>Status: U >Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivered-To: moderator for [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) >Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:04:18 +0100 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Richard K. Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: How we came to live under fascism... > > >Bcc: a few colleagues. > > >Friends, > >Someone sent me a paper which included the following >paragraph. As so often happens, in responding to someone >else's comments, I found myself led to expressing some ideas >in a clearer way. I hope you find the outcome useful. > >regards, >rkm >http://cyberjournal.org > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > K.> If Marx showed us how the social relations of production > act as so many fetters on the development of the productive > forces, those social relations today take the form of > territorial states seeking to maintain established privilege > by constraining the movement of people, goods, money and > information in a world society that is both more integrated > and divided at the same time. Transnational capitalism, > complemented by grassroots democratic movements of all > kinds, today leads the way in challenging old national and > regional structures, in much the same way that national > capitalism underpinned liberal revolutions in the 18th and > 19th centuries. > >Dear K., > >What you say here is largely 'true', in a literal sense, but >from my perspective it seriously mis-characterizes the >various relationships and forces in question. > >I believe that your 'social relations today' >characterization applied 'fully' up to 1945, and 'mostly' >until about 1980. Since then we've been in the throes of a >full-fledged takeover by transnational capitalism by means >of the neoliberal revolution, now in its final globalization >phase. > >You say these changes have been 'complemented by grassroots >democratic movements', which has been sometimes true at a >surface level. I'd say rather that the neoliberal >revolutionary propaganda has been aimed at those with >progressive sentiments, deceiving them into believing that >globalization will move things in a direction they would >favor. Your characterization becomes even less applicable >post-Seattle. Grassroots democratic movements the world over >have now rejected the neoliberal party line and have become >largely counter-revolutionary in that regard. Not that they >are effective, but they no longer 'complement'. > >As you say, the situation is parallel to that of the earlier >national liberal revolutions. And in those liberal >revolutions as well, any complementarianism was based less >on mutual interest than on deceit of the masses. In both >cases, the main event was a shift in power among elites, >with the people being pulled along from an old prison to a >newer one. The liberal revolutions shifted power from >monarchic hierarchies to networks of commercial-baron / >financier cliques. It also replaced divine right, as a >justification for governmental authority, with 'popular >sovereignty', presumably expressed in our pseudo-democratic >institutions. Over the subsequent two hundred years the >natural forces of capitalism led to a concentration of >global wealth and power into the hands of an elite Western >clique. The neoliberal revolution leaves that same clique >in power, but it brings a cataclysmic shift in power >relationships nonetheless, and an equally cataclysmic >transformation of societies. > >The power shift can be compared to a corporate >reorganization. Think of a conglomerate which is made up of >a number of semi-autonomous companies. Then one day the CEO >announces that he's installing a centralized administration >to micro-manage each operation, disempowering local >managements. Pre-neoliberal Western nations were like the >semi-autonomous companies; globalization strips them of >their autonomy and relegates governments to the status of >Mandarin functionaries - subservient to the WTO / IMF >administrative regime and to the whims of corporate >operators, banks, and financial traders. > >As regards the substance of democracy, this reorganization >brings no change - those at the bottom are still controlled >by those at the top. The administrative machinery has been >altered, but the democracy-quotient was zero before and >remains zero afterwards. The false rhetoric of democracy >continues mostly unchanged, but becomes each day less >credible - the emperor's clothes become increasingly >transparent. The anti-globalization movement arises from >those who have seen through the veils. > >But the era of the 'great liberal democracies' (1798-1980) >was stabilized less by the rhetoric of democracy than by the >reality of middle-class prosperity. The empowerment that >really mattered was that which could be carried in wallets - >together with a faith by the middle classes in the future >continuance of that empowerment for themselves and their >children. Neoliberal globalization became a necessity >precisely when capitalism could no longer afford to support >the middle classes in the fashion to which they had grown >long accustomed. The elite perception of this necessity >crystallized around 1973, as memorialized in Huntington's >'Crisis of Democracy' paper. > >Elites were waking up to the fact that the continuation of >capitalism was not compatible with then existing democratic >institutions. As long as middle-class prosperity could be >continued, elites had little problem manipulating the >political process to get precisely the policies they wanted. >But if the middle classes were to be abandoned, then the >democratic institutions would become a potential threat to >elite power. There was too great a risk that an effective >independent political party might arise and turn the >rhetoric of democracy into a reality. When the middle >classes find common cause with workers and ethnic >minorities, et