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' (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040209&s=roy)

[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]

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]

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]

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...]

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...]

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.

[The One and Only...]

That's the worker not reading the contract.

[El Blanco]

But I'm exploiting you because I've got your balls in a vise.

Thats not exploitation, thats just you falling into a fortunate circumstance. It would be exploitations if you forced him into horrible working conditions for a barely livable wage.

[Perndog]

It's not a matter of the contract if the worker has no other recourse, and the working conditions don't matter, though the barely livable wage does (which is what I was referring to).

The point is, no unregulated system is perfect because these situations will happen.

[El Blanco]

It's not a matter of the contract if the worker has no other recourse

As long as the worker can leave the job, the employer has done nothing unethical or immoral( at least, on that level). The fact that the market is not very open for someone of the worker's skill is neither the employer's fault nor his problem.

The point is, no unregulated system is perfect because these situations will happen.

OK I agree with you there.

[The One and Only...]

There is no perfect regulated system, either.

[Perndog]

El Blanco: I didn't say it was immoral and I agree the employer can go ahead and do what he wants. I'm not one for morals, myself; I just said it was exploitation.

OAO: Indeed there isn't. But as I hope I've demonstrated, there *is* such a thing as exploitation in this system, and if you want people to not be exploited you need more rules than most free-market advocates are prepared to accept.

[The One and Only...]

That isn't exploitation. There is no such thing as exploitation within the voluntary contract, regardless of who gets the better deal. Exploitation would involve force, fraud, or theft, which are all barred in the free market that respects property rights.

[mburbank]

Under your deffinition, when Walmart was paying third world women a wage they freely admitted left them malnourished (That was there deffence when accused of child labor, that the women only looked like children because they were malnourished) that Walmart was not exploiting them.

The employment is voluntary. The women were paid. Both parties benefitted.

Are there no prisons? No workhouses? Or let them die and decreae the surplus population.

Shouldn't you be in school?

[The One and Only...]

Those women were not exploited, but you misread Wal-Marts argument entirely. Prior to working for them, they were malnourished, making them look like children. The argument is utter crap - the workers were undoubtably children.

But they were not exploited children.

No school today. Snow.

[mburbank]

Of course they were children. And if you don't think that was exploitation that would have to do with your deffinition of the word. Be simpler. Ask yourself if it's okay.

Ask yourself if reaping hugely dispraportional profits from people who work hard for you and giving them just barely enough to get by because that's what the market will allow is a good way for human beings to treat children.

The only reason you might get to be on the high side of that curve is luck. Or do you think your geniusness and plucky go getter attitude would get you out of a sweat shop? Your deffinition of exploitation is defined by the fact you're sure you'll never face it. By the luck of your birth, you may not. But since you've never needed a job to eat you have no idea. Oh, wait, I forgot, you've met people who have jobs.

[The One and Only...]

You're a fool. Of course it isn't right. But you need to compare the situation of those children to the alternatives open to them. They aren't pretty.

The market will eventually take care of that by it's very nature.

[mburbank]

"I'm a fucking asshole!"
-OAO

Gosh, OAO. What with all your amazing mental slight of hand, I... I just don't know WHAT to think you think! Do you really believe that, ort is it just another one of those clever, provocative stances you take because, well, it just makes folks THINK!

I just feel so indebted to you right now. Seriously. You're just so darn cunning. If I ever felt like you use that whole 'lighten up' thing as a device to hide the fact that you're talking out of your but 99.9% of the time and tht you couldn't tell shit from cornpone if the factory label was phoenetic and someone read it to you, I'm sure I was wrong.

[The One and Only...]

I never talk out of my butt. That would be painful, by any sensible measure.

But it's nice to know that you keep your head inside of your's.

Anywho, being an asshole does not mean that I don't care, or that I'm wrong. It just means that I enjoy pissing people off.

[mburbank]

Oh, you're just kidding now. You've got me all flumoxed with your clever way of making a point. ou're only saying you enjoy pissing people off becuase that's what Vinth always said and you're being ironic.

I guess you're trying to say you hate the fact you always piss people off but you can't help it because you're a compulsive jerk stiring up hatred becuase at least it's someone paying attention to you.

Oh! The tears of a clown are the saddest tears of all.

[The One and Only...]

Which is why I hate to watch you cry.

[mburbank]

Now do you mean that or are you just being all sardonic and wordly in the way that only a pretend boy genius with amazing theoretical powers can be. I mean, you can't be to careful. It's just wheels within wheels for a complicated guy like you. Did I mention to you I met a guy with cancer the other day? I swear to God, it's exactly the same as if I survived cancer myself. Oh, lighten up. I don't really think that. There just comes a certain point when you have to look at a cancer patient and say "Man, thank GOD that could nver happen to a smart guy like me" and learn from it. And then eliminate him because of how bad for the economy he is. Oh, come on, as if I meant that! Lighten ujp. I met a guy who had cancer once. It was really awful for me.

[Perndog]

I'm worried about you, Max. You enjoy this too much.

[mburbank]

This? This is nothing. Some of the other stuff I enjoy you really ought to worry about.



BUT THAT'S NOBODIES DAMN BUSINESS!

[Brandon]

Lemme guess, OAO:

You were one of those uptight, nerdy, fat kids who got picked on a lot in school, right? And then you thought that a perfect way to alleviate the crushing pain of it all was to intellectualize everything. Then you slipped into pathological narcissism to project an invincible, phony image and maybe even take revenge on those who slighted you.

You're even more like Vinth than people realize. You don't realize how utterly pathetic and absurd you sound because you've lost any real connection with the outside world.

I know you enjoy "pissing people off" because that, in a way, validates your idea that you're somebody who actually matters to people. But guess what? You're not infuriating, you're annoying. You're a pesky little fly. People here would actually have to consider you an equal to be pissed at you. Instead, you're just a perfect object of ridicule.

Loser.

[Perndog]

Max is having fun, but Brandon's just wasting his time. Give up, dude.

[The One and Only...]

Why should I want to live outside my box? It hurts out there.

[mburbank]

Well at least let whoever owns you poke a few holes in the lid.