughout the general populace.
Two things come to mind however.
One-The average person just has an inordinate difficulty envisioning pudgy, balding guys in suits as secret plutocratic organizations, whether it is true or not. Overly dramatic rhetoric makes passing this information on to people who are not already members of “the choir” relatively impossible. They shut down as soon as they see words like plutocratic or, sadly enough, Marxist. The time for distant commentary from a segregated community of outraged philosophical individualists has passed. It’s time to get in the ring. The average citizen has hit a point of outrage or ignorance that is unparalleled and they are as open to change as has ever been the case, but arguments that are not framed in verbiage that they feel is “good common sense” blows right past them and will leave progressive intellectuals further away than ever.
Two-We should take a lesson from the WTO which is destroying “free trade” while wearing the mantle of supporting it. The reality of our actions determines who we are, not the label we wear. If progressives would register as Republicans we would have a much larger opportunity for direct conflict with our representatives and the powers that guide them. We can not be expelled from the political party we choose, since the electoral process is still guided by the members(even if we are constantly choosing not to exert those powers.) A marginalized party has little actual influence, and the distaste of being linked with ways of thought we abhor is a small price to pay in the fight for the righting of this country. This is a moral issue and there is no winning without sacrifice or standing up for our beliefs in an arena of popular thought. It may feel good to be one of the ones “who gets it”, but it doesn’t seem to be doing any more good in fixing this country than the Democrats stand against financing the war yesterday. So long as our vacations are more important than lives, we are just running our mouths.
Free markets
Yeah, right.
Juicing the Stock Market
The Working Group on Financial Markets, also known as the Plunge Protection Team, was created by Ronald Reagan to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown of October 1987.
For one thing, it disrupts natural “corrections” which are a normal part of the business cycle and which help to maintain a healthy and competitive slate of equities.
More importantly, outside intervention punishes the people who see the weaknesses in the stock market and have invested accordingly. Clearly, these people are being ripped off by the PPT’s back-channel manipulations.
It’s astonishing to think that, after years of singing the praises of the “free market” as the ultimate expression of God’s divine plan, these same conservative ideologues and “market purists” favor a strategy for direct intrusion.
The actions of the Plunge Protection Team prove that it’s all baloney. The “free market” is merely a public relations myth with no basis in reality.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar07/Whitney04.htm
Paid for by taxpayers, of course.
Naturally, the obscenely rich insist that they be subsidized - and their wealth insured - by the poor and middle class. Once they got that, of course, they wanted more.
Jude111 - “alot” is not a word.
“I’m no French-person (PC) but I thought laissez faire free-market meant let the marketplace decide all questions. That surely does not work eh? Labor unions are not part of the free market but are checks (in theory) on its iron grip of control.”
- Awaken May 25th, 2007 1:17 pm
What free markets? Business doesn’t believe in ‘free markets’. They believe in market dominance and pricing power, up to and including monopolization. They always have.
They did in Adam Smith’s day, also, which is why he called for ‘free markets’, meaning markets that aren’t rigged for the benefit of a favored few by a government that’s in on the take.
Free-market fundies these days have twisted this to mean the exact opposite of what Adam Smith intended: when they say ‘free markets’ what they mean is that they want to be free to rig the markets.
And they want the government in on the take, just as governments were in Adam Smith’s day:
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 5, I, ii.
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won/won-b5-c1-pt-2.html
The evidence admits no other conclusion. None at all.
Adam Smith, by the way, favored labor unions as the only means by which workers could participate fairly in a capitalist economic system. Otherwise, cheap-labor conservatives could freely have their way with them. Since labor is abundant, any labor is easily made a commodity, and any labor market can be made into a race for the bottom.
Most of the ills of modern society can in fact be attributed to Cheap-Labor Conservatives. The list is rather long:
Defeat The Right In Three Minutes
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/6
In May, 2000 when DNA was mapped, the US Supreme Court allotted to for-profit genetic research companies an equivalent copyright on GENES. This was the ruling that enabled companies like Monsanto to claim possession of India’s rice, bred over centuries. Parenti makes important points because cases like the ones he has exposed are taking place AND challenging the laws of sovereign lands, virtually nullifying things we already protested over and battles previously won. Here we see the rule of Mammon, the corporation the new Pharaoh with the world’s workers rendered slaves who hardly recognize their current status as they are FREE to shop, assume debt, and then, as a cost-effective advance on prior debtors’ prisons, merely LIVE in debt. Credit cards often demand the usury of 20% interest and apply ridiculously inflated late fees, while banks now pay less than 1% interest on savings accounts. Money is making the rules and eviscerating sound judicial means to fair business practice(s). Talk about the game being gamed, whoa!
Just as religious issues have become part of the propaganda campaign of the right to dupe the low-brow non-wealthy, the illusion of “free markets” is part of the propaganda campaign to dupe the middle-brow non-wealthy to become useful idiots in the campaign to concentrate all the wealth in a few hands. And as the public becomes ever more dumbed down, the approach becomes increasingly effective.
“Do corporations seek to transcend borders and boundaries and to exist in a kind of free-floating, transnational statelessness? Yes. But it *can’t*. It is too intimately linked to the nation-state; the two are in fact the same thing.”
jude111 May 25th, 2007 1:47 pm
No, they’re not. No modern economist would give your view any credence. Even Jefferson wouldn’t, as you can see below.
They are stateless insofar as they are tied to no state, and can weasel many states into letting them do as they please, and can weasel other states into doing what they want them to do, like invade third-world countries for pillage and plunder.
We’ve seen a recent example. Cheney and Bush didn’t come up with the idea of conquering Iraq out of their own little heads. They had lots of help from corporations who were extremely interested in the property.
It’s not the first time in US history we’ve had this problem with corporations and the state:
“Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Guess what guys.
We lost that one.
I agree with macchendra’s posts, but with Awaken’s too. Labor unions don’t have the power and probably can’t muster enough to stop the money-power’s globalization all by themselves. A global grassroots lawmaking organization is needed, where the people, not a few, make the laws. That is what the Greens are and what Mike Gravel wants us to be.
walter_map is correct.
