peaccenicked
28th December 2007, 03:04
From "The US and Iraq and the World Economy (http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=ticktin+iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)" by Hillel Ticktin {Second one down}
"The invasion of Iraq came as a shock to the many who had thought that colonial empires had ceased to exist and that the doctrine of the right of nations to self-determination was generally accepted."
I certainly was expecting the invasion. The media had primed the populations of the West well after 9/11, we were in for "war without end". The nature of imperialism had changed, the new 'word' was 'neo-colonialism'. It had traits of the old colony based empires. Super exploitation of the working class from Paul Cockshott I learned that the average rate of exploitation in the west was 1:1 and in the third world it was 1:5. In other words the essence of imperialism was still in tact. New oligarchies had arisen and so had started the reign of gangsterism which obeyed the laws of capitalism with ruthless abandonment of the 'superstructure'. Short term gain became the overt role of finance capital with the goal of turning the indigenous population of the west, and the rest of the world into captive slaves. in other words reversing capitalism into a serf and slave society. This was called globalisation.
Previously the goal of short term gain had been fettered by the organised workers. It was hidden behind such things as bourgeois democracy,free education,the New Deal and the Welfare state which gave capitalism the veneer of respectability and even civilisation. The institutions used to prop up capitalism became potential assets for the oligarchs who vandalised increasingly their usefulness to society.
This attack on use value signaled a new epoch in which imperialism was being transformed into barbarism in the form of gangsterism.
Globalisation sought to transform nation states into a system of rival gangs, denuding nations of their distinctiveness by the policies of monetarism. It is only by subservience to monetarism were nations given any ''right to self determination"
The policies of monetarism were linked to US national security like a hand that steals and like the iron glove that covers it. Saddam was taken out to secure their finances, this are links to other consideration but that was the causa belli.
Hillel makes a case for this being irrational. The underlying question is how much could Saddam be a threat to national security ie the policies of monetarism in the Middle East. The fact is that Sadam was setting a dangerous precedent. That was enough at the time. The belief was that knocking out the Saddam problem would bring stability to their monetary policies for the entire Middle East.
This belief has proved to be irrational and costly for them. They clearly did not do their homework and were warned by many inside their own community. However the ethos of both imperialism and finance capitalism was known by the former Trotskyists inside the ranks of the neo cons, either expand or contract, and they were right. in this sense the war was rational, perhaps even desperate.
"The invasion of Iraq came as a shock to the many who had thought that colonial empires had ceased to exist and that the doctrine of the right of nations to self-determination was generally accepted."
I certainly was expecting the invasion. The media had primed the populations of the West well after 9/11, we were in for "war without end". The nature of imperialism had changed, the new 'word' was 'neo-colonialism'. It had traits of the old colony based empires. Super exploitation of the working class from Paul Cockshott I learned that the average rate of exploitation in the west was 1:1 and in the third world it was 1:5. In other words the essence of imperialism was still in tact. New oligarchies had arisen and so had started the reign of gangsterism which obeyed the laws of capitalism with ruthless abandonment of the 'superstructure'. Short term gain became the overt role of finance capital with the goal of turning the indigenous population of the west, and the rest of the world into captive slaves. in other words reversing capitalism into a serf and slave society. This was called globalisation.
Previously the goal of short term gain had been fettered by the organised workers. It was hidden behind such things as bourgeois democracy,free education,the New Deal and the Welfare state which gave capitalism the veneer of respectability and even civilisation. The institutions used to prop up capitalism became potential assets for the oligarchs who vandalised increasingly their usefulness to society.
This attack on use value signaled a new epoch in which imperialism was being transformed into barbarism in the form of gangsterism.
Globalisation sought to transform nation states into a system of rival gangs, denuding nations of their distinctiveness by the policies of monetarism. It is only by subservience to monetarism were nations given any ''right to self determination"
The policies of monetarism were linked to US national security like a hand that steals and like the iron glove that covers it. Saddam was taken out to secure their finances, this are links to other consideration but that was the causa belli.
Hillel makes a case for this being irrational. The underlying question is how much could Saddam be a threat to national security ie the policies of monetarism in the Middle East. The fact is that Sadam was setting a dangerous precedent. That was enough at the time. The belief was that knocking out the Saddam problem would bring stability to their monetary policies for the entire Middle East.
This belief has proved to be irrational and costly for them. They clearly did not do their homework and were warned by many inside their own community. However the ethos of both imperialism and finance capitalism was known by the former Trotskyists inside the ranks of the neo cons, either expand or contract, and they were right. in this sense the war was rational, perhaps even desperate.