Against the New American Century

[Buffalo Tom]

'If all of us are indeed against imperialism and against the project of neoliberalism, then let's turn our gaze on Iraq. Iraq is the inevitable culmination of both. Plenty of antiwar activists have retreated in confusion since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Isn't the world better off without Saddam Hussein? they ask timidly.

Let's look this thing in the eye once and for all. To applaud the US Army's capture of Saddam Hussein, and therefore in retrospect justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq, is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disemboweling the Boston Strangler. And that after a quarter-century partnership in which the Ripping and Strangling was a joint enterprise. It's an in-house quarrel. They're business partners who fell out over a dirty deal. Jack's the CEO.

So if we are against imperialism, shall we agree that we are against the US occupation and that we believe the United States must withdraw from Iraq and pay reparations to the Iraqi people for the damage that the war has inflicted?

How do we begin to mount our resistance? Let's start with something really small. The issue is not about supporting the resistance in Iraq against the occupation or discussing who exactly constitutes the resistance. (Are they old killer Baathists, are they Islamic fundamentalists?)

We have to become the global resistance to the occupation.'

- Arundhati Roy, 'The New American Century'

[The One and Only...]

That article doesn't even begin to make sense. Neoliberalism is in direct contradiction with pro-war imperialism. The fact that someone could even try to associate neoliberalism with Iraq does not make the least bit of sense.

And some liberals call The Nation centrist. It makes Fox appear left-wing.

[The One and Only...]

Let's count the lies in that article, shall we?

Lie 1: "Non-elites seem to mean everything bad that's happened lately."

Really? Why, then, does globalization have any adherants?

Lie 2: "And with 1492 began the slaughter of the First Americans and the plunder of the Western Hemisphere. That act of primitive accumulation, along with the enslavement of Africans and the colonization of Asia, made Europe's takeoff possible."

That's laughable. There is no evidence to support such a statement. Resource gains were not enough to generate the Industrial Revolution. Look at America. This has to do with the rise of IP, capitalism, and *SHOCK* the first globalization era.

Lie 3: "As John Maynard Keynes put it"

Anything said by Keynes should be taken with a shaker of salt. Most of his economic theories, while influential during the time, have been debunked.

Lie 4: "Globalization is thought to be the source of many economic ills."

We're only on page 2, and we have a huge assertion. WHO thinks this, exactly? Not economists. Not theory. Certainly not historical results. Maybe liberals who are uppity about other countries competing with labor...

Lie 5: "initial European rise to wealth depended largely on the colonies"

False. European colonialism was not productive enough to account for the "intial rise to wealth." It had to do with technological innovation and more advanced farming techniques. The question is, what lead to their arrival? Hmm... could it be, capitalism?

Lie 6: "plant relocations to Mexico have put a sharp squeeze on US employment and earnings"

Don't make me laugh. Recent studies have suggested that the only jobs going to poorer nations are ones that don't require a high school education. Besides, the growth of the service industry has prevented the "giant sucking sound (that's Perot, BTW)" from even being audible. Jobs have grown since the sign of NAFTA, and I'm banking that that holds true even in terms of per capita.

Lie 7: "Econometricians say that trade explains about 20-25 percent of the decline in the US real hourly wage during the 1970s and '80s."

First of all, the real wage should have declined during the 1980's - we were rebounding from a stagnated economy, which meant that the minimum wage was excessive and lead to high unemployment. Second, what's with the lack of sources? Third, econometrics is the study of pure statistics and historical quantifications - any sort of deduction which would come of such a large size goes far beyond it's capabilty.

Lie 8: "According to economic historian Angus Maddison's estimates, African and American incomes were roughly equal in 1600 (because the Americans measured were the native population), but with industrialization, they started diverging in earnest. American incomes were three times Africa's in 1820, five times in 1870, ten times in 1913, and twenty times in 1998. When was the moment of 'globalization'?"

WELL NO SHIT!!! PERHAPS THE FACT THAT AFRICA *DIDN'T* INDUSTRIALIZE MIGHT EXPLAIN THAT???

Somehow, I get the impression that this writer is the conservative of the paper, too, since he does treat globalization with mild respect.

[Buffalo Tom]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Neoliberalism is in direct contradiction with pro-war imperialism.

Neoliberalism, in my mind, seeks to create a system in which the economic concerns dictate the development of societies, not the other way around. Ideologically, neoliberalism and imperialism seem to be at odds. However, neoliberalism is just another ideology by which societies can be organized, and it's the fact that this ideology is being imposed on a global scale by governments with neoliberal agendas, whether through dexterous diplomatic and economic dealing or strength of military arms, that Roy has issue with.

[The One and Only...]

You speak of society as if it were a transcendant entity, beyond the grasp of the individual.

[The_Rorschach]

Quite simply because it is. Thats why power is only an illusion, in much the same manner as an economic exchange rate.

EDIT:

In order to escape the box one is trapped by, the perimetres of the confines must first be established. Society is that box, but rather than escape, the majority of individuals enlightened enough to understand the nature of their imprisonment instead seek to rationalize their condition and make peace with it. The unenlightened simply conform out of habit.

