Is it all about Economics?

Recently some friends and I have been arguing about whether there are clear economic interests in control of Mr. Bush's folly of a war.

It has often been said that war is an extension of politics, and I would add that politics is an extension of economics, which makes war an extension of economics. See, one plus one is two!

I think human history pretty much speaks for itself in that respect. But war is rogue economics at best as it tends to destroy whatever economic equilibrium there may be which results in outcomes that are much worse than the initial conditions. The people of Iraq are experiencing that nightmare right now. Saddam was evil yet the economy functioned.

To be against war is practically almost always justified. (I have little doubt that the Gulf War in the the early 90's was initiated by the US, not by Saddam, who got suckered into making some ill advised moves). And yes, if there are any right-wingers reading this -- this is not to say that Saddam was a good guy... he did bad things, etc etc...

These days a lot of time, talk, and tension exists around whether criticism of a poorly planned and executed war policy equals attacks on "the troops." To be against armed forces (and their recruitment) is a different matter entirely. The good ol' U.S. of A. is not the only (economic) bully on this planet, and a weakening of American forces would also destroy economic equlibrium yet again, with an outcome worse than the initial conditions, including the follies of wars that we have witnessed in recent memory.

This kind of thinking may be abhorrent to a peace activist, but whatever changes one argues for, one also has to face up to the consequences. This is why I am concerned about the corporate interests that are moving the strings of their political puppets like Mr. Bush behind the scenes.

Corporate actions is serious, because corporations like stability and try to prevent major power global shifts, like say destabilizing a region of the world. But every activity that is taken away from governments, every tax reduction, every bit of privatization and outsourcing, every bit of deregulation, diminishes the control people have over their lives. Corporate control destroys individual autonomy every time.

Corporations operate by their own, intrinsic and often unquestioned logic, not by human values or needs, not even simply greed. Greed is merely to be exploited and is a by-product of corporate actions. By surrendering to the assumed unquestionable corporate rule (say like the activities of Merck or Halliburton) and we are surrendering to machines or machine-like systems that have no souls which do not care about how we "feel" or how clean are food and water systems are.

We should bear in mind that all forms of government have been creations of economic interests that leave the majority of us out in the cold, even our current forms of so-called democracy here in the U.S. and the last vestiges of the welfare state that the right-wing have not deconstructed yet: they were creations of capitalists in defence against supposed dangers like socialism or vast apathy.

I still have trouble getting people to accept that they are not paying taxes in the way that they think. The truth is that the employer is putting money on the paycheck that is channeled to government to provide certain services to business (not to people). It gives the people an illusion of control and autonomy, and a little bit of real control from time to time... but very little. This is the direction in which we are marching at present; corporate and business welfare, fuck the people.

Clearly, business is using the military for its own interests (and a hired army made it easier), but it still does not have full control. By weakening the military, business would create its own solutions and alternatives (again Halliburton comes to mind), over which people have no control whatsoever. I think the ideal conditition of business is a borderless globe, with corporations in running everything. It is a scary thought.