It should be clear that the U.S. military is doing the bidding not exclusively of the U.S., and least of all for its ordinary working citizens, but is doing the bidding of wealthy “owners” who produce the goods that all of us are addicted to in our “advanced culture”.
Markets, free or rigged, are not a source of freedom or harmony or justice. Markets are systems to buy and sell and trade stuff.
Justice, equality, harmony, brotherhood etc. cannot be traded but must be sensed. This requires intelligence, feeling and wisdom.
“Practically speaking I have not seen much value in the labor unions…”
But all the reasons you gave for their lack of value are completely defeatist ones, like “the orgaizers have no protection”.
Young workers are so cowed today because of a decades of war against them with the generous help of the politicians, both democrat and republican, starting with Truman and reaching it’s peak with Clinton. And, yes, the current AFL-CIO, and the breakaway SEIU and Teamsters are in disarray, or worse, under the defeats they’ve suffered. But until the day when the workers run the show, labor organizing remains the only alternative.
Learn some history! The industrial world’s middle class ownes it’s very existence to organized labor - people died for the (now gone) 40-hour week, the (almost gone) weekend, and the right to a collectviely-bargained contract. Are we desitned to descent into such servitude that we will have shed our blood all over again as in the railroad yards in 1877, Homestead in 1892, or suffer massacres like Ludlow or Matewan?
The first step is to teach the young people about the existence of this thing called SOLIDARITY, define it for them and make sure they understand it!
Read “War is a Racket” by General Smedely Butler, U.S.M.C. He considered most of his time in the military he was an enforcer for corporate America. Listen to your vets, they can help the country to break its addiction to war. Sad thing is that even if all Americans were to refuse military service it wouldn’t stop our government. They can now buy military force on the open market. That’s what globalization is all about.
Hoa binh
walter map! Good Site “Cheap Labor Conservatives” FITS!
They want to market the earth to us when it was OURS to begin with!
How can anyone patient our DNA; and you might not even know it.
Our government must not allow international law to override our law.
PJD:
Practically speaking, from my own personal experience, labor unions have failed. In my local area a union supported a right-wing Democrat-turned-Republican who pretended to be pro-labor and after his election with full union support is now a full supporter of pro-wealthy housing, tax and land use policies for the super rich.
I know the history of labor unions and I support the concept but I’m afraid all the bloodshed and progress has been forgotten.
I watched a local union threaten a strike then completely capitulate to employer power by not even communicating with its union members for months! No organization, no strike, no union wins.
I’m afraid unions are just window-dressing for the capitalist system and by their nature submit to owner power. Without money and real bargaining power they always lose.
Unions must be directly democratic.
Awaken,
During WWII and much of the Cold War, there was a propagandistic slogan that the US military was the “arsenal of the Free World.” Now I wonder why the corporate media does not proudly proclaim that the US military has become the “arsenal of the international corporatist plutocracy?”
The corporate influence that perverts the government here and worldwide may not respond to anything short of terrorism. Blowback is inevitable. Bad government and corruption leads to terrorism. Representative government with personal liberty will lead to positive blowback.
The devil IS in the details! The revelations in this article make me so angry. I’d just read two other pieces on this subject by Paul Hawken. The first was “Remembering the Battle of Seattle” in Ode (their website is odemagazine.com — but I don’t know if the whole piece is there, because I have a subscription). It’s excerpted from his new book, Blessed Unrest (paulhawken.com) and here are two snippets (emphasis mine):
“Child labour, prison labour, forced labour, substandard wages and working conditions cannot be used to discriminate against goods, according to the WTO. Nor can a country’s human rights record, environmental destruction, toxic waste production or the presence of transgenenic materials or synthetic hormones be used as the basis to screen goods or stop them from entering a country. Under WTO rules, the boycott of South Africa’s racist apartheid regime would not have been possible…
“…Internationalization means trade between nations. Globalization refers to a system that supports uniform rules for the entire world … in which capital and goods move at will without the rule of individual nations. … Globalization SUPPLANTS the nation, the state, the region and the village…”
Consider how these two points could appeal — strongly! — to politicians on both sides of the aisle: The first paragraph to progressives, and the second to the many Republicans for whom the issue of national sovereignty is a real “hot button” (in fact, they go overboard about the U.N., Kyoto and other treaties).
Perhaps those of us whose eyes have been opened need to form a new group devoted solely to non-violent destruction of the WTO/”Free” Trade system before it impoverishes all but the world’s wealthy few. If we called it “NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY” how would the multinational corporations argue against that? It sounds like God, Mom and apple pie.
And we’d have lots of company. Hawken’s second article, “A Global Democratic Movement is About to Pop” was in Orion magazine and appeared on Truthout May 1st. He and his colleagues have created a global database of local movements for the environment and social justice, and believe there are more than one million of these groups! He writes:
“Describing the breadth of the movement is like trying to hold the ocean in your hand. It is that large. When a part rises above the waterline, the iceberg beneath usually remains unseen. When Wangari Maathai won the Nobel Peace Prize, the wire services didn’t mention the 6000 DIFFERENT WOMEN’S GROUPS in Africa planting trees …After spending years researching this phenomenon … I have come to these conclusions: This is the largest social movement in all of history, no one knows its scope, and how it functions is more mysterious than what meets the eye. What does meet the eye is compelling: tens of millions of ordinary and not-so-ordinary people willing to confront despair, power and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice and beauty to this world.”
If that doesn’t inspire you, I don’t know what will!
I apologize to those who read all the articles on commondreams, but I want to reach as many people as I can. This information has me completely freaked out.
A Presidential Directive was signed by President Bush on May 9th giving him unconstrained powers in case of a national emergency. In the case of a national emergency (terrorist attack), I don’t want that psychopath in charge of anything. How can he get away with this? It’s terrifying!!!
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
The “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
” was
signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column
.
It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for “National Essential Functions” of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments,
as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president’s directives in the event of a national emergency.
“Catastrophic emergency” is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage,
or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
It says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend
, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.
Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act
,
which requires that such proclamation “shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.”
