October 21, 2008

the market paradigm

and

the destruction of life

THE TABOO NATURE OF ONE’S OWN SOCIAL ORDER

The Imprisonment of social Consciousness: It comes as a surprise to most in the Western world that, during the 20^th Century, it was about as dangerous to live under non-communist as under communist rule. The number of political deaths was somewhat more than 90 million on each side of the political divide – totaling, for the world as a whole, 188 million deaths. Although we are aware that the 20^th Century has come to be known as the Century of Massacres, we have blocked out our side of the massacres, and then repressed the bias itself. Two rules operate, one against the recognition of the monstrosities of one’s own social system, the other against the recognition that there is such a rule (p. 1. White 2001-2005, p. 3, summarized in Hall 2008d, p. 3).

People, including academicians, point out sharply the faults in other social orders. They are conditioned, however, not to expose the social order of their own society – which has generally favored them and permitted them success. The way one’ s own society is organized seems “normal.” The other societies seem at a minimum abnormal, and, if opposed to the home one, designated as enemies. The bias is as old as civilization itself.

Criticizing one’s own social order is, in fact, very risky. Traditionally, for example, the question (in any of its variations) as to what the exact relationship is between the powers of the State and God’s Will, has been such a dangerous question. It exposes assumptions which the hierarchy of state-invested interests prefers to leave untouched. Disturbers of the prevailing social order are silenced, often accused of treason.

The persistent structures of class (caste), conquest, sexism, blind obedience to superiors, intolerance of alternatives, paternal absolutism, disabling punishment, material inequality, degradation of other forms of life, and other violently repressive social customs, continue even at the present time, and, in a different guise, are often accepted as a “free” way of life.

The social relations within which one lives seem organized according to the moral order of the universe – the sanctified expression of the Absolute. To question them is blasphemy (pp. 1-6).

The ancient West: In the West, pre-Socrates philosophers restrict themselves to speculations about natural phenomena, consigning social custom and role to the Fates (Moerae, the three goddesses of Greek mythology who controlled human lives – Clotho who spun the web of life, Lachesis who measured its length, and Atropos who cut it). The transgression of one’s assigned lot in the established order of social relations is considered the root of all tragedy (not only tragedy befalling that person).

Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399 B.C.E.) initiates the tradition of critical thought in the West. Socrates’ lasting significance is that he raises any question at all about the nature of social relations. He is sufficiently skeptical, impious and irreverent toward the Athenian social order, to be executed. Yet, even Socrates does not question slavery (from which he benefits), nor aggressive war and imperialism on which this slavery is based. He also accepts without question the laws by which he is condemned.

The sophists, originally itinerant teachers in Greece, who co-exist and follow Socrates, question only within the framework of deference to power.

In The Republic, Plato (427?-347 B.C.E.), pupil and friend of Socrates, discusses the equality of women, but in general, does not emphasize social politics, and does not question other established social organizations, such as slavery, Greek hegemony, and competition for victory spoils. His use of the cave is a safeguard lest his statements be too inflammatory.

Rare criticism of the more invasive forms of social life persists, however – and is dismissed out of hand. Diogenes the Cynic (412-323 B.C.E.) expresses his contempt for social convention by living in a tub, throwing away his last utensil (a cup), and undertaking a daylight quest, with a lantern, for an “honest man.” When Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.E.), king of Macedon, and conqueror of most of Asia, asks what he can do for him, Diogenes responds, “Only step out of my sunlight.” Diogenes is not persecuted, perhaps because his actions can be taken in jest – “Socrates run mad,” as Plato describes. The term cynic, however, meaning one who rejects social convention, would be debased to an accepted term of abuse – an example of the customarily disparaging labels attached to challengers of the status quo.

Pupil of Plato, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.), and his successors essentially ignore the socio-political framework of The Republic.

The Stoics, whose school of philosophy was founded by Zeno of Citium (c.334-c.262 B.C.E.), abdicate from Cynic iconoclasm, and submit to the social given as Natural Law. Adherents would later include philosopher Seneca (c.3 B.C.E.-65 C.E.) and Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 C.E.). Stoicism would become one of the most enduring establishment philosophies in history.

The ancient East: In the ancient East, criticism of the social order is even less explicit than in ancient Athens. Any criticism of the regime is hidden in code, concealed behind the protective face of paradox, symbol and cipher. The most profound criticisms are maintained on either a personal or a metaphysical level – in either case, the alternative sense providing deniability and thus a shield from official attention.

China: The sayings attributed to Confucius (c.551-479? B.C.E.) form part of the origin of Confucianism, the moral and religious system of China. In its early form (until 250 B.C.E.), Confucianism is primarily a system of ethical precepts for the proper management of society, based on the Five Relations of Subordination – sovereign and subject, parent and child, elder and younger brother, husband and wife, and friend and friend. These relations are to function smoothly through an exact adherence to Li, a combination of etiquette and ritual.

After Confucius, any philosophical work not featuring the Five Relations as its cornerstone given, is inexorably condemned as a threat to society, whether the threat is one of omission, as in Buddhism or implicit challenge, as with Mo Tzu (c.470-391 B.C.E.).

Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu (c.550 B.C.E.) initiates the tradition of critical thought in the East. His Tao-te-Ching, brilliantly dismantles warlord-ism, human chauvinism, and the Confucian orthodoxies.

Some of Lao Tzu’s criticisms of the social status quo are fairly direct, such as, for example:

* On the Status quo:

“The more taboos and prohibitions there are in the world,

The poorer the people will be.”

* On Inequality:

“The courts are exceedingly splendid,

While the fields are exceedingly weedy;

Elegant clothes are worn,

Sharp weapons are carried,

Foods and drinks are enjoyed beyond limit,

And wealth and treasures are accumulated in excess.

This is robbery and extravagance.

This is indeed not Tao.”

* On War:

“For a victory, let us observe the occasion with funeral ceremonies.”

Buddhism, the religion founded in India by Siddhartha Gautama (563-483 B.C.E.), is inexorably condemned in China, for its omission of the Five Relations.

Mo Tzu (c.470-391 B.C.E.) poses an implicit challenge to Confucianism, by preaching “universal love without distinctions,” and emphasizing self-reflection and authenticity rather than obedience to ritual.

Chuang Tzu (c.369-c.286 B.C.E.), expounding transcendentalism, empties even the Taoism of Lao Tzu of its anti-Confucian and antinomian (rejection of the socially established morality) content.

Taoism is eventually assimilated into Neo-Confucianism, in which the doctrines of filial piety and the Five Relations are re-established (on the basis of Lao Tzu’s metaphysical universal harmony).

India: Hinduism originates in India c.1,500 B.C.E., with the conquest by the Aryans. The Sanskrit poem, the Bhagavad-Gita, one of the greatest religious classics of Hinduism, would eventually be incorporated in the Mahabharata, the classical Sanskrit epic of India, composed between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E.

The Bhagavad-Gita is never direct in its social criticisms. Lord Krishna’s dialogical transcendence of the values which drive caste maintenance and competition for reward, is a classic example of covert social philosophy.

On a personal level, the Bhagavad-Gita teaches karma-yoga, the yoga of selfless action performed with inner detachment from its results. On this personal level, its criticism of self-seeking behavior is explicit:

“To action alone hast thou a right, and never at all to its fruit.”

The proponents of the Carvaka (c.550 B.C.E.), an ancient Indian materialist, atheist, anti-caste, anti-priesthood, and pro-enjoyment doctrine, are burned alive and hunted to virtual extinction.

