The Patriot Act and economic trends

[Dimentio]

During a recent conversation with my political mentor today, I encountered the explanation that while laws like the Patriot Act and the recent signal surveillance law in Sweden are inefficient in capturing terrorists, the real reason for their establishment is that the governments are aware that an economic crisis is approaching, and therefore are withtaking steps to establish the control mechanisms to control and direct the general public.

Do you think that explanation is plausible?

[Martin Blank]

Certainly. From the beginning, this phony "war on terror" has been about social control and squelching of internal dissent. The PATRIOT Acts I-III, the Military Commissions Act, Homeland Security Act, "Continuity of Government" executive orders, etc., are all designed for use against U.S. residents. The issue for the bourgeoisie in this country at the moment is about how this is to be used: in a co-opting and "surgical" manner (via Obama) or in a sweeping and barbaric manner (via McCain).

[Dimentio]

Certainly. From the beginning, this phony "war on terror" has been about social control and squelching of internal dissent. The PATRIOT Acts I-III, the Military Commissions Act, Homeland Security Act, "Continuity of Government" executive orders, etc., are all designed for use against U.S. residents. The issue for the bourgeoisie in this country at the moment is about how this is to be used: in a co-opting and "surgical" manner (via Obama) or in a sweeping and barbaric manner (via McCain).

I think these laws were unwanted for unless there is something which is gonna happen. The interests supporting the regimes are not introducing oppressive laws just to be oppressive. Could it be a preparation for a new imperialist "great race" for the resources?

[Martin Blank]

I think these laws were unwanted for unless there is something which is gonna happen. The interests supporting the regimes are not introducing oppressive laws just to be oppressive. Could it be a preparation for a new imperialist "great race" for the resources?

That is exactly what's going on. The period of capitalist accumulation that opened up with the collapse of the USSR and the "people's democracies" (including China) is over. Division of the world is again giving way to re-division of the world and its resources. Right now, Europe is way behind the Anglo-American imperialist cartel; this is why the capitalists of France and Germany keep pushing through new EU treaties meant to strengthen the union and its capabilities ... and go to great lengths to bolster their "anti-terror" legislation.

[Dimentio]

That is exactly what's going on. The period of capitalist accumulation that opened up with the collapse of the USSR and the "people's democracies" (including China) is over. Division of the world is again giving way to re-division of the world and its resources. Right now, Europe is way behind the Anglo-American imperialist cartel; this is why the capitalists of France and Germany keep pushing through new EU treaties meant to strengthen the union and its capabilities ... and go to great lengths to bolster their "anti-terror" legislation.

I have suspected that for a while. But the same general trend shows that the USA is in fact declining, in its percentage control over the resources of the world, given the emergence of China and the resurgence of Russia, as well as a smaller number of regional great powers.

[KC]

Certainly. From the beginning, this phony "war on terror" has been about social control and squelching of internal dissent. The PATRIOT Acts I-III, the Military Commissions Act, Homeland Security Act, "Continuity of Government" executive orders, etc., are all designed for use against U.S. residents.

I don't think it's as simple as that. It was as much about the creation of an other (the Islamic fundamentalist) to maintain nationalism/patriotism and unity under the flag (which has been provided since World War 2, and arguably earlier, by the spread and threat of "communism"). It was also about creating a means by which to expand militarism and imperialist aggression, which is completely evident, as well as the need to protect national identity (as American national identity has always been defined negatively against an "other" which the country is fighting).

Obviously there's many more things which could be written here, but it is obvious that this shift in overall ideology is much more complicated than what you have stated.


The issue for the bourgeoisie in this country at the moment is about how this is to be used: in a co-opting and "surgical" manner (via Obama) or in a sweeping and barbaric manner (via McCain).

All campaign rhetoric aside, I doubt there is much difference between the overall policies of Obama and McCain, and certainly not to the extent which you are implying. Recently, for example, Obama completely reversed his position with regards to domestic spying recently. I think we both know that when push comes to shove Obama and McCain would act in the same manner with the same interests in mind.


That is exactly what's going on. The period of capitalist accumulation that opened up with the collapse of the USSR and the "people's democracies" (including China) is over. Division of the world is again giving way to re-division of the world and its resources. Right now, Europe is way behind the Anglo-American imperialist cartel; this is why the capitalists of France and Germany keep pushing through new EU treaties meant to strengthen the union and its capabilities ... and go to great lengths to bolster their "anti-terror" legislation.

This is certainly true, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Neo-liberal ideology has spread throughout both the US and Europe, which is making this apparent conflict much more interesting; while these regions "cooperate" they are at the same time in conflict with one another. The question is, and it is most interesting, where will this conflict lead? Will we see this conflict lead to an ultimate polarization between Europe and the US (and perhaps China as well)?

I don't really see that happening any time soon, but it's certainly a possibility.