A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to “modify, rescind, or render dormant” such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted
inappropriately.
But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.
The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.
It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under
Townsend’s direction.
The White House declined to comment on the directive.
kivals:
I appreciate the rhetorical question. Of course the answer is that they can obviously hide behind a well-trained and job-starved populace to fight their corporate wars in the name of “freedom”, free enterprise, free elections, free speech and just about any ol’ thing with the word (not the fact) “freedom” attached.
How convenient to have a bunch of flag-waving “patriots” zealously defending with advanced weaponry their right to strip the earth of its resources in the actual service of wealth, but in the name of democracy and freedom.
Awaken,
I think you are right in that the effort is to re-label it as the “arsenal of freedom,” short for “arsenal of freedom of capital at the expense of all other freedoms.” I think it is a much more catchy term without the last part.
The counter-movement already organized is called ‘Localization’, and is being implemented in such countries as Thailand, a spiritually seasoned culture which has been battling ‘globalization’ in that region.
‘Think Globally, Act Locally’ has met its time for wakeup and application.
The problem is really not about nationalism or globalism… it’s about the elimination of impersonal corporation control and a development of local networks, cooperatives, which have continually been beaten down and destroyed in the past by corporations, but must get up and try again.
Whether national or international, an investor economy sustained by underpaid literal or virtual slaves alongside a parasitic ‘Investor Class’ was the cause of nearly every economic depression, and is by its very nature anti-democracy.
Instead, networking to maintain local control, with egalitarian cooperation with other economic entities at a regional or national or international level is a solution where democracy can be maintained.
“Global Economy” as a literal term could have had positive and democratic implications, but under corporate control it doesn’t and it won’t.
Time for us to realize that ‘Corporation’ is antithetical to democracy and the general well-being, and quit believing the corporate lies that try to seduce us into believing otherwise.
Network and form guilds with your colleagues. Save up and build your own worker-owned companies instead of working for corporations. When the corporations become so few and so wieldy that they are ineffective, localized businesses and professional guilds will compete effectively.
The employer/employee dichotomy needs to be helped to become a dinosaur, replaced by co-owner and co-producer, honoring the contribution of each individual, and respecting the needs of each client as an individual.
Whether Right or Left, the failure of the ’system’ has been due to depersonalization, dehumanized regimentation, subsequent demoralization, and then failure.
Solutions will not fully manifest until we release the belief that some people are superior to others… Every one of us has a skill and a purpose, and those are only obscured by the oligarchs who try to convince everyone that there is a master class or a master race. Corporatism=Fascism — look where it led 1930-1945. It’s headed there again, and with all the disasters, chaos, injustice, and murder along the way, unless we stop it. In 2007, the US White House is on the wrong side, leading us into the disaster that Mussolini gave Italy, and Hitler gave Germany, all for the Corporation that replaced the state, whether national or multi-national — same policies, same ideology, same attitudes, same deceit and double-speak. Corporatism is plunder, exploitation, abuse, murder, and genocide. Time to quit believing the corporate propaganda lies and stop pretending in denial. The corporation will suck you dry of vitality, throw you on the trash heap, look for a replacement, let you die off, and forget you ever existed, just like it has millions of others before. National or international is beside the point. Why do we keep going along with them, like a bunch of foolish sheep?
Think Globally, Act Locally, and Think Critically at all times when we are surrounded by anesthetizing ‘global’ corporate LIES.
Great posting, Restore democracy; and Kivals-Awaken, enjoying your repartee from the sidelines… keep the tennis match going!
Siouxrose wrote…Credit cards often demand the usury of 20% interest and apply ridiculously inflated late fee…
If that’s all they’re charging, you’re lucky. I received an offer yesterday for a “Platinum” card at 8 3/4% interest. However, in the fine print they advise, if one payment is one day late they can raise the interest rate to 32%. No, that’s not a typo. In fact, if I make a late payment to another credit card company or they see something in my credit report they don’t like, they can raise it just the same.
Do yourself a favor and check the fine print on all of your credit cards. If you carry balances, you do so at your own financial peril. You may want to consider shredding most, if not all of your cards. That’s one way to bite the hand that’s trying to choke you.
Ａｓ Ｍａｒｘ ｓａｉｄ： Ｔｈｅ ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ ｓｕｐｅｒ－ｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｅ ｉｓ ａ ｍａｎｉｆｅｓｔａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ
ｔｈｅ ｅｃｏｎｏｍｉｃ ｓｕｂｓｔｒｕｃｔｕｒｅ：
http://www.feer.com/articles1/2007/0704/free/p036.html
Credit card companies and your credit score are the separating of a fool and his money.
So you have paid your bills on time and for a very long time, yet your credit score has your revolving rate at prime rate plus 12.99%. So the prime rate 8 1/4% plus 12.99% equals 21.24%*.
Now for the rule of 72
Rule of 72
Let’s say that you are a person, who has borrowed and paid back monthly, quarterly and annually many hundreds of thousands of dollars for a very long time. You have paid on time and met every contracted or verbal obligation in full.
Your credit rating ought to be AAA, but that does not seem to be the case as the interest rate on your credit card is very much greater than it seems is needed for the risk that you may default. The question we seem to be afraid to ask: So how come?
The answer lies within the rule of seven-two. To get your money to double in value you must loan your money. The number of years it will take money loaned at a certain rate to double is 72 divided by that rate of interest. Therefore, when a credit card lender charges an 18% rate of interest on outstanding balances, it will take four years for that money to double.
When you, as a very good credit risk, pay rates well above what is normally reasonable it is reasonable to ask: How come?
In the next few weeks I would ask that you do some research into the reasons.
Remember that double talk from the credit card companies is the work of management and not the work of the kids on the telephone with you. Realize that they are working like you to pay their bills. In many cases if they were not on a recorded line, they could tell you stories about the companies they serve. Also many would like to get a good answer to the questions you ask, for they do understand your point of view.
Also, the credit rating people, the credit bureaus and the credit card companies are in the business of making money. Therefore, the most money they can make in a fiscal quarter is the primary and maybe the sole interest of these companies.