(Pp. 1-5, 160 and 260-261. Wikipedia “Mo Tzu” 2008, p. 2. Wikipedia “Carvaka” 2008, pp. 1-4. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Judeo-Christian Thought: Judeo-Christian thought demonstrates a similar pattern. Those Prophets of Israel who repudiate the exploitation of the needy by the wealthy and powerful, are threatened by the authorities, and deprived of their security. The class analysis originated by these prophets, is seldom noted officially.

Amos (c.760 B.C.E.): Amos preaches at a time when Israel is at the peak of its political power. The country is ridden with social injustices. Much of Amos’s teaching is against the oppression of the poor, with the message that worship of God necessarily entails protection of the poor and the weak. Not even God’s people can hope to escape the wrath of God, if the social responsibilities that go with election, are neglected. Amos is ordered to cease his preaching.

“Thus said the Lord, . . . ‘They stomp the heads of the poor into the dust. They turn aside the way of the meek, and father and son sleep with the same woman. They dishonor my holy name’” (Holy Bible, Old Testament, Amos 2:6-7).

“Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, saying,

‘When will the New Moon Festival be over, that we may sell grain; and when will the Sabbath end, that we may market wheat, skimping the measure, boosting the price, and cheating with dishonest scales. We can buy the poor with money, and the needy for a pair of sandals. We can sell the husks mixed with the wheat.’”

“The Lord has sworn by the Excellency of Jacob:

‘I will never forget any of their deeds. The land will tremble because of this. Everyone who lives in it will mourn. The entire land will rise like the Nile, be tossed about, and then sink like Egypt’s river’” (Holy Bible, Old Testament, Amos 8: 4-8).

Isaiah (c.742 B.C.E.): Isaiah indicts the people of God for perpetrating social injustice:

“‘What do you mean by crushing my people and treading upon the faces of the poor?’ says the Lord” (Holy Bible, Old Testament, Isaiah 3:15).

Jeremiah (preached c.628-586 B.C.E.): Jeremiah indicts his contemporaries for social injustice. For his insistence on speaking unpalatable truths, he is imprisoned and put in the stocks. A series of laments interspersed throughout the Book of Jeremiah reveals the personal cost of Jeremiah’s ministry of confrontation.

“Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit. That is why they have become rich and powerful. They are big and fat. They excel in deeds of wickedness. They have no respect for the rights of others. They do not plead the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper. They do not defend the rights of the poor. ‘Shall I not punish these people?’ declares the Lord, ‘On a nation such as this, shall I not avenge myself?’”(Holy Bible, Old Testament, Jeremiah 5:27-29).

Habakkuk (c.600 B.C.E.): Habakkuk preaches at a time when Judah is under threat from Babylonia. He indicts the arrogant and rapacious, and asks God why He remains silent as the wicked prosper.

“Won’t all ridicule him and mock him, saying,

‘Woe to him who makes himself wealthy on loans. How long will his go on?’”

“Won’t your creditors suddenly rise up, and those who collect from you awaken? You will become their prize” (Holy Bible, Old Testament, Habakkuk 2:6-7).

Ezekiel (preached 593-563 B.C.E.): Ezekiel preaches in Babylonia where, in 598, B.C.E., he was deported from Jerusalem.

“The Lord says, . . . ‘Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom – she and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness, and she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty . . .’” (Holy Bible, Old Testament, Ezekiel 16:48-50).

Malachi (c.460 B.C.E.): The Book of Malachi is written to correct the lax religious and social behavior of the Israelites in post-exile Jerusalem.

“‘I will come to judge you. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers lying witnesses, and those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, and oppress widows and orphans. I will also testify against those who deprive foreigners of their rights, and those who do not fear me,’ says the Lord” (Holy Bible, Old Testament, Malachi 3:5).

Yeshua (0-32 B.C.E.): Jesus is executed for his antinomian (rejection of a socially established morality) criticism, and radical break with every vested interest of the day. The method of his execution, the cross, is reserved for political criminals. If Jesus’ crime had been religious and against Jewish law, he would have been stoned for blasphemy. The execution of Jesus as a political criminal is generally concealed because it is detrimental for social rule, which prefers to portray him as a religious apostate (defector of the religious faith) from colonized Jewry rather than a rebel against the Empire and Roman Law (Holy Bible, New Testament, Yeshua).

(Pp. 5 and 261. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. Multiple Internet sources).

The early Christians: Saint Paul (d. 65? C.E.), apostle to the Gentiles and a fountainhead of Christian doctrine, is clear about the duty of unqualified subjection to all relations of established social power:

“Let every man be subject to the powers that be” (Holy Bible, New Testament, Romans 13:1).

“The State is there to serve God for your benefit” (Holy Bible, New Testament, Romans 13:4).

“Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord (Holy Bible, New Testament, Ephesians 5:23).

“Slaves, be obedient to the men who are called your masters” (Holy Bible, New Testament, Ephesians 6:5).

“For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority of every social institution (Holy Bible, New Testament, I Peter 2:13).

Within such a sanctified framework of unquestioning obedience to the established order, Church intellectuals, to whom Paul is an unimpeachable authority, would remain silent about social structure (pp. 6 and 261-262).

The Middle Ages: The Middle (Dark) Ages mark a long silence in social thought, a period in which social reflection is confined to speculative moral theology, as sanctioned by Church authority. Given social relations are either kept out of the discussion altogether, as an unspoken taboo, or they are accorded mere apologetic and justification. Not once in a millennium of philosophy, does rational challenge to a significant form of the ruling social order occur – whether slavery, serf bondage, hierarchical command, sovereign absolutism, capital punishment, the killing of heretics, trial by battle, rule by military lords, economic inequality, living off the work of others, sexist relations, or the beating of children. The institutional fabric of society is apotheosized as the Will of God, God’s appointed social forms. Any criticism is a blasphemy, punishable by ostracism or the fire.

As Churchmen and theologians, the era’s great thinkers, Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus and Occam, are bound, by the premises of the institution for which they work, to unquestioning conformity with the social status quo. None of them criticize the established social framework. Even so, they push the envelope of the acceptable, and of the four, three are the target of censure.

Saint Augustine (354-430), one of the founders of Western theology, has an influence of Christianity second only to that of Paul.

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Italian philosopher and theologian, in his early years, is imprisoned for two years by his family for joining the socially conscious Dominican Order (founded by Saint Dominic in 1216).

John Duns Scotus (c.1266-1308), Scottish scholastic philosopher, is banished from France for refusing to take the side of King Philip IV (the Fair, 1268-1314) in a dispute over Church taxation.

William of Occam (Ockham, c.1285-c.1349), English scholastic philosopher, originator of the principle of parsimony (“Occam’s razor”), is excommunicated by Pope John XXII (pope 1316-1334), for his scholarly support of the legitimacy of apostolic poverty.

(Pp. 5-7 and 261-262).

The Enlightenment:

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): English philosopher Thomas Hobbes enunciates his political philosophy in the Leviathan (1651). Arguing from a mechanistic perspective, Hobbes sees life as simply the motions of the organism. Man is by nature a selfishly individualistic animal at constant war with all other men. In a state of nature, equal in their self-seeking, men live out lives which are “nasty, brutish, and short.” The principal motive which causes them to create a state, is fear of violent death. They contract to surrender their natural rights and submit to the absolute authority of a sovereign. The power of the sovereign is absolute and not subject to the law. A monarchy is the most efficient form of sovereignty.

Hobbes’ views bring him into disfavor with the parliamentarians. He moves to France in 1640, where again his views arouse antagonism, this time from the Church and the English Group. He returns to England in 1651.

Hobbes’ social and political views remain consistently within obedient deference to the ascendant powers of his place and time. Hobbes does not question the ruling paradigm that societies should be governed autocratically (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. See the present document under “The taboo Nature of One’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment,” “Benedict Spinoza”).