al - and if sovereign governmental >institutions are available - then elites could have a real >revolution from below on their hands. > >The decade of the 1980s was used to lay the foundations for >the new neoliberal world order, aimed at eliminating the >risk of an outbreak of democracy. While corporate operators >were looting public assets, they generated enough economic >activity to provide a bubble of pyramid-scheme prosperity to >the middle classes. This masked the shift of power that was >happening behind the scenes, while simultaneously providing >accelerated elite wealth accumulation during the decade. > >As the nineties began, the groundwork had been laid, and >events began to reveal the realities of the new world order, >so dubbed by Daddy Bush. The new order brought intensified >imperialist interventionism, of both the military and IMF >variety, (Iraq, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, >Brazil, Korea, etc. ad infinitum). Particularly significant >were the machinations around 'internationalizing' these >interventions, and creating an aura of legitimization for >them - quite outside the bounds of established international >law and of sound economic policy. > >By '93, we had the Uruguay Round, transforming GATT (a >treaty initiative) into the WTO (an administrative body). >During the decade the global administration laid down its >policy structures and began to exercise its power in a >scattering of precedent-setting test cases (hormone beef, >bananas, Ethyl additives, ...). > >Also during the eighties and nineties, another program was >afoot. That was the intentional development of >international terrorist networks and the encouragement of >Islamic fundamentalism. From the installation of the >Ayatollah, to the encouragement of Israeli excesses, to the >creation by the CIA of the Taliban and its predecessors and >competitors in Afghanistan - the USA did everything it could >to create an 'extremist terrorist threat' to replace the >Cold War's demon communism. > >As the new millennium dawned, the new world order was fully >established and ready to start playing hardball. At the >same time, the global economy was moving into serious >doldrums, requiring that such play begin. All that was >needed was an appropriate trigger event, an appropriate >agent to throw the ritual first pitch. For this purpose, as >I read the evidence, some secret inner CIA team began >nurturing a particular group of terrorists who had a vision >of using airliners to destroy major buildings. The group >was so clumsy that it came to the attention of the FBI, who >had to be shooed off the case by orders from Washington. >Whether the group actually controlled the planes on 9/11 is >doubtful, but the evidence they left behind them made it >easy to lay blame where intended, and was adequate (barely) >to cover up the fact that the event was primarily an inside >job. > >This elite-arranged trigger-event strategy is of course >nothing new, having been used frequently by the USA >(Battleship Maine, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, etc.). by Nazi >Germany (faked invasion by Polish troops, Reichstag fire), >and many other times in history. > >So now we are in the era of hardball global capitalism. In >order for capitalism to continue, i.e. for GDP-measured >'economic growth' to continue, the scale and nature of >exploitation (of people and resources) must be greatly >expanded. Alaskan and Caspian fossil fuels must be tapped; >cloning and other biotech must be harnessed; unproductive >populations must be eliminated through genocide. In the >third world, imperialism needs a heavier fist; the second >world needs to be pushed down to third-world status; in the >first world, there must be a severe decline in the quality >of life and political / economic activism must be brought >under tight control. > >The so-called War on Terrorism, while doing little to thwart >dedicated terrorists, serves very well to enable this new >scale of mega exploitation. First-world expectation levels >have moved down a notch or two on the Maslow scale, >descending to concerns with bare survival and security. This >has created a climate (in the 'land of the free') where the >Constitution can be abandoned, and Gestapo-style arrests and >arbitrary executions can be carried out. The cleansing of >the Internet has begun, with precedent-setting shutdowns of >a few progressive websites. The anti-globalization movement >had already experienced fascist-style repression in Genoa, >even before 9/11. With expanded definitions of 'terrorism', >and with the ubiquitous presence of Black Bloc provocateurs, >it is clear that the anti-globalization movement cannot >continue in the form whose momentum had been growing since >Seattle. > >One cannot describe this fascist emergence as being >'complemented by grassroots democratic movements of all >kinds'. > >yours, >rkm > >-- > >============================================================================ >Richard K Moore >Wexford, Ireland >Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org >content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/ > > "A Guidebook: How the world works and how we can change it" > http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/ > > A community will evolve only when > the people control their means of communication. > -- Frantz Fanon > > Capitalism is the relentless accumulation of capital for the > acquisition of profit. Capitalism is a carnivore. It > cannot be made over into a herbivore without gutting it, > i.e., abolishing it. > - Warren Wagar, Professor of History, State University > of New York at Binghamton > >Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT >include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, >and notices - including this one. >============================================================================ > >. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