It is also important to remember that the more you know the easier it is to protect yourself. “Forewarned is forearmed.”
I have heard from insiders at credit card companies that the word “deadbeat” is use to describe a person who buys with his credit card and pays the bill in full and on time each and every month.
*Example:
A revolving line of credit of $1000.00 at 21.24% and the rule of 72. So 72 divided by 21.24 equals 3.9 year. So you paid another $1000.00 in less than four years. So in less than four years you have paid twice for the item. Rates change daily, weekly and monthly so check before you spend. Paying twice for most consumers good may not be a good choice.
I’m wondering about the divide between realistic analysis (as Michael Parenti has provided) and real-world pragmatics, in the sense of: what if an academic were to become President.
does the analysis change, if at all, and what’s the long-term vision (of all political commentators) in what can safely be described as a regrettable global mess brought on by human thought and action.
Globally, all we’re trying to do is feed people and give them “normal” and satisfying lives, including food, medical service, education (at least basic reading and writing) through support of an organization (government) that champions their vision. Job one, I would imagine, for any government is protecting the turf, using guns, etc. and sometimes the necessity for blatant death (and the like). This much appears to be a necessity (can’t get around it, unfortunately).
What we’re seeing, on the part of corporations, and government, is a concerted attempt to starve people, to kill them, and to make life as miserable as possible for people without means (90 % of the planet). This is done through artifice and hoarding of the means of exchange (money), thenceforth to the funding of armies and thugs, protecting oil wells and so on. The vision is obviously not sound, and Tony Blair was a good example of this, as is George Bush. The bright lights that shine in their eyes are for a small percentage of the populace. (The others are considered unworthy, or unintelligent, didn’t go to the right schools).
I was going to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case, the road to hell is paved with obviously greedy and evil intentions. They get the limousines. We get global warming, genetically modified crops, nuclear disasters, cluster bombs, Walmart jobs and WTO conferences. People: get ready to rumble.
Restoredemocracy is correct: get up, and try again.
Let’s enframe this as our motto.
GET UP AND TRY AGAIN
(apologies, my capital d is not working right now - need new keyboard).
Otherwise, we’re left with the consequences (of not getting up, and trying again). They’re doing it in south america. We need to face the evil head-on, not run away from it. Head-on. Unpleasant, but necessary.
Michael Parenti has good geo-political insight — but I’m not sure that cuts it these days –
the crisis globally has to be redefined — Goodfellow’s comment about progressives joining the Republican party is actually on point —
unless you’re ready to engage the “enemy” directly, you’re playing the old losing game —
in truth, the revolution that may eventually happen will not be contained by a nation-state — it will more likely transcend all borders and will be more the result of the confluence of long-term global crises involving the loss of not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives — but of really extraordinary events where death is the predominant theme of society and all cultures — where you’ll walk through cities once populated by millions and maybe find a handful of sick and injured people still struggling to hold on —
that dystopian reality is probably much, much closer to us than we realize — the oil is running out — the ice caps are melting — nuclear war is always at someone’s fingertips — the “god” that protects so many of us, and harms others, may be — in some final analysis — just about indifferent to the disaster we would bring upon ourselves through actions divorced and devoid of humanity — such as…the ‘war on terror’, but also, everything else you could imagine —
the idea even that there is some “american” interest at stake in Iraq, for instance, is beyond mere bunk — even if we cynically embraced the “need” for oil, the long-term fallout is likely to be much more than anyone bargained for — and that is essentially only one instance where our humanity has been consumed by a robotic collectived rebellion against all human values —
we can “knock” the “dims”, but really, they are just another brand of unconscious participants — each operates his little franchise as a senator or congressperson and the bills they endorse or oppose are little hamburgers they have to sell day by day to survive — they can only be pitied, not hated –
the mess we are in really goes beyond global trade issues, or issues of war and peace — slim chance any of those emblematic problems work themselves out before some general cleansing of the planet occurs involving a much more complete collapse of resources and societal function — in other words, a confluence of disasters involving much loss of life —
we should ring them bells, shout in the halls of power, what have you …
but more appropriately, maybe light a candle for the whole of humanity and recognize that the Mayan calendar is probably ending at about the right date
By remaining divided, our sphere of influence will never extend beyond the local. We can no longer afford to be unable to have a global influence: too much is at stake.
Therefore, we must think globally, act _collectively_.
Take Wal-Mart. Because Wal-Mart represents the collective buying power of the millions of consumers that shop there, it has the option to tell its suppliers to conform to any regulation it pleases. It could say: `You have to be nice to the environment, your employees, and the users of your products.` and they would be forced to obey or lose Wal-Mart`s business. It chooses not to. (possibly out of corporate self-interest)
These same consumers are able to band together without a Wal-Mart to do it for them, and act according to a democratic unified will and achieve the same effect. They could democratically choose actions that would regulate the corporations so that their self-interest is in the interest of everyone.
In fact, collaborating with each other is also one of the frailties of corporations and capitalist players, their obligation to self-interest limits the degree to which they will collaborate. Socialist players are more willing to collaborate.
The larger the collective action is, the more it is able to shape the market.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Great - simply great - article.
I must agree with all others who thank Michael Parenti for this one.
Calling globalization an “international coup d’etat” and “global coup d’état by the giant business interests of the world” is nothing less than a short-hand stroke of genius.
Succinctly showing that so-called, wrongly-called “free trade” is never trade that is free, only trade “free” to be ruled by frameworks and goals set by the strongest actors - which now happens to be the TransNational Corporations in WTO - is also a sorely needed clarification.
A directly elected global “board” – general assembly – of WTO and its panels, representing “one person, one vote” is the least that must be demanded. With open and transparent proceedings (rather than “confidential”, i.e. secret), as in any democratic system of law.
People, take these points by Parenti and repeat them everywhere - ad nauseam, as that is called for - until WTO is beaten back and “we the people” have won back control over our own living-conditions. It’s long way to go, so we better keep going.
Don’t be shy to repeat the message, because mantric repetition of core messages is the order of the day, set by deluded politicians and and sly businessmen. True messages – that’s when descriptions fit facts - are still stronger than only part-true or untrue messages, when delivery otherwise is equal.