Rene Descartes (1596-1650): French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist, Rene Descartes would be a major influence in the transition from medieval to modern philosophy and science. In 1628, Descartes moves to Holland. In 1649, he moves to Sweden, and dies shortly thereafter.

In philosophy, Descartes discards the authoritarian system of the scholastics. (In scholasticism, the philosophy and theology of Western Christendom in the Middle Ages, faith and reason are conjoined, and reason is used to deepen the understanding of what is believed in matters of faith, ultimately to give faith a rational content).

Descartes begins with universal doubt. One thing cannot be doubted – doubt itself. Therefore, Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am).

Descartes offers proof for the existence of God. God would not deceive the thinking mind by perceptions which are illusions. Therefore, the external world, which we perceive, must exist. What we perceive clearly and distinctly, must, therefore, be true.

Descartes views the physical world as mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind, the only connection between the two, achieved through the intervention of God.

In physical theory, Descartes’ doctrines are formulated as a compromise between his devotion to Roman Catholicism, and his commitment to the scientific method, which is meeting Church opposition.

Descartes does not question the established social relations of the society in which he lives (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

John Locke (1632-1704): John Locke, English philosopher, and founder of English empiricism, represents the Enlightenment in his belief in the right to property and his faith in science.

In philosophy, Locke focuses on the nature of the human mind and the process by which it knows the world. Repudiating the traditional doctrine of innate ideas, Locke considers the mind to be born blank, a tabula rasa, upon which the world describes itself through the experience of the five senses. Knowledge arising from sensation is perfected by reflection, thus enabling humans to arrive at such ideas as space, time, and infinity.

Locke distinguishes the qualities of things which are primary, such as solidity, extension, and number, from secondary qualities, such as color and sound. The latter qualities are produced by the impact of the world on the sense organs. Behind this curtain of sensation, the world itself is colorless and silent. Science is possible because the primary world affects the sense organs mechanically, thus producing ideas which faithfully represent reality.

Locke’s life spans the rule of England by King Charles I (1600-1649, king 1625-1649); the Rump Parliament (1649-1653); Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658, Lord Protector 1653-1658); Richard Cromwell (1626-1712, Lord Protector 1658-1660); King Charles II (1630-1685, king 1660-1685); King James II (1633-1701, king 1685-1688); after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, William III (1650-1702, king 1689-1702) and Mary II (1662-1694, queen 1689-1694); and Anne 1665-1714, queen 1702-1714).

Atypically for a philosopher, Locke writes on politics. However, his views are a defense of property-holders, not the poor.

Locke argues in favor of private property on the basis that each person has a right to the product of his or her own labor. Even this view, as far as it goes, makes the government suspect him of being a radical, and he moves to Holland (1683-1689), returning only after the Glorious Revolution (1688) has brought a clear takeover of the government by the bourgeois property-holders. His Two treatises on civil government (1690) are then published. They contain a justification of the Glorious Revolution, and Locke would henceforth stand as the prime philosophical defender of property holders.

Locke’s arguments in favor of governmental checks and balances, would be adopted by the writers of the Constitution of the United States.

Although concerned about the rights of property holders, Locke does not question the established social relations of the society in which he lives (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. See the present document under “The taboo Nature of One’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment,” under “George Berkeley” and under “David Hume”).

John Locke and private Property: Locke’s Second treatise on government (1690) is the source of Adam Smith’s view of private property, as expressed in An In inquiry into the nature and understanding of the wealth of nations (1776). The contraction in meaning of the word “freedom” from one implying a universal benefit for the people, to one implying – as neo-classical economics (Friedrich von Hayek, 1899-1992) would understand it – freedom for only those who have money, begins with Locke.

In Locke’s work, the ground of private property entitlement shifts imperceptibly from labor and use, to money. With money having no limit as to how much one can possess, the conditions of social responsibility which Locke had placed on real property, evaporate. He finds that it is no longer necessary to:

* “Mix one’s labor [with what is] appropriated from nature.”

* “[Always leave] enough and good in common for others [to do likewise],”

* “[Not allow it] to spoil.”

If one person is a millionaire and the other works 12 hours a day, trying to survive and feed his family, a principle of freedom which does not have any qualifications as to the circumstances in which “freedom” occurs, is misleading. The life condition of the second person make him un-free compared to the first.

(Locke 1690, Sections 26, 27 and 31) (pp. 46 and 265. McMurtry 2002, pp. 65-70, 72 and 237, summarized in Hall 2008a, p. 16. See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market’”).

John Locke and the “Security State”: John Locke realizes that in order to maintain the distribution of power within society, those with power need help. This help comes from the state:

“The purpose of the state is to defend those who have property from those who do not” (Quote in Parenti 1993).

Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza (1632-1677): Benedict Spinoza, Dutch philosopher, belongs to the community of Jews in Holland who have fled Spain and Portugal during the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834). Spinoza’s independence of thought leads to his excommunication from the Jewish group, in 1656. He then changes his name from the Hebrew, Baruch, to the Latin form, Benedict.

Spinoza’s political philosophy is based on assumptions similar to those of Thomas Hobbes. The social contract is one where right derives from power, and the contract binds only as long as it is to one’s advantage. Spinoza differs from Hobbes, however, in his understanding of the goal of the system. Whereas for Hobbes, advantage lies in satisfying as many desires as possible, for Spinoza advantage lies in an escape from those desires through understanding. Whereas Hobbes cannot imagine a community of individuals whose desires can be satisfied consistently, and concludes, therefore, that repression is always necessary, Spinoza can imagine such a community and such consistent satisfaction. Repression, therefore, is not necessary, provided people have freedom, especially freedom of inquiry.

Spinoza does not challenge the established social relations of the society in which he lives (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. See the present document under “The taboo Nature of One’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment,” “Thomas Hobbes”).

Gottfried Leibnitz (1646-1716): German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibnitz is the founder of symbolic logic, and the first to invent infinitesimal calculus (in 1684, three years before Isaac Newton). He is, at the same time, engaged in many practical political projects, such as persuading King Louis XIV of France (1638-1715, king 1643-1715) to attack Egypt, thereby diverting his attention from Germany. Leibnitz lives in Paris from 1672 to 1676. In 1676, he enters the employment of the Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg (later Elector of Hanover) as privy councilor, librarian, and historian. In 1700, Leibnitz becomes the first president of a scientific academy in Berlin, which he has persuaded the Elector of Brandenburg (later king of Prussia) to establish.

Leibnitz’s philosophy is consistent rationalism. He focuses on metaphysics. The universe is the result of a divine plan. It forms one context in which each occurrence is in relation to every other. Evil is a necessary ingredient, even in this, the best of all possible worlds. The ultimate constituents of the universe are monads, simple substances, each of which represents the universe from a different point of view. The interaction of monads is due to the principle of pre-established harmony. Following the principle of continuity (“nature makes no leaps”), the monads are arranged in an infinitely ascending scale, based on the distinctness with which each represents the universe. All monads have perception (consciousness), but only rational monads have apperception (self-consciousness).

Leibnitz does not challenge the established social relations of the society in which he lives (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

George Berkeley (1685-1753): Anglo-Irish philosopher and clergyman George Berkeley, is engaged in practical projects, some of them at considerable personal sacrifice. He organizes, for example, a movement to establish a college in the Bermudas in order to convert the indigenous peoples. In 1728, he travels to Rhode Island to wait for promised support. The support does not come, and Berkeley returns to England three years later. In 1734, Berkeley is made bishop of Cloyne.