Much like geological formations -brief tip of my hat to Shawshank Redemption- the elements required are pressure and time, for civilizations and societies rarely change quickly of their own accord. It is beyond the ability of any single individual to drastically alter society, for the majority even small changes are impossible. The centre endures until it is eclipsed.

[The One and Only...]

I have a different view of society. It is the illusion - the observable byproduct of all actions taken by individual actors within a closed system. There is nothing transcendant about it.

[The_Rorschach]

You have a Constitutional right to affirm and speak your opinions, but calling the shit of a bull the plum of a pudding doesn't make it so

[mburbank]

Simple Questions for OAO.

1.) Is Slavery bad?

2.) Should societies allow slavery?

3.) Has Slavery ever been beneficial to any societies economy?

4.) Would it be possible to construct a reliable economic model extracting slavery from American history and accurately determin what our country would have been able to achieve and where we would be now without it?

5.)Would it be possible to construct a reliable economic model extracting colonialism from European history and accurately determin what Europe would have been able to achieve and where it would be now without it?

6.) Have rich and powerful cultures ever exploited poor and powerless cultures?


My guess is you think most of these questions are uninteresting and immaterial. I would suggest that you think that because
A.) You are a direct beneficiary of historical inequity
and
B.) You are amoral.

A is an accident of birth. B is arguably of defficiancy and nothing to be proud of.

Accidents of Birth and personality disorders are paltry, unstable things to base a worldview on, especially one so thoroughly without doubt.

[El Blanco]

Actually, I don't see ammorality as a deficency. It just measnyou don't thinbk things happen for nothing, that everyone has some motivation.

[The_Rorschach]

I would disagree if I had more time to do so, but sadly I have to start justifying my paycheck soon.

But your wrong, I'll prove it later

[El Blanco]

you capalist corporate slave wage pig.


And you're a heathen.

[The One and Only...]

Burbank, the Industrial Revolution impacted the North more than the South. You know, the place where slaves generally were not kept.

This also fails to explain Europe's rise, as the gains made by Europe via expantionist policies were not enough to explain Europe's strength. If it were, Rome, the Byzantine, and the Hellenistic eras would have been much more prosperous.

[mburbank]

So you don't care to adress any of my questions? I mean, as long as they don't mid you using the internet in study hall?

[The One and Only...]

You know, Burbank, you'd make a good lawyer. You ask questions that you already know the answers to.

I don't have school today.

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by Big Bad Burbank

My guess is you think most of these questions are uninteresting and immaterial. I would suggest that you think that because
A.) You are a direct beneficiary of historical inequity
and
B.) You are amoral.

A is an accident of birth. B is arguably of defficiancy and nothing to be proud of.

Accidents of Birth and personality disorders are paltry, unstable things to base a worldview on, especially one so thoroughly without doubt.

Arguably, indeed. "Amoral" in one person's eyes may be perfectly moral in another's, so that is not an easy claim to make. And in any case, I would hardly call amorality a "personality disorder". When I was an attention-starved teenager I might have latched on to that and been proud to say I was truly fucked up, but at this point I am offended at the suggestion.

Yes, this applies to me. I answered no to your first question and I thought the last few were uninteresting and immaterial.

[mburbank]

Uh huh. The problem with amorality is it invites other amoral people to kill you and eat you. Oh, wait, they might do that anyway. Well, at least I know I wouldn't do that.


OAO, you should be an economic theorist. You're already good at ignoring questions which don't fit models you're slavishly devoted to.

[Perndog]

If someone really wanted to kill and eat me I don't think my personal values would have any bearing on that.

[derrida]

I think immorality would apply better to what you're describing, burbank, as it implies that the actor in question morally privleges himself while not according the same to others.

OAO- Are you to argue that industrialization of the Northern states did not similarly involve exploitation of the labor class?

While Rome may have been imperialist, it was not a colonial power.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Uh huh. The problem with amorality is it invites other amoral people to kill you and eat you. Oh, wait, they might do that anyway. Well, at least I know I wouldn't do that.

Actually, if the person really knew amorality, they would still have to deal with the law as well as the fact that living in a canibalistic society has a negative consequence to them.

I could easily take your statement and replace "amoral" with "atheist", but I think we can both agree that is hardly a fair statement about atheism.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by derrida

Are you to argue that industrialization of the Northern states did not similarly involve exploitation of the labor class?

Yes, you marxist hosebag. There is no such thing as exploitation within the boundaries of mutual benefit.

[Perndog]

Sure there is. It's when one party benefits more than the other.

[ItalianStereotype]

did anyone else notice that this guy has only a tenuous understanding of history?

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Perndog

Sure there is. It's when one party benefits more than the other.

That doesn't qualify as exploitation.

[Perndog]

Okay, then it's when the party with the greater benefit has manipulated the transaction in such a way that he has the advantage and the other party is powerless to change the situation.

Example: I pay you to work. My work gets done and you get money, so we both benefit. Then I lower your wage (because I can), and if you don't have another job available you have to keep working for less. You are still benefitting, because I'm still paying you. But I'm exploiting you because I've got your balls in a vise.