It's The Economy Stupid
Too Much of a Good Thing by George Monbiot from The Guardian
Underlying the US drive to war is the need to open up new opportunities for surplus capitalIn a series of packed lectures in Oxford, Professor David Harvey, one of the world's most distinguished geographers, has provided what may be the first comprehensive explanation of the US government's determination to go to war. His analysis suggests that it has little to do Iraq, less to do with weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with helping the oppressed.
The underlying problem the United States confronts is the one which periodically afflicts all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital. Excessive production of any good -- be it cars or shoes or bananas -- means that, unless new markets can be found, the price of that product falls and profits collapse. Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US is suffering from surpluses of commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity and money. Just as it was then, it is also faced with a surplus of labour, yet the two surpluses, as before, cannot be profitably matched. This problem has been developing in the US since 1973. It has now tried every available means of solving it and, by doing so, maintaining its global dominance. The only remaining, politically viable option is war.
This makes sense to me as one of the reasons for our actions. I would be interested if the economists agree.
Comments
This political economy analysis of the war is very interesting and sounds plausible, but I would like to know on what level capital surplus is a 'reason' for the war. Admitting that such a surplus can be a cause on many levels, I doubt that Bush or even most of his advisors even understand the problem, let alone take it as the main reason to blast open Iraq's markets by force. Am I underestimating Bush's understanding or overestimating his sincerity, Norm?
Good question, I would agree that Bush and most of his advisors wouldn't have a clue. If it is a factor it would be a thinktank generated idea repackaged into a general, there are some significant side benefits to going to war. It will help our economy. Could that be the push that put the idea over the top. So though I don't believe it would ever be a cause by itself it could very well be a deciding factor, whether recognized as such by those implementing the plan. I sent the link to Max at MaxSpeak with a little luck he'll find it interesting and post on it.
What you say sounds right. This is one reason why people should still be reading Marx--he probably worked out the most sophisticated explanation ever of the relationship between the "needs" of our means of economic production and the ideas that we embrace in political and social life, the reasons we give for why we do what we are doing. The leisurely gentleman of feudal/agrarian society represents a fundamentally different view of the good life than the middle class suburbanite in capitalism does--the connection between the economy and the supposed moral good seems undeniable here, even if it is sometimes exagerrated or made to explain everything. Marx's answers to the question may not have been all accurate, but he raised the question in a very profound way. Of course, you can connect economic structure with ideology in a very vulgar way, by simply pointing to one's privileged position in order to dismiss their arguments. Still, when many people are attracted by Bush's supposed sincerity about this or that issue (whether or not he knows what the hell he is talking about), we probably are well in need of a bit of Marxian (or Freudian, or Nietzschean) suspicion. It's not just that the 'oil interests' have Bush's ear; it's that economic structures have a funny way of replacing real human needs with false, spurious needs dictated by the requirements of market commerce.
Unfortunately, though I still have educated friends who, when I express my interest in Marx (over, for example more trendy radicals like Nietzsche, Foucault, or Derrida), probably assume that I have some odd attraction to Stalinism.
Would you care to recommend an accessible, lazy man's tomb, on Marx you Stalinist bastard :+)
The US is currently running a $400bn pa balance of payments deficit which means that US consumption outstrips the US ability to supply it by $400bn pa. So whatever problems they have, an excess of productive capacity is not one of them.