Berkeley’ subjective idealism goes beyond that of Locke. Whereas Locke argued that primary qualities of matter, such as extension and weight, have an existence independent of the mind, and only secondary qualities, such as color and taste, arise exclusively in the mind, Berkeley holds that both type of qualities are known only in the mind. There is, therefore, no existence of matter independent of perception. The observing mind of God makes possible the continued apparent existence of material objects.

Selves and God make up the universe.

Berkeley does not challenge the established social order of the society in which he lives (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. See the present document under “The taboo Nature of One’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment,” under “John Locke” and under “David Hume”).

David Hume (1711-1776): In 1763, Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, goes to Paris as secretary to the British Embassy, and becomes friends with Jean Jacques Rousseau, to whom he would later give refuge in England.

In philosophy, Hume presses the analysis of John Locke and George Berkeley to the logical extreme of skepticism. Hume sees no more reason for hypothesizing a substantial mind (soul), than for accepting a substantial material world. He finds nothing in mind but a bundle of perceptions. Causal relation derives solely from the customary conjunction of two impressions. The apparent sequence of events in the external world, is, in fact, the sequence of perceptions in the mind. From this, Hume argues that our expectation that the future will be like the past (for instance, that the sun will rise tomorrow), has no basis in reason. It is purely a matter of belief. Hume goes on to assert, however, that such theoretical skepticism is irrelevant to the practical concerns of daily life.

In religion, Hume also rejects any rational or natural theology.

Hume refrains from his vaunted skepticism, however, when considering the validity of the social order within which he prospers. Considering his own society’s established order as absolute, he calls for the repression of dissent. Opinions against the accumulation of private property are crimes similar to robbery. In An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals (1751), Hume writes:

“Fanatics may suppose that dominion is founded on grace, and the saints alone inherit the earth. But the civil magistrate very justly puts these sublime theorists on the same footing as common robbers.”

Hume and “mankind” are struck with “horror” at the suggestion of certain 17^th century English non-conformists that there be “an equal distribution of property.” Without giving any argument, Hume asserts his opinion in favor of the status quo that he prefers. Such equality would “destroy all subordination” and “weaken extremely the authority of the magistracy.” He concludes that the very proposal of such an idea is “pernicious’” and deserving of the “severest punishment.”

When confronted with the challenge of a social alternative, Hume reveals the hold of the social given on even philosophical consciousness. By the force of social habit and rule, thought is confined within a social value program which controls understanding and causes it to expel whatever does not conform to this program (pp. 7-8. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. See the present document under “The taboo Nature of One’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment,” under “John Locke” and under “George Berkeley”).

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): Immanuel Kant, German metaphysician, declares his basic insight into the nature of knowledge to be “the Copernican revolution in philosophy.” Instead of assuming that, to be true, our ideas must conform to an external reality independent of our knowing, Kant proposes that objective reality is known only insofar as it conforms to the essential structure of the knowing mind. Objects of experience (phenomena) may be known, but things lying beyond the realm of possible experience (noumena, things-in-themselves) are unknowable – although their existence is a necessary pre-supposition.

To be understood, phenomena which can be perceived through sensibility, space, and time, must possess the characteristics which constitute our categories of understanding. Those categories are the source of the structure of phenomenal experience. They include substance and causality.

Since all theoretical attempts to know noumena are bound to fail, the three great problems of metaphysics, God, freedom and immortality, are insoluble through speculative thought. Their existence can be neither affirmed nor denied on theoretical grounds, nor can they be scientifically demonstrated. Belief in their existence, is however, necessary for morality. Without the existence of God, freedom and immortality, there can be no morality.

Kant’s ethics centers on his imperative (moral law), “Act as if the maxim from which you act were through your will, to become a universal law!”

Kant does not challenge the established social relations of the society in which he lives (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Georg Hegel (1770-1831): German philosopher, Georg Hegel, enunciates a philosophy of absolute idealism. Hegel envisages a world-soul which develops out of, and is known through, the dialectical logic. In the “Hegelian dialectic,” one concept (the thesis) inevitably generates its opposite (the anti-thesis), and the interaction between the two leads to a new concept (the synthesis).

To Hegel, the idea of being is fundamental. It evokes its anti-thesis, not being. Together, they produce the synthesis, becoming. Progress is thus rational, and the world process, logical.

Reason realizes itself in cosmology and history. The universe develops by a self-creating plan, which proceeds from astral bodies to the world, from the mineral kingdom to the vegetable, and from the vegetable kingdom to the animal. The same process can be discovered in society – human activities lead to property, which leads to law.

Religion has moved from worship of nature through a series of stages, to Christianity, in which Christ represents the union of God and humanity, spirit and matter.

The state develops out of the relationship between the individual and the law, and is produced by the interaction of interdependent, free individuals. The state is thus a totality above all individuals. Since it is a unit, its highest development is rule by monarchy. A monarchic state is the embodiment of the idea of the Absolute.

The spirit of negation is imbedded in Hegel’s dialectic, giving his method an inherently subversive tone.

Hegel himself, however, conceives of the Prussian State as the historical culmination of the Absolute. Thus, even though, in principle, Hegel’s own dialectic speaks against absolutizing his social-institutional present, he does, in fact, do precisely this – absolutize the society in which he lives. Hegel is unable to refrain from absolutizing the institutional edifice of which he forms a part. This is so, even though in order to do so, he must contravene his own dialectical method.

Hegel does not challenge the established social relations of the society in which he lives. This self-contradiction helps reveal just how confined by the social given, philosophy has been traditionally (p. 7. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Thus,

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), English philosopher

Rene Descartes (1596-1650), French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist

John Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher

Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza (1632-1677), Dutch philosopher

Gottfried Leibnitz (1646-1716), German philosopher and mathematician,

George Berkeley (1685-1753), Anglo-Irish philosopher and clergyman,

David Hume (1711-1776), Scottish philosopher and historian,

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German metaphysician, and

Georg Hegel (1770-1831), German philosopher,

in various degrees, entirely presuppose the social regime of their day and its constituent forms as in some way the expression of a divine Mind, seeing it as their rational duty only to accept or justify it. They either confine their attention to purely philosophical (that is, a-social) issues, such as being as such, and the conditions of knowing as such; or, they rationalize the social given as the manifestation of the some kind of perfect Reason.

The inquiry, “What is wrong with the private property system?” is not asked by any main philosopher until Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), in his early years, and Karl Marx (1818-1883). Both would be publicly maligned and persecuted for doing so.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): Jean Jacques Rousseau, Swiss-French philosopher, author, political theorist, and composer, focuses on morality rather than metaphysics, and derives his political theory from his study of morality. He anticipates many insights of modern social psychology. Rousseau is also the father of Romantic sensibility, being the first to give full expression to the already-existing Romantic trend.

Rousseau describes the underlying structures, principles and values of society. He is perhaps the first major modern philosopher to criticize the social given within which he lives, and he does so with respect to some of society’s most primary forms. Criticizing exclusionary property, he proposes a reduction of material inequality. Decrying the “chains” of the law, he proposes freedom by self-given law, participant democracy, and social sovereignty of the “common interest.” Criticizing the upbringing of the young, he proposes non-authoritarian education.

~ Yet, as shown by the following instances, even Rousseau is cognitively blocked by social taboos.

The Reduction of Material Inequality: Rousseau’s second philosophical essay, “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundation of Inequality among Men” (1754), is among his most revolutionary work. Rousseau’s view of private property is very different from that of David Hume (who, in 1765, when Rousseau is expelled from the Canton of Bern, would give him refuge in England, and with whom a year later, Rousseau would quarrel):

“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.”

“ How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors would that man have saved the human species, who, pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches, would have cried to his fellows: ‘Beware of listening to this imposter. You are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody’”

~ Soon afterwards, however, Rousseau would drop his anti-property line.

