Ceding ground to capitalist ideologues

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Last night I thought about the never-ending debate that the left has been
having with people like Brad DeLong on PEN-L, Thomas Friedman, the Rostow
brothers, et al. If the left is not careful, it can cede ground to the
pro-capitalist camp on one very important question. This has to do with the
acceptability of using some variety of econometrics as a key criterion. For
example, Brad loves to cite statistics that show some kind of improvement
on GDP, life expectancy, etc., in a third world country in order to settle
the question of whether capitalism "works" or not. This is absolutely the
wrong way to discuss these matters, because it implicitly allows the
possibility for more powerful countries to punish weaker countries who
refuse to abide by the "wisdom" of such numbers.

For example, the Rostow brothers decided to use South Vietnam as an
economics "demonstration" of their development ideas against obvious signs
that the population had different ideas. For those Vietnamese who refused
to go along with the game plan, the Phoenix Program--i.e., a bullet to the
head--was the answer. This, by the way, has nothing to do with leftist
"authoritarian" schemas. A country can democratically elect governments
that opt for socialist measures, but will still get the bullet to the head.
As Kissinger said, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country
go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." And it
really doesn't matter whether a liberal or a conservative is in the White
House. Both parties feel free to kill or maim those peoples who choose
taboo development paths. If the Serbs decide to stick with their corrupt
and inefficient Titoist economy, they must be punished. Big daddy Bill
Clinton knows better.

Implicit in Brad's defense of US warmaking initiatives on behalf of a
"superior" free market economy is a kind of paternalism that is deeply
ingrained in the American psyche. It goes back to the Monroe Doctrine in
many ways. It used to be put forward in a much more naked fashion. At one
time it was fitting and proper for politicians like Albert Beveridge, who
was US Senator from Indiana to make speeches like this one from his 1898
campaign ("The March of the Flag"):

"The commercial supremacy of the Republic means that this Nation is to be
the sovereign factor in the peace of the world. For the conflicts of the
future are to be conflicts of trade-struggles for markets--commercial wars
for existence. And the golden rule of peace is impregnability of position
and invincibility of preparedness. So, we see England, the greatest
strategist of history, plant her flag and her cannon on Gibraltar, at
Quebec, in the Bermudas, at Vancouver, everywhere."

Nothing has changed since the days of Beveridge except the rhetoric.
Nowadays the same desire to impose US economic mandates is couched in terms
of "humanitarian interventions", while from 1917 to 1990 it was about a
fight for "democracy" against "Communist totalitarianism".

Let me tell you what this really is about. It is really a very sick form of
paternalism that characterizes the American empire as much as the swastika
characterized the fitful Third Reich. In effect American imperialism sees
itself as some kind of benign but disciplining father, with wayward
teenagers who have to be shown the correct way. "Jennie, no you can't have
a tattoo." "Why not, daddy?" "Because when you are older and more mature,
you will realize that tattoos make you look like a low-life and will get in
the way of a good job. Also, as long as I pay for your meals and give you
an allowance, what I say goes." "Well, what if I get one without your
permission?" "If you do, I will ground you. You will not be able to use the
car for a full year."

The same relationship is implied in Brad's defense of imperialism's right
to shove its economic policies down the throat of wayward nations. "Chile,
you can not nationalize the copper industry." "Why not, daddy?" "Because
economic statistics prove that a free market in mineral resources is better
in the long run." "But what if we decide to go ahead and nationalize them
anyhow?" "If you do, I will engineer a coup that will result in the murder
of your democratically elected president and throw the country into
economic ruin for 15 years."


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)