[Jeanette]

I've said for as long as I've known about this idiotic law in Sweden, that I'm more afraid of the possibilities hat it holds.
It makes me unbelievably frustrated. The Swedish politicians have no respect for us citizens. But, I've never thought they did, so why should I be disappointed?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

During a recent conversation with my political mentor today, I encountered the explanation that while laws like the Patriot Act and the recent signal surveillance law in Sweden are inefficient in capturing terrorists, the real reason for their establishment is that the governments are aware that an economic crisis is approaching, and therefore are withtaking steps to establish the control mechanisms to control and direct the general public.

Do you think that explanation is plausible?
Yes.

But at the same time these acts take on a retroactive role; they make some citizens feel better that there is "something done to protect them", much like air travel changes and the "War on Terror", after a crisis. These are the same people who claim "the innocent have nothing to hide" and whatnot.

Now that these laws make a portion of the population feel somehow safer is a relatively insignificant aspect, but it does help pass these laws through with little resistance. Any politicians that are opposed to such laws are afraid of being labeled "non-patriotic" and not caring for "national security".


. . .Voice or not voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

[Dimentio]

Yes.

But at the same time these acts take on a retroactive role; they make some citizens feel better that there is "something done to protect them", much like air travel changes and the "War on Terror", after a crisis. These are the same people who claim "the innocent have nothing to hide" and whatnot.

Now that these laws make a portion of the population feel somehow safer is a relatively insignificant aspect, but it does help pass these laws through with little resistance. Any politicians that are opposed to such laws are afraid of being labeled "non-patriotic" and not caring for "national security".

Yea, but there is a massive resistance against the Signal Surveillance Law in Sweden. Almost no one feels any safer, and the government also voted it through during the soccer contests when everyone's attention was directed towards another direction.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I have suspected that for a while. But the same general trend shows that the USA is in fact declining, in its percentage control over the resources of the world, given the emergence of China and the resurgence of Russia, as well as a smaller number of regional great powers.

The US is heading for a resurgence methinks. America is the only nation in the world capable of superpower status. America has been weakened much like Vietnam, but the structures are still in place. This is something more like the Napoleonic wars, with upstart powers trying to, but ultimately failing to, unseat Britain's dominance.

China has a rapidly aging population, so rapidly aging that its working population could halve in 20 years. Also its environment is so degraded that further development is likely to backfire. Russia too is in no position to retake the top position. Its population is steadily declining, Russia has losses about 250-500k people every year. Europe too has a fertility problem, though the bigger issue is that political integration is taking too long, and european working people aren't about to restart another age of imperialism.

[Dimentio]

The US is heading for a resurgence methinks. America is the only nation in the world capable of superpower status. America has been weakened much like Vietnam, but the structures are still in place. This is something more like the Napoleonic wars, with upstart powers trying to, but ultimately failing to, unseat Britain's dominance.

China has a rapidly aging population, so rapidly aging that its working population could halve in 20 years. Also its environment is so degraded that further development is likely to backfire. Russia too is in no position to retake the top position. Its population is steadily declining, Russia has losses about 250-500k people every year. Europe too has a fertility problem, though the bigger issue is that political integration is taking too long, and european working people aren't about to restart another age of imperialism.

The USA also got some problems.

Russia has no real fertility problem. The main problem is premature deaths of middle aged men.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The USA also got some problems.

Russia has no real fertility problem. The main problem is premature deaths of middle aged men.

USA has got some problems, all solvable. Never said Prussia had a fertility problem, Russia has a falling population problem. Something they're not addressing very well.

[Martin Blank]

I have suspected that for a while. But the same general trend shows that the USA is in fact declining, in its percentage control over the resources of the world, given the emergence of China and the resurgence of Russia, as well as a smaller number of regional great powers.

Yes. This is the main contradiction fueling the war drive: between the economic power of the United States (and its cartel allies) and the military-political power of the United States (and its cartel allies). This is the same contradiction that motivated Germany to initiate both World Wars.

[Martin Blank]

I don't think it's as simple as that. It was as much about the creation of an other (the Islamic fundamentalist) to maintain nationalism/patriotism and unity under the flag (which has been provided since World War 2, and arguably earlier, by the spread and threat of "communism"). It was also about creating a means by which to expand militarism and imperialist aggression, which is completely evident, as well as the need to protect national identity (as American national identity has always been defined negatively against an "other" which the country is fighting).

Obviously there's many more things which could be written here, but it is obvious that this shift in overall ideology is much more complicated than what you have stated.

Well, duh! I was not attempting to present a finished and closed-off analysis, but initiate a discussion on these issues.

Yes, the creation of the propaganda enemy and "other" for petty-bourgeois "public opinion" to demonize and use as a vehicle for regimenting the population and mobilizing support for the state's increased military activities is a part of all this as well. But, let's be honest, these are not the central reasons this ruling class looks to go to war.


All campaign rhetoric aside, I doubt there is much difference between the overall policies of Obama and McCain, and certainly not to the extent which you are implying. Recently, for example, Obama completely reversed his position with regards to domestic spying recently. I think we both know that when push comes to shove Obama and McCain would act in the same manner with the same interests in mind.

Again, duh! I am talking about tactical differences between Obama and McCain -- differences in management style and technique.