In The social contract (1762), Rousseau proposes:

Freedom by self-given Law: To achieve freedom, the individual must submit to the general will, defined as what rational people would choose for the common good. Freedom can be achieved through obedience to a self-imposed law of reason – self-imposed because imposed by the natural laws of humanity’s being.

Participant Democracy: To achieve equality under the law, the purpose of civil law and government must be to bring about a coincidence of the general will and the wishes of the people.

Social Sovereignty of the “Common Interest”: To achieve social sovereignty, the sovereignty of government, whether delegated by society in the form of a monarchy, a republic, or a democracy, must reside ultimately with the society as a whole – that is, with the people, who can withdraw governmental sovereignty when necessary. Society gives government its sovereignty when it forms the social contract in order to obtain liberty and well-being as a group. When the general will actually rules, people can fully develop and have:

“the advantages of a state of nature . . . combined with the advantages of social life.”

Rousseau’s doctrine of popular sovereignty would have a profound impact on French revolutionary thought.

~ In the years following The social contract, however, Rousseau would endorse:

i. State censorship.

ii. Special honors and privileges for rank.

iii. The execution of anyone who no longer believes in “the dogmas of civil religion”:

“If anyone, after publically recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death. He has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.”

Non-authoritarian education: In Emile (1762), Rousseau outlines his philosophy on education, which is based on “drawing out” what is already there in the child, the fostering of what is native, rather than imparting all things to be known to a child seen as uncouth. The purpose is to allow the free development of the human potential.

~ After persecution by the French Parliament, the Archbishop of Paris, and the Geneva ecclesiastic authorities, Rousseau refuses to talk about an educational system for the Polish Constitution he is commissioned to write.

~ Throughout Book V of Emile, and especially in “The Education of Women and Training for Womanhood,” Rousseau makes clear his position that woman’s submission to man is a law of nature, and women should be excluded from public life (pp. 8-9. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Karl Marx (1818-1883): Karl Marx is a German social philosopher, economic theoretician, and the founder of economic history and sociology. In unprecedentedly penetrating work, Marx breaks open once and for all the reflective space for critical analysis of the social given. Marx is rejected by academia, expelled from France, calumniated by the popular press, and tried for treasonous conspiracy. He nevertheless advances social self-knowledge more than any philosopher before him.

Marx administers two major critical blows to the constriction of philosophical thought within the framework of acceptance (implicit or explicit) of the social given. He:

1. Systematically criticizes the material power structure of all hitherto existing civil society. He argues that within the ruling class system, a self-serving minority owns most of the society’s means of producing the necessities of life, and the majority, therefore, is constrained to subordinate its life interest to this minority.

2. Points out that mainstream philosophy is determined, by the social order within which it arises, to remain within this social order’s bounds of acceptable cognition.

Players of a game do not see or criticize the game’s structure, as long as they are winning inside of it. They are determined by the requirements of their position in the game not to question its nature. This is the price for holding and advancing their own places in it. In the same way, human consciousness is determined to remain within the parameters of inquiry acceptable (permitted) by the society’s ruling class. Individual decisions select against the recognition of any pathological structure within the power regime in which they operate successfully.

Nevertheless, Marx accepts many biases and assumptions of the social order in which he lives. These include:

~ An absolute human chauvinism.

~ Blindness to the totalitarian disenfranchisement of the young.

~ The supremacy of Europe.

~ The assumption of ever-increasing social centralization.

~ The assumption of ever-increasing machine technology.

Marx conceptualizes these as laws of development not subject to choice. In fact, they are regimenting forms of social consciousness which have been shared across cultures and classes for centuries. They are underlying principles of judgment regulating normalized thought, even the thought of history’s greatest social revolutionary (pp. 9-10. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,’” “Freedom and the corporate economic Agenda”, No. 2, “Sellers”).

Karl Marx and the “Security State”: Like John Locke (1632-1704), Adam Smith (1723-1790) and others, Karl Marx sees the suppressive function of the state, used to protect and defend the propertied class against the anger of the poor.

Marx is the first, however, to ask why some are rich and some are poor, and makes the connection between poverty and exploitation by the rich. The purpose of the national “security state,” Marx says, is:

“to defend those who have property from those whose labor is expropriated by those who accumulate wealth off their labor, and therefore, have all the property.”

(Parenti 1993. See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The classical free Market,” “Adam Smith”).

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): John Stuart Mill is a British philosopher and economist. In logic, Mill formulates rules for the inductive process, and stresses the method of empiricism as the source of all knowledge. In ethics, Mill points to the possibility of a sentiment of unity and solidarity which may even develop a religious character. Into the utilitarian calculus of pleasure, Mill introduces a qualitative principle which reaches far beyond the conception of quantity. Mill advocates for the development of labor organizations and farm cooperatives. With regards to the American Civil War, he strongly supports the cause of the Union.

Mill’s On liberty (1859), perhaps the English-speaking world’s greatest classic of acceptable social philosophy, can be understood as an implicit struggle with the thought of Marx. It is, of course, in itself, an independent move toward releasing social consciousness from imprisonment within the social given. Mill argues for the right to think and speak in divergence from customary belief, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. He thus pushes back the margins of acceptable discourse, and opens up the reflective space for social criticism. However, it is against the force of the collective that Mill directs his case for individual liberty, and on behalf of the privileged class that Mill consistently makes his arguments. In contrast, Marx’s concern is to advance the interests of the collective, and he, therefore, attacks the privileges of the privileged class.

In Considerations on representative government (1890), Mill argues in favor of a plurality of votes for the managerial and professional classes (that is, unequal voting). He defends British colonialism as a matter of free states governing dependencies (that is, imperialism). In other works (appearing in J. M. Robson, Editor, Collected works of J. S. Mill, 1965), Mill supports racism when he states that there are backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as society being in its non-age. Mill disregards the lot of the oppressed, namely slaves and serfs, when he claims that “in ancient society, in the middle ages, . . . the individual was a power in himself” (pp. 10-11 and 262-263. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

The 20^th Century: By the second half of the 20^th Century, the colossal growth of society’s productive forces enables a new level of democratic organization, international communications, and extension of information resources, which together appear to enable a far wider range of social critical possibility than in any previous period.

1965-1970’s – Oppression challenged: Between 1965 and the early 1970’s, humanity witnesses the most fundamental questioning of the given social structure in human history. Challenges to life-repressive forms sweep across national and cultural borders:

1. The mass-killing mode of resolving social conflicts.

2. The systematic torture and destruction of other species by human systems.

3. The oppression of sexual freedom between consenting adults.

4. The abuse of children as the claimed right of parental and school authorities.

5. Patriarchal and sexist rule over smaller humans.

6. The capitalist structure of controlling society’s means of existence (p. 11).

1975-Present – The Great Reversal: After a few years of this “raising of consciousness,” however, a counter-revolution takes place, and it would turn out to be hardly less than a reversal of history.

Mass communications and mainstream intellectuals present the “new reality” as one of triumph, with rising material prosperity and the democratizing universalism of capitalism. The life-reality of its consequences speak otherwise. In fact, the same structural pattern as in previous social orders is at work. However, this time, the social paradigm is reinforced by science and technology.

Social self-knowledge is hampered by:

1. The ancient, law-like tendency of any social system to select consistently against those views which criticize it. This mental block is trans-cultural and as old as social reason.

2. The new phenomenon of public consciousness being globally under the control of mass communications which reach into the unconscious, and are governed by a single master principle:

Nothing is presented which contradicts the value or necessity of transnational corporate control over all that exists, in order to maximize returns to shareholders.