I’m saying not to be shy to use methods of communication developed by the enemy exploiters, in building consensus (or “manufacturing consent”) to regain the power to run our own lives in ways that ensure fair distribution of global goods, and stops unfair siphoning off and wild squandering of resources.
Reclaim – or finally claim – the global public attention in our media for the deepest interests of “we the people”. WTO has made nation-thinking obsolete, while global thinking is incomplete.
WTO IS A COUP D’ETAT OF THE WORLD!
Ole Ullern
Siouxrose,
Thanks for adding a sense of community to this site. It is appreciated.
Kivals: I admire your commentary. It’s interesting how regular contributors define themselves; and I am a great believer in the merits of diverse opinions, a modern model of King Arthur’s CIRCLE. Dubs: The Mayan Calendar definitely is pointing at a demarcation cycle for mankind; yet I am too much the optimist to believe it signals an outright demise. Sun Bear, native American “seer” spoke of the Indian belief that once the white man sought the fire in the ground (uranium), consequences of gross proportions would be set loose. The fact that Bush, jr wants to play with these weapons is anathema to human progress on every scale. Sun Bear believed the white man’s children would eventually return to the Indian ways to learn to cohabit WITH the land, rather than to abuse her. Nature is shutting down (bees the latest example) because too many human beings take her gifts for granted, while at the same time showing a gross lack of respect and reverence for the very gift of life (for self or other). These attitudes are antithetical to life and its means to sustainability for all species. Two good adages, “Live simply that others might simply live,” and consider one’s actions and their impact on future generations. Naturally these intelligent precepts run antithetical to the corporate creed of profit at all costs, and that’s why the earlier comment on Wallmart is not plausible. Wallmart’s pursuit of profit taken with respect to the new demand for organic produce is like putting a circle into a square. You cannot FORCE nature to produce to meet their profit margins by using caring organic agricultural methods. It’s putting a lace dress on a pig.
Dr Zimmerman, thank you for the mathematical education on credit debt/new debtors’ invisible prison usury; but here’s the thing: when I started my Initiation into credit card usage my income was FOUR times what it is now! Being a freelance writer in a market that’s dramatically changed through media buyouts AND free internet content has meant that I learn to live on much less. The debt that began when money flowed is managed, but I can’t get OUT of debt unless or until I manage to sell “the big one.” Other people have the same issue come up if they face a medical emergency, or if their over-inflated property loses value. Like others I move my debt from one card to another to get the lowest interest possible; but generally believe that my life is better carrying a little debt, than having NO perks at all. How many Americans have NO debt? Lucky them…
Don’t all officers of corporations act for the benefit of their of their share holders?
Are’t the little old retired individuals who had the foresight to invest some of their hard earnings in stocks, shareholders?
Aren’t all these evil corporations made up of sheep who choose their corp. leaders to shepherd them to greener pastures?
Is it not fare to say that the people are the corporations?
I am the vine you are the branches sounds like a banking system to me.
Aren’t we all just talking about our Christian ethic, “God and Country” that has served to undermine entire civilizations throughout our glorious historical past?
We point our fingers at Mr.Hussein for the ways in which he ruled his country, while white washing our own atrosities against indiginous peoples throughout the world.
We point our fingers and yet it is those same fingers that push the buttons in the voting boothes that elect the shepherds that lead the flocks and supposedly protect us from the prowling wolves.
we, the inteligencia, the political elite who take the time to analize the great causes and vote, are the responsible parties
creating the messes before our eyes. We are just not doing a very good job of helping to protect our sheep, are we? My reasoning for this statement is the size of the voter turn out, sheep don’t vote. Sheep are contented to graze and be shorn, work and pay taxes.
It is our great pride the source of all our devotion, our children, who are the men and women of the WTO. If we want changes, then the changes will come from the way in which we rear our children instilling in them the values that we ourselves hold to. But, that’s not to say that I don’t have values that differ from your values.
The sword of justice stands firmly on the rock of free will and is always wielded by those who donot conform to the mastery of words or persuation. We act compulsively in our power as individuals to shake off the constraints that bind our freedoms when those constraints become too budensome to bear. If our government has become a puppet of the corporations, as some of you suggest, then why not advocate for a new government? Our Declaration of Independance allows us to change when the majority feel that our present group of elected officials has become ineffective within our current politcal system. Other than a massive blood bath, how can we make changes that would be more beneficial to us and our children and yet not deprive other nations of their right to evolve as well. Our ways of thinking may not be as workable for others ways of thinking. Just because democracy works for us doesn’t mean that it is the right form of government for another nation. Let us Govern our nation and leave the other nations to form their own. Just maby a new hybid will emerge. Something new and exciteing, just like “1776″ all over again.
ArbeitMachtFrei,
As you state, Marx claimed that the “political superstructure is a manifestation of the economic substructure.” Did Marx write much about cycles of knowledge and productivity? The political superstructure is a function of the economic system, but it seems that the economic system is a function of the technological advancements, and those are a function of the advancements in knowledge, and those are a function of the educational systems and research institutions, and those are a function of the political decisions, and those are a function of the political superstructure. There seems to be a cycle involved, and one would think that such cycles could range from the self-destructive to the healthy and sustainable. I wonder who has written much about that.
Michael Parenti lays it out clearly and succinctly.
The corporation has always been regarded with fear and loathing by those who love freedom. In the 1830’s De Toqueville foresaw the rise of a new aristocratic class worse than the one from which he hailed.
So here it is, the new global aristocracy standing astride the whole world, breath taking to behold, intimidating, delivering its message of compliance. Shock and awe.
The members of this transnational elite have always run ahead of the massess, guided by a global vision with the ways and means to implement it. Recognizing the emergence of a global community, they have taken the initiative to organize it according to their interests, annointing themselves global overseers and philosopher kings.
It looks like a done deal but it isn’t because a global economic vision is not a sufficient basis for effective global control. It is not sufficient to extrapolate local economic models onto a global scale. On a global scale environmental costs cannot be swept under a rug or ignored. There is no place to hide them.
The new global elite has no vision of a sustainable future of natural and human resources. They are Marxist insofar as they are economic determinists. They see planetary realities with the eyes of 19th Century robber barons. They are barbarians peering at life throough the keyhole of their economic self-interest.
Enter Al Gore, self-annointed philosopher king, dissident voice within this transnational elite. co-creator of the global free trade hoax, trying to educate his class of global barbarians concerning matters of economic decorum and self-restraint. Meanwhile, secret fleets of aircraft dilligently broadcast their aerosol sun shield throughout the global stratosphere, poisoning everyone equally.
The nature of barbarism is that it seeks always to impose its will. It seeks command and control of all its jaundiced eye perceives.
Nature is not to be commanded, however. A sustainable future does not develop from Faustian delusions of power and control. Tragedy awaits of the classical Greek variety.
This new global elite is a half-assed gang that can’t shoot straight. To mock them helps alleviate some class-tension, but there is no cause to celebrate their incompetence.
We’re all going down together.
I agree with jude111. These are MNC’s, not TNC’s. This may seem an academic point, but it is not. Parenti, who was, and maybe still is, a Stalinist, and who, I believe, supported John Kerry for U.S. President in 2004, is basically arguing that the “TNC” order can be effectively fought through “Progressive” local National movements. However, if we still see the nation state as the primary locus, or at least under the control of, the “MNC,” then nationalism is no longer an effective rallying point against corporate capitalism, but instead, its strength. Parenti’s neo-Stalinist rhetorical style obscures this, but the fact is that his analysis is to the Right, not the Left, of the MNC analysts. Henry Wallace or Ralph Nader or John Kerry-style “Populism/Progressivism” is not what we need to combat corporatism. We need socialism, via international class struggle by the working class.
The driving force of history is class struggle. Unfortunately, progress can only be made when the classes involved in this struggle have developed a class consciousness. The capitalist class has. The working class has not. How can the latter possibly compete when it is not equipped ideologically to confront its class enemy? Michael Parenti understands this to his core and is very capable of teaching others. I thank him.
JerryfromTijuana, you said “Today, Mexico is a thriving democracy where no one party controls congress nor has a majority of state governorships.” What? The Mexican government is by all accounts as corrupt as ever. And MORE Mexicans are now living in abject poverty than when NAFTA was signed … despite the fact that Mexico has “exported” millions of poor workers to the U.S., whose remittances to their families back home account for almost as much revenue to the Mexican gov’t as oil does!
But back to the subject of Michael Parenti’s article, which I call Corporate Feudalism. This has been an informative thread in many ways, but I sense so much despair among the participants! (Siouxrose, you’re the exception — but then, you seem to live on a spiritual plane that I can only hope to achieve someday.)
Let’s look at some countervailing, hopeful facts. Regular readers of this site know how fatally compromised the Democrats have become because of corporate campaign financing, and we can’t expect the Republicans — even in their state of disarray — to disappear like the Whigs in the mid-1800s. Yet supporting a third party has always seemed quixotic (and destructive, in the case of Nader’s run in 2000). But things are changing, in intriguing ways. Consider:
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll of 900 registered voters nationwide taken June 27-28 of LAST year (MoE ± 3) asked: “In general, do you think it would be a good idea or bad idea if a third national political party were formed that would run candidates for president, Congress, and state offices against the Republican and Democratic candidates?” Results: GOOD Idea: 50%, Bad Idea: 37%, Unsure:13%. Then, just the other night Bill Schneider on CNN reported the results of a poll asking whether the respondents self-identified as Democrat, Republican, or Independent. (I can’t find the darn thing on CNN.com today, so these numbers are approximate.) Responses: Republicans (in the 20s), Democrats (in the low 30s), INDEPENDENTS 42%!
Something is changing, friends. Let’s not underestimate the common sense of the American people. When enough of us wake up, we’re unstoppable — just remember the environmental movement, civil rights legislation, and now the demand to start leaving Iraq. The feudal barons of international corporations have the money, but we have the NUMBERS. Let’s use them!
Adele, thanks for the compliment (to me, it is). I never had the stomach to study economics, but I learn so much from insightful writers’ comments. Justice and the struggle for a more egalitarian world resonates with me, and it’s my hope that this common thread in all peoples will overcome the tyranny of the present corporate masters who have access to some much capital and the arms/armies it now can so readily purchase. I believe there IS a divinity that shapes our ends and that our universe, while comprised of many driving forces, is chiefly operated by LOVE. Earth is a touch school house and here the most bestial and base drives are allowed to play out. MANY masters have come to do what they could to elevate mass consciousness. I dated a construction worker in my youth who said, “geniuses design the buildings and idiots build them.” Creative forces provided mankind with a design and blueprints, but our beings are poised between elements of the animal kingdom(I know, to many that seems an insult to animals) and the “gods.” I teach TAROT and as far as I see it, it’s a mystical document that charts the evolution of the human soul on individual and collective levels. Always the tension between the better self (Divine) and the lower self are present. Some have commented that the US is getting what it deserves, and I hope that isn’t true because our nation HAS been abducted by the soulless; and people capable of GOODNESS have been so thoroughly deceived by media and many houses of purported worship that you have to recognize not all are intellectually equipped to challenge the density of delusion they have been fed. In our own legal system, theoretically there are categories of culpability based on level of cognition. I love the statement by cruxpuppy likening today’s billionaires to 19th century robber barons. That is EXACTLY their level of behavior; how tragic that the US court decision that lent to corporations such unconscionable power has led to this usurpation of human rights, compromised the safety of products, offset the sustainability of absolutely vital ecosystems, and championed war for profit. It’s very evident things can’t continue this way for much longer… but the truly enlightened have to find a way to maintain compassion in the midst of so much depravity, lest we lose our humanity to the tidal surge of everything ugly that’s ever existed in human nature. US politics today reminds me of the scene where Indiana Jones says “don’t look” as the nazis free the spiritual force held by the Grail. Life can be stranger than fiction, and it might take a little sci-fi thinking to free us from our present fate. I believe in miracles.
The natural resources of the world are assets that belong to all life on earth.
The global economy (WTO) should not override democratic governments that express the interest of its people.
That’s our problem; not only has our government capitulated to global domination but global interests own our media.
Globalization is about “Cheap Labor” and “priceless resources” that together make temporary trinkets that we bury in a landfill.
Capitalism is “Cheap Labor”; Globalization is “Cheap Labor” – Cheap Labor takes president over any government and its people.
Cheap labor is another word for PROFIT.
Regarding William Buckley’s, er, that is, LeeAnnG’s response to my post: `Jude111 - “alot” is not a word’ - ugh, another language nazi.
LeeAnnG: Get used to it. “Alot” is not a word, because dictionaries have not accepted its use yet. Despite this, it continues to persist, and is not going away. I predict it won’t be long before a dictionary holds their sensitive little noses and inserts it. Dictionaries do not make languages; we the people do. Dictionaries merely record this (albeit highly selectively). Instead of trying to regulate language and impose hegemonic standards, why don’t you engage with ideas.
It’s very insteresting to consider that the great age of dictionaries emerged in England at around the same times as its enclosure laws; the enclosure of land and language went hand in hand, as regional and rural land access claims and dialects and cultures were suppressed. While Robert Burns’ poetry was celebrated for its usage of dialect and words that were not in “official” English, the poet John Clare, writing less than a century later during the period of enclosure laws, would suffer rejection and scorn for his usage of dialect. Samuel Johnson, who was writing one of these dictionaries at the time, wrote some revealing comments about why he was suppressing words and expressions in the rural areas. You might want to research this.
LeeAnnG, you seem to be one of those who know just enough to be dangerous, but not nearly enough to be wise. Language is fluid, not fixed. It changes by the day; every single day, a new word appears and an old one vanishes. All attempts in history to “preserve” or freeze a language have never succeeded. At best, they merely perserved a language for the elites that even they stopped using in conversation (e.g. High Latin).
Your bland, conservative, ahistorical, elitist orthodoxy concerning grammar only serves the interests of the ruling class; adherence to a dominant hegemonic High English is a tacit agreement with the status quo. You would cut out the tongues of those who do not have access to elite schools; you would erect gatekeepers to keep out anyone who does not accept your authority to regulate their living language; you would taunt those who do not adhere to your class’s official guidelines. You would banish “mistakes,” instead of recognizing that embedded in language usage are things like power relations, class warfare, oppression, and resistance. Many consciously resist using language (”womyn,” switching pronouns, etc.); far more resist unconsciously, by placing period outside of quotation marks (in the US), etc.
I happen to teach English at university, while I complete my postgrad degree. While these are not my specialty, I’ve studied linguistics, and also researched original manuscripts, and happen to know for a fact that many of the greatest writers were horrible spellers. What does that tell you? Here’s what it tells researchers into language acquisition as well as theorists of pedagogy and composition studies: learning grammatical rules does not produce good writers. What *does* produce good writers? Two basic skills: close reading, and critical thinking. That is, engagement with ideas - the one thing you *don’t* seem particularly interested in.
LeeAnnG: Winifred Horner writes in the College Composition and Communication journal: ‘Note the aversion and real anger to the recent change in the generic “he.” Also, instructors “hate” the use of “alot,” which though not accepted yet is undergoing the same change that “along” and “awhile” have already gone through.’
Michael Montgomery writes in the journal American Speech: “Other spellings of college writers (’alot,’ ‘awhile’) reveal the process of what Jesperson termed metanalysis of the language (McCluskey 198 1, 5) that produced
‘another’ and ’sometime’ at an earlier period.”
Finally, LeeAnnG, you should take a look at linguistics, the science of language. Your assurances of what constitutes “words” will begin to break down. To a linguist who is insterested in the speech act (rather than imposed and regulated rules of written grammar), there’s no difference between “alot” and “already” and “awhile.”
http://www.jstor.org/view/0010096x/ap020214/02a00090/0
Jude111: I definitely enjoyed the linguistics lesson, but please ease up on Lee-Ann. If you’ve read her other comments you’d see she IS a thinker. Those of us who share our sentiments and intelligence (of many species) in this forum should NOT attack one another. I guess we feel sensitive in that for many of us finding open channels in which TO communicate is so rare. Apart from a few rightwing “plants” let’s applaud the uniqueness of one another’s visions, and where our knowledge adds to others’ thought processes. Again, very interesting, Jude. Personally, since I write children’s books, I LIKE making up words. Dr. Seuss had his share… always fun to realize where he got “seersucker” or “melligitawny” (spelling?) from. Rowlings was also a master at making up words and character names. Language IS flexible and alive, always growing; and you explain that dynamic with passion and well. “Write on!”
NMBill,
“The natural resources of the world are assets that belong to all life on earth.”
Did you really mean that?
I hope you do not take this too personally, but does someone with that perspective take antibiotics, if that person’s body belongs to the bacteria as much as it belongs to the person? And then why would such a person want to use a refrigerator? What about viruses, do they get to partake in the feast? Or is there justifiable bigotry against viruses?
Or is the group barrier to be constructed at animals with a nervous system? Or at vertebrates? Or maybe at warm-blooded vertebrates? I suppose the group of mammals is too exclusive, and the group of primates is really elitist, and defining the protected group as humans is so far beyond the pale as to be laughable, right?
Of course one can define one’s group any way one prefers, but it seems the most defensible grouping is that of humans. We interact and depend on a great number of humans, so the immediate family is too small, and now we interact almost as easily with those in other nations as with other Americans, and besides national boundaries are arbitrary and were designed mostly for exploitation, so the nation is an artificial and unattractive fit.
But the human boundary is not artificial but has actual genetic and historical bases. And we can communicate and cooperate with other humans to a degree several orders of magnitude greater than that with other creatures. And through evolution we developed propensities consistent with not only interacting but also bonding, emotionally, with other humans and internalizing their viewpoints and their feelings.
