State capitalism, and general decline

Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini:

the U.S.-led unipolar order, Western political and economic dominance, and consensus among the world’s power players in favor of free-market democracy are all gone. And they’re not coming back.

Another major reason that international politics won’t return to a pre–financial crisis status quo is the rise of state capitalism. A generation ago, as command economies imploded in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, faith that governments could mandate lasting prosperity seemed dead. Western power — fueled by private wealth, private investment and private enterprise — seemed to have established the final victory of liberal free-market economics. Over the past decade, however, public wealth, public investment and public enterprise have made a stunning comeback. An era of state-driven capitalism has dawned, one in which governments inject political calculation into the performance of markets.

In a free-market system, markets exist to serve those who participate in them. In a state capitalist system, governments dominate markets to maximize the political power of the state and its leadership’s chances of survival...But though state capitalist companies may thrive in the short run, there is a risk of a race to the bottom, with greater interference in markets even in market capitalist economies...More broadly, state capitalism will produce a reversal in the trade and capital account liberalization of the past several years as protectionism breeds more protectionism.

I wrote about this just over a year ago in the Daily Collegian. I'm not exactly Captain Optimism, but these predictions are particularly negative, perhaps overboard. The rise of state capitalism - here and elsewhere - will inevitably slow broader economic growth, and has the potential to generate a concentration of governmental power and control in many other realms. But, there's hope, aint there?

I do wonder what this might mean for America's over-involved, over-stretched, interventionist economic and military empire. One might assume a gradual drawdown could take place in tandem, but given that empire is beneficial to the ruling class in the state capitalist system, it may be less than likely.

What is the role of the state?

Hey, at least the mainstream is talking about it...

It is summer - a good time to ask a big question. So I intend to ask the biggest question in political economy: what is the role of the state?

There exists a strand in classical liberal or, in contemporary US parlance, libertarian thought which believes the answer is to define the role of the state so narrowly and the rights of individuals so broadly that many political choices (the income tax or universal health care, for example) would be ruled out a priori. In other words, it seeks to abolish much of politics through constitutional restraints.

I view this as a hopeless strategy, both intellectually and politically.

Read the whole link.

My anarchist friends will have a field day, I'm sure..

Client states in America's dominion: Yemen cracking down

This Amnesty International release illustrates how modern US empire works for US client states.

The government authorities in Yemen are rolling back human rights gains over the years in the name of security.

Challenged by growing calls for secession in the south, and intermittent conflict with the Huthis movement in the north and the presence of al-Qa’ida in the country, the Yemeni government has increasingly resorted to repressive and illegal methods.

Yemeni government is under pressure from other governments, particularly the USA, Europe and the Gulf states, who want the Yemeni government to take tough action to combat al-Qa’ida and to prevent Yemen fracturing or imploding into a failed state. The international pressure on Yemen intensified after December 25 2009 when a Nigerian man, said to have been trained by al-Qa’ida in Yemen apparently tried to blow up a US airliner bounded for Detroit. The US government quickly expanded military and intelligence co-operation with the Yemeni authorities, and in early 2010 announced a $155 million security package for Yemen with $35 million earmarked for the country Special Operations Forces to carry out counter-terrorism operations. Yet there was little evidence of concern about the impact of security operations that might have on human rights.

Despite government allegations, there appears to be no evidence linking the Huthis or the loose coalition of individuals and groups known as the Southern Movement to al-Qa’ida...Hundreds if not thousands of people suspected of links to al-Qa’ida or armed Islamist groups have been arrested and subjected to a wide range of abuses, including enforced disappearances, prolonged detention without charge, torture and unfair trials...In the south, security forces have allegedly targeted for killing people prominent in the Southern Movement and have killed or injured hundreds of protesters during peaceful demonstrations...Those speaking out against government policies or human rights violations have been targeted, among them journalists, human rights defenders and lawyers. Legislation and specialized courts created to counter terrorism have been used to imprison even those who merely discuss what is happening in Sa’dah or the south.

This is how it works with dozens upon dozens of repressive regimes around the world. The US funds the government and military to address a perceived threat or take a desired position on the international stage, and these dictatorships end up increasing their authoritarian impulses.

See my previous post on the developing US relationship with Yemen.

The supposed end of combat operations, and Obama's empire

Anyone with a head on their shoulders knew that Obama's gallivanting speech about the drawdown of US troops and the "end of combat operations in Iraq" could grasp that it was as full of bullshit as when Bush and his famous banner did it. A remainder of 50,000 troops - plus the contractors the governing elite don't like to harp on - is no more an end to combat operations than it is an end to US occupation. But to have it thrown in his face so soon after seems like Christmas came early this year:

American soldiers helped Iraqi troops battle insurgents in downtown Baghdad on Sunday, repelling a major attack in the heart of the capital five days after President Obama declared an end to U.S. combat operations.

At least 18 people were killed and 39 injured in the midday attack in which a group of suicide bombers and gunmen attempted to storm the Iraqi army's east Baghdad headquarters, located in a former Ministry of Defense building in a busy market district alongside the Tigris River.

