Re: Dominant Capital & The New Wars

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2003-06-02 17:02 -0400, you wrote:
> [Image]
>
> http://www.arts.yorku.ca/politics/nitzan/bnarchives/mimeographs/pdf/Dominant_Capital_the_New_Wars_03_5_28.pdf
>
>
>
> Enclosed is a link to our new article, Dominant Capital and the New
> Wars, presented at a Conference on Global Regulation at the
> University
> of Sussex. We would be glad to hear your comments (nitzan@xxxxxxxx;
> shim100@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) and please feel free to forward the link to
> others. For more on capital accumulation and the global political
> economy, visit our website at The Bichler & Nitzan Archives
> (http://www.bnarchives.net).


With the speed of the internet, it is difficult to do justice to a long
work, into which a lot of thought has gone. (also for some reason I could
not get the links to work either on this posting by Jonathan Nitzen or
the previous one at least directly from the web. The email link did work
though)

Nevertheless my impression is this is a serious and valuable work
relevant to the most important issues currently.

I cannot comment on exactly where it is located in the constellation of
serious left wing academic writings on these issues. Hopefully more
informed readers will jump in about what issues are controversial buried
within the courtesies of academic prose. But others presumably will be
reading and communicating off list. I venture these comments because it
gives the wrong impression if a serious contribution is received in total
silence.

 From a speed read near the beginning:

> Naturally, the
> rhetoric quickly changed. During the global-village days of the 1990s, it
> was fashionable to weigh the pros and cons of ?globalization.? But now,
> with open borders giving way to talk about terrorism and war, the debate
> centres on the merits and shortcomings of
> ?imperialism.?


And the concluding paragraph:-

> Finally, so far the new wars and rising oil
> prices have managed to keep inflation from turning into deflation (Figure
> 10). But the danger of deflation remains. And it is on this issue that
> the fate of the Bush Administration, the Weapondollar-Petrodollar
> Coalition, and the nature of differential accumulation more broadly,
> hinges. Many big capitalists, whose instincts remain Keynesian, believe
> that the new wars will be expansionary and that expansion is
> inflationary. ?Keynesian theory might be old,? explain the analysts of
> Stratfor Fore-casting to their clients, ?but it does teach us a basic
> truth, which is that the cure for deflation is economic stimulation
> through government spending. . . . So anyone who was concerned about
> deflation should be relieved that the Bush administration has adopted
> Keynes? (Anonymous 2003). Of course, since inflation tends to appear as
> stagflation, the Keynesian hopefuls likely will be puzzled to see prices
> start rising in the midst of recession. But as long as inflation does
> rise and pricing power is restored, they will be happy to keep ?silent on
> the war.? However, if the new wars fail to deliver ? fail because the
> conflicts aren?t suffi- ciently ?intense,? because the hostilities don?t
> create enough ?scarcity? in the oil market, or because inflation does not
> ?respond? to higher oil prices ? the opposition is sure to become much
> more vocal. Dominant capital doesn?t like being screwed by its own
> government, and unlike the rest of us, usually it can do something about
> it.


Perhaps Jonathan Nitzen could whet our appetite by saying what
sort of source Mr Anonymous 2003 is?

Chris Burford
London