If the latter of these two meta-principles of censorship holds up to examination, it signifies the totalitarian expansion of the prior ancient taboo. This includes the control of what is written in learned texts, as well as what is shown on television.

It means that whatever happens in the world which could provoke doubt about the capacity of the prevailing regime to rule, is never referred back to the profit-maximizing program of the regime, even if there is clear causal linkage. This is so, for instance, for such disastrous consequences as collapsing fish-stocks, a shrinking ozone layer, a dwindling forest cover, mass child malnutrition, 80-hour work weeks in global market sweat shops, and the stripping of social and environmental protections to provide “free circulation for capital.”

But there are hints that all is not well. The social paradigm is portrayed as freedom but we are told that there is “no alternative.” It is declared to be what people want, but people must accept it as “inevitable.” It is described as delivering prosperity to the world, but people must make ever more sacrifices (pp. 12-13).

social values – the market paradigm

Systems of social Values:

Characteristics: A system of social values expresses itself as an ideology which rationalizes and legitimates it, and by which the critical mass of the population makes its decisions.

A system of social values can become so pre-supposed and ensconced within the structures of society, that even its critics may absolutize its operation as an immutable law of nature or law of history. The assumption is that it is “inevitable,” or “necessary.” Any suggestion of an alternative is ruled out as “non-sense.”

Any system of social values is, however, a social construction. As such, within the limits of material reality, it can be constructed differently by its members.

Open Value Systems: An open (“healthy”) value system has a feedback loop which connects the results of its practice to its principles of preference, so that, should harm or disability follow from its practice, its principles can be revised.

Closed Value Systems: In a closed (“unhealthy”) value system, the connection between cause and effect are ruled out of view. The harm or disability which follows from its practice thus builds to ever higher levels of life reduction and destruction. This continues until it is exposed, challenged, and modified (pp. 35-36).

The Market as a System of social Values:

Market Values: The market social values paradigm states the following:

Large capitalist corporations must control the production and distribution of social goods, so as to maximize the money value of their stocks.

Market Censorship: The market paradigm is a closed (“unhealthy”) value system because it blocks out of view the results of its practice – which is ever higher levels of reduction and destruction of life, both for humans and other species.

What cannot be said: The market value paradigm sets the range of possibilities for what can be publicly stated. Ideas expressed outside the acceptable range are excluded in proportion to their contradiction of the paradigm. Unacceptable ideas are:

1. Ruled out – for example, ideas which consider the market paradigm evil or replaceable by another paradigm.

2. Omitted – for example, ideas pointing out a causal relationship between the paradigm and the destruction of human and environmental life.

3. Selected out – for example, ideas pointing out the successes of societies using an alternative paradigm.

4. Marginalized – for example, the marginalization of known critics of the market paradigm.

What can be said: Ideas which either validate the market paradigm as necessary or moral, or which invalidate opposition to the paradigm as impractical or immoral, are selected for publication. Such ideas are selected on the basis of their:

1. Point of View – for example, the expression of a personal point of view or that of an un-individuated mass.

2. Events and Issues – for example, a report not mentioning the degradation of life conditions.

3. Descriptive Terms – for example, the description of the imposers of the paradigm as “pace-setting,” and those who would modify it as “dictatorial” (pp. 36 and 130).

Market Censorship in Academia: Academicians are mandated by society to help its understanding of itself. The market paradigm, however, exerts censorship in all the fields of academic study.

Economics: The current assumption of contemporary mainstream neo-classical economics, is that markets follow laws which are both “immutable” and without alternative. Depending on the author, these laws are prescribed by human nature, by economic necessity, or by God. The three variations are current in the conception of the global market.

A structure of values accepted and understood as being without alternatives, is subservient to the ruling order. Just as theology served the medieval Church, so does neo-classical economics serve the corporate market. Like the theologians before them, neoclassical economists are invested in the status quo, and like the theologians before them, they deify this status quo.

This is not the way economists think of themselves. Economists, in fact, construe their “science” as being “value-free.” Writing in 1996, independent Canadian mathematical economist William Krehm (1913-), challenges the notion of the so-called “pure and perfect” market:

“[Economics] has banished value theory from economic thinking” (Canadian Action Party 2008).

The situation is one, therefore, in which value theory has been banished from a subject whose every object of study is a value. Having encoded their assumptions into models of engineering mechanics and formalist mathematical equations, which by definition, rule out all value problems, economists are no longer aware of their own assumptions. The values they pre-suppose have disappeared into Newtonian physics and the formal language of symbolic mathematics.

The model for the market which economics presently uses, is one of 19^th century physics. British political economist David Ricardo (1772-1823), who, along with Adam Smith (1723-1790) and Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), is among the most influential classical economists, takes as his model for the labor market, the law of gravitation. The market, therefore, the most basic cooperative structure of human life, is comprehended in the same manner as the movement of inanimate particles. Human life is understood as not human. The approach rules out the human capacity to be more than law-governed particles. In time, the “invisible hand,” and “necessary sacrifices” would be spoken with certitude because construed as “value-free.” The extraction of money profit would be normalized. People would be pre-supposed only as a-political atoms of automatically self-maximizing preferences. At present, this ideology is pervasive and exerts worldwide, a historically unprecedented influence (Wikipedia “David Ricardo” 2008, p. 1).

In his book More heat than light – economics as social physics (1989), historian and avant-garde philosopher of economic thought, at the University of Notre Dame, IN, Philip Mirowski, decries the fact that the physics model used in economics is that of 19^th century physics. Economics has sought to emulate physics, he point out, especially with regards to the theory of value. (Note: The deeper problem, of course, is that a physics model is used at all. Nevertheless, Mirowski draws attention to the closed nature of the modern orthodox economics paradigm):

“The mandates [for research in economic science, include]:

1. Appropriating as many mathematical techniques and metaphorical expressions from contemporary respectable science, primarily physics, as possible.

2. Preserving to the maximum extent possible the attendant 19^th century overtones of ‘natural order.’

3. Denying strenuously that neoclassical theory slavishly imitates physics.

4. Above all, preventing all rival research programs from encroaching . . . by ridiculing all external attempts to appropriate 20^th century physics models.”

“[In this way] all theorizing is held hostage to 19^th century concepts of energy.”

(Wikipedia “Philip Mirowski” 2008, p. 1).

The introduction of mathematical concepts in economics began in the 1880’s, with the application of calculus to the buying-and-selling transactions of market economies. Key figures in this development include:

* French economist Leon Walras (1834-1910), a leading figure in the banishment of value theory from economics (Wikipedia “Leon Walras” 2008, p. 1).

* English economist and logician, William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882), and English economist Arthur (Alfred) Marshall (1842-1924), whose marginal utility analysis made possible the study of economic behavior in terms of mathematically conceived preference schedules. The marginalist theory assumes that consumers seek to maximize utility, just as firms seek to maximize profits. Values and prices are based on marginal utility. The mathematical method of analysis which this assumption made possible, revolutionized economic theory.

People began to be seen as a-political atoms of automatically self-maximizing preferences. The life complexities of society and social relations were abstracted away as non-existent. During the next century, neo-classical economics, construing itself as a physics, amenable to the reductions of mathematical equations (which, by definition, rule out all value issues) gained popularity. Today, “econometrics,” dominates the field (Ackerman 1997, p. 82. Wikipedia “William Stanley Jevons” 2008, p. 1. Wikipedia “Alfred Marshall” 2008, p. 1).

This mechanistic paradigm is exactly suited to the market paradigm – which sees human and environmental life forms as inputs for global corporations in the business of maximizing money-profits for stockholders. Neither neo-classical economics nor the market paradigm leave any room for life.