No Americans were among the casualties, said military spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom. But U.S. soldiers did join in the fighting alongside Iraqis to repel the assailants, two of whom managed to enter the army compound.

I submitted an excerpt here on this blog in a post called Imperial plans of the Obama era a few months back from Chomsky's Hopes and Prospects:

In Iraq, there is virtually no information about the fate of the huge U.S. military bases. Reports from the contractors in charge - effectively mercenary forces - indicate that they are still under construction despite formal commitments to withdraw. The immense city-within-a-city in Baghdad not only remains, but its cost is also to rise under Obama to $1.8 million a year, from an estimated $1.5 billion in Bush's last year. The Obama administration is also constructing mega-embassies in Pakistan and Afghanistan that are completely without precedent. Throughout the Gulf region, billions of dollars are being spent to develop "critical base and port facilities," along with military training and arms shipments expanding the U.S. global systems of militarization.

Sticking with Iraq, back in 2007 Bush administration had drafted the first Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which detailed a prolonged and continued US troop presence in Iraq with no specified limits and called for "facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments" and for US forces to work indefinitely to "deter foreign aggression against Iraq." This is neo-colonial empire-building at its best. There were reports in the following months about the impasse that had been reached due to the Iraqi government being uncomfortable with the SOFA, citing some major revisions like adding a firm withdrawal date of all US forces and rejections of "long-term US military bases on its soil." In what has been reported as a major victory for Iraq, revisions eventually produced an agreed upon SOFA, with a total withdrawal date in December 2011.

So, will US forces be completely out of Iraq in a little over a year? Obama will say so, but we'd be wise to be skeptical. It certainly looks as if the US base the size of the Vatican is there to stay for some time; or that continuing violence will be used as an excuse to remain longer-term. The US rarely draws down its empire, especially in a country as strategically important as Iraq.

See my previous musings on the future of US forces in Iraq:

Staying in Iraq

We're So Proud of Our Newborn Client State!

Books I've Been Reading

I did a lot of reading this summer, but here are some of the books for a highlight:

The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley (just started this one)

The Korean War: A History by Bruce Cumings. This is recommended. This "forgotten war" has much more importance (and brutality) than is usually thought in post-war US history.

Hopes and Prospects by Noam Chomsky

Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective by Ha-Joon Chang. Essentially an argument for infant industry protectionism. It has some holes in it, but it's still persuasive and well worth the read for anyone under the false impression that the US had the most economic growth during a time of laissez-faire capitalism.

The Crimes of Empire: The History and Politics of an Outlaw Nation by Carl Boggs.

How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage, and Crimes Against Humanity by Michael Mandel.

Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance by Nouriel Roubini. Given Roubini's reputation as a forecaster, I expected more predictions I could consider counting on and more emphasis on potential future inflation. This is more of an overview of the downturn and the economic schools which contribute to the understanding of it.

Long Time No Blog...

Hi people. Wow, I haven't blogged in forever. Let me bring you up to speed for any new readers I probably haven't picked up...

At the very beginning of June I placed this blog, which had been running almost daily since November 2009, on hiatus for the summer. The reason for this decision was so that I could focus on the oh-so-coveted internship program I'd been accepted to, the Institute for Humane Studies Koch Summer Fellowship Program (mouthful). It was one of the best experiences of my life and it helped me get my next gig as an intern at the Cato Institute, which I'm giddily excited about.

Anyways, I figured restarting the blog (or at least attempting to) would be helpful in not being unemployed come December (when the Cato internship concludes). So here goes...

There may be no more apt subject to post on than Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece on the billionaire Koch brothers and their considerable money wielding for supposedly "right-wing, conservative" causes. I'm about a week late on this, and there's already been sufficient discussion in the blogosphere about it, so I won't say much. Nick Gillespie at Reason has probably the best response to it, but there are many others.

As you'll note, the internship program I recently completed bears the same name as the evil-doers in their brown leather thrones, secretly funding a radical right movement in America. I invite you to read the article and perhaps do some of your own research to find out where else the Koch brothers put their money, but I'll focus on my program as I've experienced it first hand.

First of all, my program was anything but right-wing or conservative. The people pedaling the line about the Koch brothers funding conservative movements for their own self-interest would have a hard time explaining that one to the unequivocally committed anarchists in the program, or the various anti-war types, or the open borders advocates, etc. We spent an entire summer learning and talking about the tyrannies of rent-seeking corporate behavior, and Mayer and Co. want people to believe that Koch Industries is out to covertly guide the strings in the marionette show that is America.

I'm not out to endorse or exonerate or bash the Kochs. They may have some questionable views on global warming and insofar as they have funded the Tea Party movement, I think, in that case, they are fomenting a confused, populist movement based largely on jingoism, xenophobia, and hypocrisy. I'm extremely thankful I was given an educational and occupational opportunity by their scholarship program though, and their caricature a la Mayer is unwarranted and incorrect in many ways.

Good to be back. Let's hope I can keep this up like I used to.

I haven't blogged in forever, but I'm at my work computer and so this was the best way to stow away this excerpt and these links.

Via Glenn Greenwald, this passage from The Nuremberg Diary by GM Gilbert:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don’t want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no 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. It works the same in any country."

Accountability for drones, following protocol

Democracy Now:

The US military has faulted a group of officers for a February drone attack that killed twenty-three Afghan civilians and wounded a dozen more. The victims were traveling in three vehicles when a Predator drone hit them with rockets and missiles. The drone operators launched the attack from the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, where the drones are controlled. A Pentagon review found the operators ignored warnings from intelligence analysts that children were inside the vehicles. The military says four US officers have been reprimanded and two junior officers have been disciplined.

Some more here.

This is protocol for US crimes: the government makes a mild public announcement lightly condemning the wrongdoing and promising retribution to the few bad apples that acted out of sync with normal procedures. Usually very light sentences or punishments (discharge) are put upon those directly involved. The same thing happened at My Lai and at the first exposure of the crimes at Guantanamo. This as opposed to admitting that the crimes are frequent occurrences which are the intended result of systemic application of standard operation.

Click the "drones" label in the bubble to the left for more.

Assorted Links

Obama doctrine rehabilitates empire.

Arresting people for capturing cell phone video of abusive police.

Eric Margolis on Korea.

US demands civilian trials...except in the US.

The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Massachusetts health care model a success?

Are sports like religious cults?

The similarities between sport fandom and organized religion are striking.

...If ritual may be entertaining, then entertainment, as experienced in a sports stadium, may be ritualistic. Fans wear the team colors and carry its flags, icons, and mascots. Then there is repetitive chanting of team encouragement, hand-clapping, booing the other team, doing the wave, and so forth. The singing of an anthem at a sporting event likely has similar psychological effects as the singing of a hymn in church.

...Some scholars believe that fans are highly committed to their favored stars and teams in a way that gives focus and meaning to their daily lives. In addition, sports spectatorship is a transformative experience through which fans escape their humdrum lives, just as religious experiences help the faithful to transcend their everyday existence.

From that perspective, the face painting, hair tinting, and distinctive costumes are thought to satisfy specific religious goals including identification with the team, escape from everyday limitations and disappointments, and establishing a community of fans.

So far, the transformative aspects of fandom are quite close to those associated with religion.

The rest of the post is interesting. It's written by Nigel Barber, a popular author and scientist with a Ph. D. in Biopsychology.

Sports in general are something I've barely been able to hold an interest in for most of my life. I've looked upon it for the most part as some strange outsider or anthropologist viewing a unique ritual of some indigenous tribe. I can and do sometimes enjoy watching individual games, but that's the extent of it. Getting invested in the personalities of the people on the favored team, memorizing this or that set of arbitrary statistics, wearing the garb or paint of the team always seemed odd to me. (disclaimer: I did act as the high school football mascot - or something like that - for one season when I was in high school, but looking back my reasons for doing so were mainly social in nature, not for the love of the game. My behavior in that respect is regrettable in retrospect.) My initial point of departure from the cultural zeitgeist of sport fever is its arbitrary nature: by some accident of the universe I was born near Boston, so I'm supposed to root for the Sox and Celtics and Patriots and Bruins...not because they're particularly superior in away way (especially since their players and rankings change with some frequency), but because of regional allegiances.

While I agree with the thrust of the post, I think comparing zealous fervor and blind loyalty of sporting fans with religious fundamentalism does bring problems (despite its accuracy). First, I don't think you're ever going to get sports fans to think critically about the strange sacrosanct behavior they're engaging in if you provoke them with comparisons to religious fundamentalists. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this human phenomenon of collective, almost inconscient allegiance to region, tribe (or team), colors (or flag), warriors (or athletes), etc. etc. manifest themselves in many ways other than just religion. This same arbitrary allegiance also, perhaps most commonly, can be likened to patriotism, nationalism, and the sort of blind adherence to and faith in ones own nation, or government.

This simple broadening of the diagnosis, if I may call it that, to a widespread human tendency to conform to rituals and conventionality when in groups, reveals a clearer alternative approach to life whether it's religion, sports, politics, or whatever else: arbitrary allegiances are not only without intellectual justification, but they can also be very dangerous (this can be seen from a post-soccer game brawl all the way up to war between nations); only ideas and the merits therein deserve that kind of commitment. Thinking for oneself and avoiding the very strong pressures to conform should also be considered for remedy.

There is also this bit (a Marxist interpretation):

Shaped by the needs of capitalist systems, spectator sports serve vested interests as a type of "cultural anesthesia," a form of "spiritual masturbation," or "opiate" that distracts, diverts, and deflects attention from the pressing social problems and issues of the day [Wann, pp 201-202].

I do wonder at the extensive amount of mental effort, time commitment, and financial designation of sports fans towards sporting events and teams. I think its probably an enormous distraction from much more important issues we all face. What if all that mental effort, time, and money were put towards constructive applications of serious societal issues?

Israel's attack on humanitarians...

Not even the most intense propaganda systems can prettify a lethal military attack on ships carrying civilians and humanitarian aid to people living in some of the most wretched and tragic conditions anywhere in the world.

Read the rest.