Aurelia
28th July 2008, 00:04
I just thought I'd bring up this topic particularly relating to the Marxist view on Iraq, and I would like to pose this question before I say anymore: Do you think American capitalism is now at the stage of impotent imperialism?
War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wrecking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! America can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so American politically-connected corporations can begin the process of rebuilding and providing 'security'.
You'll notice also that Iraq's economy was never 'rebuilt' after the invasion in the way of creating a self-sufficient national industry, it was carefully integrated into the US capitalist market to serve as a oil-field for American corporations.
Paul Bremer, the US dictator put in charge of Iraq wrote the neoliberal laws into the Iraqi Constitution such as a flat corporate tax and no limits on foreign ownership, which mean Iraqi oil is now owned by America. Bremer started the process of limiting Iraq's production simply to the bare essentials such as oil, which were to be sent for industrial processing to America. In other words, Bremer wanted the Iraqi economy to be a mere appendage of the American economy, which it is to this day.
Paul Bremer also wrote laws into the Iraqi Constitution that say that foreign companies can buy assets in the oil industry, but do not need to reinvest any of the money that they earn back in Iraq (!), so Iraq is basically being drained of resources without even the Iraqi capitalists people able to profit from it. This is a good point to be made between this kinda corporate imperialism and capitalism as it exists in the 'first world'. Colonialism distorts capitalist means of production and does not allow them to fully develop, it allows capitalist production to develop only to the extent of the bare essentials needed to extract the raw materials and send them back to the mother country as cheaply as possible.
This is why neocolonial countries are so backward, the people live in poor flimsy slums yet the high tech oil plants are high in the background, this itself is a common sight in Africa. And it's also why in the capitalist world agriculture is so capital intensive, while in neocolonial countries it is very labor intensive. The capitalist means of production are never revolutionized but are simply kept as primitive as possible (including the living conditions) so the resources can be sent off as easily as possible.
These days Iraq is basically a slum of poverty and crime except in the Green Zone, which is an pristine corporate 'utopia' of clean streets, perfect hospitals full the brim with well-paid professionals (although they never treat anyone hardly), guarded by private security contractors.
Nothing is being 'developed' in Iraq, that's the purpose of a colony, you keep the people uneducated and in poor flimsy slums scratching out a living off rocks. And in the mean time you funnel all funds into oil so the country merely serves as a fuel outpost for the 'pampered' American consumers back home who won't complain too much if the price is kept down.
Iraq will never be developed, it will remain forever (as long as the US remains) a 'rich' country where the people are poor.
This maybe a sign that the nation in question (America) is running out of economic options (credit, hording, speculation) to prevent the eventual decay and destructive breakdown of capitalism in society.
I'll bet over the next decade America's economy will decline even more, forcing the US to take more military action against even more resource rich countries, to make them more Iraq's for raw materials to postpone the decline of capitalism. Iran, Sudan, who knows what next, but what is sure is that capitalism will go down with a bang.
So with that I'd like to start a discussion on the nature of US capitalism and imperialism in the world.
War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wrecking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! America can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so American politically-connected corporations can begin the process of rebuilding and providing 'security'.
You'll notice also that Iraq's economy was never 'rebuilt' after the invasion in the way of creating a self-sufficient national industry, it was carefully integrated into the US capitalist market to serve as a oil-field for American corporations.
Paul Bremer, the US dictator put in charge of Iraq wrote the neoliberal laws into the Iraqi Constitution such as a flat corporate tax and no limits on foreign ownership, which mean Iraqi oil is now owned by America. Bremer started the process of limiting Iraq's production simply to the bare essentials such as oil, which were to be sent for industrial processing to America. In other words, Bremer wanted the Iraqi economy to be a mere appendage of the American economy, which it is to this day.
Paul Bremer also wrote laws into the Iraqi Constitution that say that foreign companies can buy assets in the oil industry, but do not need to reinvest any of the money that they earn back in Iraq (!), so Iraq is basically being drained of resources without even the Iraqi capitalists people able to profit from it. This is a good point to be made between this kinda corporate imperialism and capitalism as it exists in the 'first world'. Colonialism distorts capitalist means of production and does not allow them to fully develop, it allows capitalist production to develop only to the extent of the bare essentials needed to extract the raw materials and send them back to the mother country as cheaply as possible.
This is why neocolonial countries are so backward, the people live in poor flimsy slums yet the high tech oil plants are high in the background, this itself is a common sight in Africa. And it's also why in the capitalist world agriculture is so capital intensive, while in neocolonial countries it is very labor intensive. The capitalist means of production are never revolutionized but are simply kept as primitive as possible (including the living conditions) so the resources can be sent off as easily as possible.
These days Iraq is basically a slum of poverty and crime except in the Green Zone, which is an pristine corporate 'utopia' of clean streets, perfect hospitals full the brim with well-paid professionals (although they never treat anyone hardly), guarded by private security contractors.
Nothing is being 'developed' in Iraq, that's the purpose of a colony, you keep the people uneducated and in poor flimsy slums scratching out a living off rocks. And in the mean time you funnel all funds into oil so the country merely serves as a fuel outpost for the 'pampered' American consumers back home who won't complain too much if the price is kept down.
Iraq will never be developed, it will remain forever (as long as the US remains) a 'rich' country where the people are poor.
This maybe a sign that the nation in question (America) is running out of economic options (credit, hording, speculation) to prevent the eventual decay and destructive breakdown of capitalism in society.
I'll bet over the next decade America's economy will decline even more, forcing the US to take more military action against even more resource rich countries, to make them more Iraq's for raw materials to postpone the decline of capitalism. Iran, Sudan, who knows what next, but what is sure is that capitalism will go down with a bang.
So with that I'd like to start a discussion on the nature of US capitalism and imperialism in the world.