In 1986, University of California geographer Bernard Nietschmann (1941-2000) called attention to plight of the 3 billion people in the world who, in their own country, live under conditions like those in concentration camps. “Development by invasion” consists of controlling exploitable populations through a high ratio of land controllers to population, issuing obey-or-be-killed orders, and absolutely prohibiting self-organization or any move to construct an alternative. Super-profits are extracted from the labor of the workers.

This successful coercion is reflected in economic theory as positive. The system yields predictable outputs and revenues from minimal cost input. It can be claimed to be neutral, “value-free,” following only the natural laws of the process of extracting profits – as long as no external force intervenes calling attention to the destruction of life.

Since 1986, this wealth-producing scenario has been consolidated by means of transnational trade agreements and the austerity programs of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Social costs are reduced, production and export are expedited, investment security is protected, and the imposition of a tariff on the goods thus produced is prohibited, under the regulation forbidding all “process” discrimination (Berkeley University 2000, p. 1).

(Pp. 13-17).

Philosophy in general: Philosophy is also disconnected from the requirements of life. It assumes the market system as a given, and repels critical examination of it. Its most influential figures tacitly assume, without question, the regulation of world existence by the market system (“capitalism,” the “global market”).

Rationality: Philosophy posits the market principle of self-maximization as the meaning of reason itself. In A theory of justice (1968), Harvard University professor of political philosophy John Rawls (1921-2002) writes:

“I have assumed throughout that the persons in the original position [of seeking the principles of justice by a contractual agreement] are rational . . . [By this I mean that] it is rational for the parties to suppose that they do want a larger share . . . The concept of rationality invoked here is the standard one in social theory” (Wikipedia “John Rawls” 2008, p. 1).

Justice and Morality: In both social philosophy and ethics, the dominant theory of morality is the contractarian model – a neo-Hobbesian social contract which adopts the assumption of the commercial market, that justice and morality entail relating to others so as to get as much as one can for one’s own self.

In Morals by agreement (1986), University of Pittsburgh, Canadian-American philosopher David Gauthier (1932-) adopts the ruling market paradigm, when he states that rationality is calculated self-seeking:

“[Rationality means] maximizing the interests of the self.”

Gauthier then extends the principle to morality itself. Good moral thinking is a strategic version of self-maximization, one prudently tempered by cooperation for common goals – whatever these goals may be (Wikipedia “David Gauthier” 2008, pp. 1-2).

Philosophers have not pointed out:

1. The pretence of facts supposedly “value-free,” or of an economic paradigm which declares itself to be “independent” of human norm and choice. They have not helped society understand that the market is a social construction, a theoretical program whose designations of good and bad are not laws of nature, or even laws of economic organization.

2. The costume of fate (“necessity”) which wraps the global market system when it is presented to us as an inalterable structure of the world to which societies must adapt, whether or not they approve of its consequences. They have not helped society understand that the sacerdotal clothing must be removed before the system of values which controls the market can be clarified.

(Pp. 17-19).

Philosophy focused on Technology: Eminent thinkers have interpreted technology as the ultimate value challenge of the present era. Such thinkers include:

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976): For German philosopher Martin Heidegger, the essence of modern technology is the conversion of the whole universe of beings into an undifferentiated “standing reserve” (Bestand) of energy available for any use to which humans choose to put it. Technology brings with it grave dangers, but may also give a chance for humans to enter a new epoch in their relation to being (Wikipedia “Martin Heidegger” 2008, pp. 1-6).

Jacques Ellul (1912-1994): French philosopher, sociologist, theologian and Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul focuses on the threat of modern technology to human freedom and the Christian faith, fearing a “technological tyranny” over humanity:

“Modern technology has become a total phenomenon for civilization, the defining force of a new social order in which efficiency is no longer an option but a necessity imposed on all human activity . . . Human beings have to adapt to it, and accept total change” (Wikipedia “Jacques Ellul” 2008, pp. 1-4).

George Grant (1918-1988): In a little-known work [an article in Michael Oliver (editor) Social purpose for Canada (1961)], George Grant, Canadian philosopher, teacher and political commentator, implies a ruling class behind the rule of technology:

“Power is increasingly concentrated, so that most people have to pursue their individual gain within conditions set by the corporations, while the few who set the conditions, operate the calculus of greed, ambition and self-interest to their own ends” (Wikipedia “George Grant” 2008, p. 1).

None of these three thinkers relates the increasing power of technology to the logic of profit maximization, which, in fact, drives it. While Grant recognizes the two issues – the march of technology and profit maximization, he fails to connect them, interpreting the wish to make money as the disordered motivation of a corporate few.

But “out of control” technology is not the source of the present loss of humanity’s life-ground. In the global market, technology is both an instrument and an expression of a more basic value, money-making – too taboo to expose or criticize.

Values govern every advance and implementation of technology. Behind the development of technology, over every step in the planning, design, assembly, and manufacture of machines, and over every displacement by them of past ways, and of life regions, stands one commanding value decision – to maximize the difference between input and output of money in the sequence of market investment.

Technology is blamed for what is, in fact, a decision structure behind it, which develops and uses technology for a non-technological purpose, that of making maximum profit. People who develop and deploy the machines, do so for profit or command. To blame technology is to blame the tool for the use to which it is put.

(Pp. 31-33 and 264. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

Political Science: Mainstream political science invariably assumes as its major premise that the global market is a “free market.” It does not reflect on either the truth of this value affirmation, or its own use of a normative affirmation as a descriptive term. Whatever exposes or criticizes this world system is unlikely to be published.

Among other unexamined assumptions of political science are that whoever opposes “the free market” must be against freedom, and that the “liberal-capitalist” state is “democratic” (even if only business-financed parties are ever elected to national government office). Political science has internalized the ideology of “the free market” and “globalization” at face value. Representations of reality (that is, a “free market”) is internalized as reality itself. Social acceptability is the reward (pp. 19-20).

Sociology and Anthropology: Despite the visibly contrasting social beliefs and ways of life in the world today, the delusion that the market system of values is “normal,” reigns on both the individual and national level. All of us, the world over, make the following assumptions. We believe that:

1. The market system is a given.

2. The production and exchanges of the market system are what necessarily regulates one’s work and after-hours.

3. The goods of the market system are what one must thrive to have.

4. The functions of the market system are what one must perform to be accepted.

5. The requirements of the market system are what one must compete against others to fulfill.

Any thought of an alternative is dismissed as “nonsense.”

Sociology and anthropology have remained confined to this mainstream discourse. They have not diverged from the value program which controls the dominant culture.

Yet humans have the characteristic that they can think and experience beyond the script of a given social paradigm. In the case, like today, when the script endorses values which attack the life of its social and environmental hosts, to move beyond its invisible prison (“invisible hand”) is a condition for collective survival (pp. 20-22).

Religion: Some thinkers of religion have explicitly criticized the global market regime for its unethical deprivations of those with the least. The “preferential option for the poor” continues in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets, particularly Jesus. In Central and South America especially, but also in South Africa, “social justice” and “liberation theology” movements feed the hungry, protect the homeless, clothe the naked, and in general, care for those excluded by the market’s distribution system. These movements are grounded in a different paradigm – a paradigm of social love. In the East also, a few Buddhists, Moslems and Hindus have spoken from the life-ground, past their particular social systems, to a universalist concern for all that breathes.

But these critics are marginalized and stigmatized as “economic meddlers,” “conspiracy theorists,” “cynics,” “lacking objectivity,” “Marxists” or “communists.” The dominant social value system cannot tolerate them.