As our consciousness expanded from only feeling strongly connected to and identifying with a small family group, to a larger group, to a tribe, to a nation, and then to the whole human race, we developed a sort of momentum of expansion of our circle of concern and interaction, but I do not think we should allow that momentum to lead us to develop weak and unsustainable group identifications and connections that cannot possibly ever give back what we put into them.
Kivals: I think Bill is reflecting the WISE Indigenous realization that without a healthy web of inter-connecting species, ALL life will perish. It’s a spiritual take on “whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.” I remember being pretty stunned watching the Nature and Discovery Channels where they’d chronicle how an ENTIRE ecosystem broke down due to the loss of one of its (presumed inconsequential) members. We forget that the great Mother/nature has made of the natural world a livig laboratory spanning many many millennia, and what SHE’S derived has stood up to the tests of time. Evolution will continue, life adapts to its habitat in an interest in pursuing the energetic force of life itself; but will humans share the picture? Besides the Biblical accounting of the Great Flood, there are previous buried records, those purported by Plato on Atlantis, also reinforced by clairvoyant accounts from Edgar Cayce, fables from other lands, and that which is buried under the sands of time. One of my favorite accounts on this subject comes from “The Wisdom and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East.” If enough enlightened readers could be touched by THAT info, we’d have no Middle East War, well, greed remains the singular stubborn wall to surmount, as we have also been shown, “The LOVE of $ is the root of all evil.” Hello, corporate state and its pursuit of mammon.
Kivals,
It’s hard to imagine a profit-driven cycle that is not self-destructive. Profit taken to its logical conclusion is Auschwitz: When the people get off the trains, they’re stripped of their valuables; those that are too young or too old to work are liquidated; those who can work are worked to death; all value is squeezed from the people. Pure materialism…no life…death….
I think that Marx was right about a crisis of Capitalism, but couldn’t foresee what form it would take. Capital is now concentrated in a few hands, the people that we refer to as “Private Equity” investors. These people seek the highest rate of return on investment. Usually, the highest rate of return on investment lies in socially unhealthy activities: stock market speculation, property speculation, war profiteering, drug-dealing (legal and illegal), stripping the people of their social welfare benefits, outright theft, etc.
In a global economy where Capital can move freely and governments compete for Capital via exploitative social systems that offer ever higher rates of return on investment, Capital will cannibalize the people—Auschwitz….
Hi Siouxrose,
I completely agree that we should take care of our environment because we are dependent on it for our welfare and survival, and there are interrelationships of unbounded complexity that we are only beginning to become aware of and so we should always respect the ways of nature. I am just concerned with the framing of the issues to make it clear that we take care of the environment because we care about the future of the human race. I get tired of those who claim it would be beneficial for the planet if humans disappeared. Some species would benefit and some would suffer. But we wouldn’t be here to care one way or another. And the conclusion that the planet would be better off without humans is actually an imposition of a human value judgment anyway so it is a bit self-contradictory (if humans must be eradicated because they do not have the wisdom to act in the welfare of all life on earth, then how do we know they have the wisdom to determine that the eradication of humans is in the interest of all life on earth).
And the worst part of it is that such an approach aids and abets the corporate predators who generally don’t care about the future of the welfare of the human race and their apathy in part determines their predatory behavior.
I would hold that the arrogant position is that humans are to be stewards of all life on earth. We do not have the wisdom or the ability to take care of all life on earth. Instead, we should humbly accept the role of stewards of the human race and in fulfilling that role we should find a harmonious relationship with the rest of nature to the extent possible.
Welcome to the Global Plantation!
For the time being, most of us in the US are allowed the bare necessities while being bombarded with messages telling us we need much more. Most of us can actually own some of the pretty beads offered up by Walmart. For anything we “need” over and above that most of us have to turn to the Company Store. We’re not encouraged/allowed to own much outright. Savings are for suckers. The smart money goes to Wall Street, no questions asked. Shows like Survivor teach us the down-and-outers are just poor competitors. Nothing to see there. And so it goes.
How do we get everyone to stop playing their game? Is it too late? This house of cards that greed built is wobbling and when it falls on us I’m afraid, having been divided to conquer, much of the country is going to turn into one bigass game of Survivor where the winners (TNC’s) have already taken all.
ArbeitMachtFrei, I’m always interested in your comments, but this is on a personal note. Unless you are an Auschwitz survivor, would you possibly consider changing your screen name? I ghost-wrote the memoirs of a woman who barely survived four concentration camps, including Auschwitz and Mauthausen, and I nearly had a breakdown in the process. Every time I read “Arbeit Macht Frei” I feel kicked in the stomach all over again.
But perhaps I’m alone on this one. Thanks for listening.
Adele
Hi Siouxrose,
Thank you for your kind response. I guess LeeAnnG and I had the misfortune of finding each others’ pet peeves: hers concerning grammatical errors, and mine, concerning criticism of spelling, particularly on the web
Sorry, LeeAnnG. If you can take out the worse aspects of my two posts to you above (which I would do, if I were able to edit them), I hope there are some ideas there that you might find interesting
LeeAnnG, I should go further, and explain a bit more. Believe it or not, grammatical rules is a huge issue within English departments, and a highly contested terrain. The ordodox old school is generally very conservative politically, with a reverence for the literary “canon” - dead white males; and who usually run their classrooms like little despotic ceasars. New pedagogical theories (coming from Paolo Freire and other critical thinkers) challenge the deeply patriarchal and hierarchal classroom structure and its teaching methods, and have exposed the old orthodoxies as methods to enforce white privilege, patriarchy, class oppression and the like.
It has also been my experience that in the Internet, criticism of spelling or grammar is often used as a way to belittle one’s opponent; I have found that it’s a method that conservatives in particular tend to employ. It has the function of saying, “Shut up. You’re not educated enough to speak. You can’t even spell correctly, so I’m not even going to bother with anything you write.”
It’s also my experience that people from countries other than the US and England have their own unique ways of writing, and which is correct in their own societies. I have seen them attacked and dismissed for not using “correct English,” despite the brilliance, originality, and insight of their ideas. Racism, eurocentrism and patriarchy are usually deeply embedded in such an attack.
That is why I was so defensive in my writing