[Peace-discuss] flyer

[C. G. Estabrook]

The flyer was written specifically for this year's 4th of July parade, 
with its theme of "America salutes Free Enterprise."  The problem was to 
talk about the war(s) in relation to that theme.  It seemed to me that 
there were two ways to go about it, in a comment that reasonably could 
be no longer than a newspaper column.

The first was simply to reject the notion of "free enterprise" as a 
propaganda cover for America's business regime, which it clearly is. 
John Dewey, the 20th century American social philosopher, whose main 
work was on democracy, said long ago that politics will continue to be 
"the shadow cast on society by big business" until there is democratic 
control of the primary economic institutions.

The second way was to talk about why the phrase "free enterprise" was 
attractive and what it really meant.  I tried to do that.

On "crony capitalism," it's difficult to imagine, once a corporate 
economy is in place, the directors of that economy not trying to 
influence the government.  Jefferson late in life worried about the rise 
of a "single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on 
banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations." After the Civil War, 
such a thing came about in the age of the Robber Barons (the reason that 
the US in contrast to Europe has such a bloody labor history), but it 
became substantially worse after the Great Depression, when 
industrialized states began to regulate business directly (a common 
element in Fascism, Stalinism and the New Deal).  The Second World War 
vastly accelerated the process: Samuel Huntington (professor of the 
"science of government" at Harvard) wrote, "Truman [was] able to govern 
the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall 
Street lawyers and bankers."

Thus "crony capitalism" is inevitable, absent the democratic control 
Dewey spoke of.  Adam Smith saw that at the dawn of the capitalist era: 
he wrote (in The Wealth of Nations, 1776) that the "principal 
architects" of policy were "merchants and manufacturers," who saw to it 
that their interests were "most peculiarly attended to."

On "democratic control of corporations," defenders of the corporate 
economy, following Milton Friedman, argue that corporations are brought 
under democratic control when "shareholder democracy" is established -- 
i.e., corporations are controlled by their immediate beneficiaries.  But 
that is just another example of one dollar/one vote.  True democratic 
control of corporations must come from outside, as it were -- one 
person/one vote -- when the polity as a whole makes economic decisions 
(e.g., single-payer health care) rather than corporate executives.

The penultimate paragraph points out the connection between "free 
enterprise" (= the corporate economy) and the war in Iraq.  And it has 
(in Henry Kissinger's phrase) "the equal, added advantage of being true" 
-- as is recognized not just by Chomsky but by noted radicals like 
Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.  It's 
worthwhile to point out, against all the administration's lies, what the 
war is really about.  And it's the paleoconservatives/libertarians 
who've been clearest about the point.  Chronicles, the American 
Conservative, Buchanan, Raimondo, Ron Paul, and others have opposed what 
they have called imperialist war in the Middle East precisely because it 
was destroying what they call the Old Republic.

Finally, the phrase "military-industrial complex" refers at best to only 
part, if an important part, of the corporate economy  that is the source 
of the war (e.g., do the oil majors belong?).  Remember that 
Eisenhower's speech-writer had originally written 
"military-industrial-congressional complex," but that cut too close to 
the bone.

By taking the parade's theme and showing its connection to the war, we 
are precisely not letting someone else control the debate.

--CGE

Bob Illyes wrote:
> I find most of the flyer's text to be well put and accurate, although
> I'm a bit unsure that the extended discussion of free enterprise is
> something that AWARE wants to weigh in on. I'm willing to go with this,
> but wonder if there are any contrary opinions. I was going to go
> over this at the meeting last night, but not enough folks had read the
> flyer.
> 
> I would go further regarding corporations. The problem is not just
> corporations, it is that the corporate insiders are the same people
> as the government, i.e., that we have crony capitalism. This is the
> worst possible sort of economy. Free enterprise has its good points
> and its bad. So does socialism, although they are different good and
> bad points. But crony capitalism has no good points, except for the
> insiders, who view themselves as a sort of Calvinist Elect.
> 
> In the last paragraph, "free enterprise and peace are impossible until
> the corporate economy is brought under democratic control," I would
> replace "corporate economy is" with "corporations are." It is too
> easy to misread this as bringing the economy under democratic control,
> a misreading which would alienate antiwar folks in the libertarian right.
> I think a coalition with these folks is critical to getting us out of
> the Middle East.
> 
> The next to last paragraph is the most problematic, because it is
> pretty much the Chomsky analysis. Chomsky has considerable merit,
> in my opinion, but tying AWARE to him or his analysis will
> completely alienate the libertarian right and turn off most people
> in general. I heard someone joke that when you had Chomsky in to
> speak, he made people so depressed that you needed to have in Zinn
> to cheer them up.
> 
> I'd be inclined to strike the speculation about why the unholy alliance
> of government and capitalists are doing what they're doing regarding
> oil, and to start this paragraph with a quote of Eisenhower's warning
> about the "military-industrial complex." The utter corruption that this
> complex leads to is not palatable to the vast majority of the American
> people, and if they are ever made fully aware of that corruption they
> will throw the rascals out.
> 
> But what do other folks think? Do we want to take the hook and talk
> about the parade's theme, letting someone else control the debate,
> or do we want to have something more directly about war?
> 
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss