Universal interventionism

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not sure whether the UN plan published a couple of months ago for 
a much more interventionist role, got discussed on this list and I 
missed it. However it came soon after Tony Blair had spoken more 
frankly than ever before about interventionism, without any repentance 
for the intervention with the US in Iraq. I suggest that the tide of 
politics and economics is strongly in the direction of 
interventionism, and the conflict is more about HOW it is done, than 
whether it is done. EG Europe (including in this case Britain) thinks 
it has a cleverer strategy towards Iran than the US (but also takes 
advantage of the fact that the US has shown its willingness to 
intervene next door in Iraq).

The marxist approach of assuming that history is fundamentally 
influenced by factors that may not always be conscious in the minds of 
the principal actors, but represent an aggregate of unconscious or 
unarticulated pressures, seems to be less and less controversial, and 
more a part of mainstream analysis whether it is economic, political 
or social. In this sense the marxist perspectives of historical 
materialism, that in the last instance (judgement) the economic 
factors determine, remains a powerful explanatory model, even if it 
has to be interpreted in a probabilistic rather than a rigidly 
deterministic way.

In that sense, it remains powerfully explanatory that in an era of 
globalised finance capitalism, the social, economic and political 
momentum is towards a globalised economic, and yes, ultimately a 
globalised political system.

Typically, the US is having arrogant arguments with the UN again over 
the response to the tsunami. But the inevitable effects of the modes 
of production and reproduction against which we live our lives, are 
contributing to a momentum independent of the will of any of the 
actors, however great. The technology of global communications are 
ensuring a consciousness in the citizens of the developed west of the 
experience of being an orphan on the shores of an island on the other 
side of the world, that has a Muslim rebellion going on, and a few 
years ago had a serious financial crisis which fortunately did not 
affect "us". The images are relentless, and role like repeated 
afterwaves over our consciousness.

The public, or at least the television viewing public in the UK, used 
to jokey charity appeals, have already contributed £45 million. The UK 
government has contributed £50m and was proud to say it was the 
largest donor, until yesterday the US decided sending its armed forces 
was not enough and it had to pledge sums equivalent to £300 million.

The west is suddenly taxing itself with a voluntary levy, because it 
cannot divide its concerns for its teenage children, who enjoy cheap 
holidays on the beaches of Thailand, from the fishers of Sumatra, 
forgetting that the stage of late financial capitalism is one in which 
there is up to a 30 fold difference in the price of labour power in 
different parts of the globe.

This has the potential if organised rationally (and how could one 
refuse to be rational about the problems of stabilising up to 12 
countries where cholera may break out) of leading to a systematic 
international organisation of charity.

Capitalism has never been opposed to charity. Indeed it may be one of 
the most stabilising factors in its continuation. But when you look at 
the scale of the disaster, it requires the highest level of socialised 
organisation of relief and recovery.

The more finance capitalism socialises the means of production 
globally the more it prepares the ground for their direct socialised 
management.

One of the ironies of history, may be that while the US struggles to 
extricate itself from Iraq, its best chance of minimising Muslim 
anti-capitalist terrorism is by its relief efforts to the Muslim 
populations in Sumatra, and any good will that may accrue to it there. 
Despite its arrogant criticisms of the UN, by a process of argument 
and equilibration it may have to come to reconceive itself as a benign 
imperialism, defending a commonwealth but one in which the ultimate 
authority is a globalised Empire itself  and in which global 
capitalism demands technical and managerial efficiency of all aspects 
of production and reproduction.

Sorry to allow the date to encourage me to be portentous, but I was 
picking up on the comparisons Gernot makes in the magnitude of events, 
and trying to relate them to a world scenario that seems to be 
developing faster and faster with one global wave following another.

Trying to influence this process and enhance what is positive in the 
response of ordinary people, will require much politically committed 
activity on a world scale to ensure it does not end up by 
consolidating global capitalism, rather than making it more vulnerable 
and more accountable to the demands of the masses, collectively and as 
individuals.

IMHO

Chris Burford
London


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "g kohler" <gko15@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 10:05 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] Richter 9


> A quantitative comparison of the destruction resulting from the 
> tsunami of
> 26dec2004 and the recent U.S. conquest of Iraq indicates a similar 
> magnitude
> of fatalities (in excess of 100,000). The earthquake was 9 on the 
> Richter
> scale. The conquest was 5 on the Richardson scale of deadly quarrels 
> (see,
> Richardson, Statistics of deadly quarrels, published around 1960. 
> The 5
> refers to 10 power 5 = 100,000 in Richardson's scale). In both cases 
> most of
> the victims were/are innocent. A difference is that the tsunami had 
> no
> economic motives. Another difference is that one was in pursuit of 
> an unjust
> cause with trumped-up accusations, the other had only natural 
> causes.
> Another difference is that in one of the cases the people around the 
> world
> are not afraid to follow their impulse for international solidarity 
> with the
> victims.
> Gernot Kohler