In February 1980, a month before he would be assassinated by a right wing death squad, with government complicity, Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero (1917-1980, archbishop 1977-1980), addresses a public letter to the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter (1924-, president 1977-1981), pointing out that continued U.S. military aid will:

“undoubtedly sharpen the injustice and the repression inflicted on the organized people, whose struggle has often been for their most basic human rights.”

The same month, giving his acceptance speech for an honorary doctorate degree awarded to him by Leuven University, Belgium, Romero describes the persecution:

“In less than three years, more than 50 priests have been attacked, threatened and slandered. Six of them are martyrs, having been assassinated. Various others have been tortured, and others expelled from the country. Religious women have also been the object of persecution. The archdiocesan radio station, Catholic educational institutions and Christian religious institutions have been constantly attacked, menaced, threatened with bombs. Various parish convents have been sacked” (Wikipedia “Oscar Romero” 2008, pp. 1-5).

But President Carter continues military aid to El Salvador, and on March 24, 1980, Romero is murdered.

Neither the Revolutionary Government Junta at the time (1979-1982), nor Jose Napoleon Duarte (1925-1990), who becomes chairman of the Junta in December 1980, and would later become president (1984-1989), nor any Salvadoran government, ever accuses, much less arrests Salvadoran Army officer Major Roberto d’Aubuisson (1944-1992), who – according to the United Nations Truth Commission on El Salvador (1993) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1995) – gave the order to assassinate the Archbishop (Zarate’s Political Collections 2006, pp. 1 and 3. Wikipedia “Revolutionary Government Junta of el Salvador” 2008, p. 1. Wikipedia “Jose Napoleon Duarte” 2008, p. 1. Wikipedia “Roberto d’Aubuisson” 2008, pp. 1-3).

The assassination of Romero launches a 12-year civil war (1980-1992) between the right-wing government and the left-wing guerillas, in which some 60,000 to 75,000 people are killed – between 1.5 and 2 percent of a 1975 population of 4,100,000 (United Nations 1993. United Nations 1999, p. 199. White 1999, summarized in Hall 2008d. Wikipedia “Salvadoran civil War” 2008, p. 1-8).

In 1984, in Washington, D.C., at the Capitol Hill Club, American conservative lobbyist groups, led by the National Council for Better Education, honor d’Aubuisson for his:

“continuing efforts for freedom in the face of Communist aggression, which is an inspiration to freedom-loving people everywhere.”

In 2007, Salvadoran president Elias Antonio Saca (1965-, president 2004-present), member of the conservative ARENA party (founded by d’Aubuisson in 1980), commemorates the 15^th anniversary of d’Aubuisson’s death, by vowing to continue his legacy (Wikipedia “Antonio Saca” 2008, p. 1).

As of 2008, El Salvador, under Saca, is the only Latin American country to have troops in Iraq, in support of the United States’ war against, and occupation of that country.

(Pp. 5, 22-23 and 261. Parenti 1993. Parenti 2008).

Social Science and the Humanities: The connected whole of humanity is conceptualized a priori as “the global market.” This market system regulates life organizations, both social and natural, at every level, and increasingly makes all existence accountable to its demands. Its values are the ones in which all the planet’s life indicators show dramatic deterioration.

The “global market” is a social living system which produces and reproduces itself daily, and is subject to crises, adjustments, growth and disease – as all living systems are. In attempting to comprehend such a living system as an integrated whole, a life science model would seem to be more appropriate than one taken from mechanical engineering.

Medicine has a premise of value that all assume – that health is preferable to disease. People of all places and in all social orders prefer to be alive, and they perform countless functions and avoidances to ensure that they continue being alive. There is no cultural relativism here. The universal values which bond all human beings, and indeed all hat lives, are undeniable. The value of health, and dis-value of disease, bond all living beings.

But this premise is not recognized in the social sciences and the humanities. Post-modernism denies universal values. Nearly all social sciences relativize needs. No established school, discipline, or general theory of social analysis is grounded in life requirements as such. The ultimate reference is instead a social construct – a set of ideas, the state, the market, a class, technological development, or some factor other than the life-ground itself.

This loss of a shared ground of values, this loss of value bearings, is a symptom of the market paradigm, in which only what is not alive, what is priced or generates a profit, stands as uncontested value. The values of the market paradigm do not include the conditions necessary for the preservation and growth of our embodied selves (pp. viii and 25-27).

History: History documents trends in social patterns and changes. As it is practiced, however, history avoids any period more recent than 25 years past. The study of the present historical patterns, as they are being set by the dominant powers of the day, is ruled out as being “presentist.” The global market values which are “restructuring” the world, are being applied in the present time. The pattern, however, is not yet “history” in the sense in which the professional historian uses the word.

The causal pattern of the sea-change which is transforming the structure of social life in almost all nations at once, must be done from present sources of information. If one goes through the laborious process of obtaining documentation, however, then the invasive pattern of the corporate system, and the destruction which trails in the wake of its implementation, reveal themselves. The value imperatives of the global market have no relationship to the requirements of life.

As it is practiced, therefore, history, like all the other disciplines, is cordoned off from the living field – blocked off from recognizing the deep systemic problems in the social order within which it functions (pp. 27-28).

Environmental Sciences: Ecology and the environmental sciences help us understand the implications of the unfolding pattern of planetary life.

If only money-priced goods are recognized as having any value, the implications for the un-priced goods, such as biodiversity and non-commercial species, are profound. Indeed it follows from such a measurement of value that selection for money value replaces natural selection in determining what lives and what dies, and how what lives, lives. Where natural selection has evolved inter-connections of function and recycling of wastes to reproduce life, the global market system is re-engineering these to reproduce and grow money.

Environmental scientists and ecologists, however, exclude the market system as a determinant of harmful effects on life, thereby blocking out the underlying structure which causes the rapidly decreasing reproduction and distribution of the world’s species. They cannot see the causal relationship between the harm done to life and the selectors of the global economic system.

As the earth is stripped and polluted by ever more unfettered global market operations, governments do not factor into their calculus the countless life forms, habitats and ecosystems which are thereby being extinguished and poisoned. In answer to objections, followers of the ruling paradigm warn that this is all necessary “to keep the economy going.” Whereas every decision behind this process of life-destruction is taken to enact the global market paradigm, if we object, we are told that we must “compete harder” at fulfilling the demands of the very paradigm of economic value which drives the increasing destruction of life.

No scientific literature relates the cumulative environmental collapse back to the preference structure which drives extractions, effluents and wastes in the environment (pp. 28-29).

The Law: The discipline of the law provides:

1. The baseline of enforceable structures which society has put in place to prevent harm to life, both human and in the environment – for example, the international protocols against trans-boundary pollution, and existing international law concerning human rights and environmental protection.

2. The law on such central dimensions of global market values, as trade regulation, corporate constitution, corporate liability avoidance, and corporate tax and banking legislation.

But generally, the law pre-supposes as the given framework of its judgments, the distributive patterns and existing ownership rights of the market system. Typically, it does not ask any questions regarding fairness, beyond the parameters of the ruling system.

The law pre-supposes as given and inviolable, the general structures of ownership and exchanges which it legitimates and enforces. It is, therefore, an uncritical and ideological reflection of the market status quo which it regulates, adjudicates and enforces (pp. 29-30).

The global Market

Economics and the Law – the Interface: Most of humanity now lives at the interface between two primary and often conflicting structures – on the one hand, the rules of the trans-national trade agreements, and on the other, the diverse system of laws, at various levels of jurisdiction, which specify rules of conduct for all economic transactions.

The global economic System: The global economic order (the global market economy) is the worldwide economic system whereby goods in short supply are produced and distributed, for competitive prices, within and across national boundaries, to all those who have the money to purchase them.

Trans-national trade agreements which are instituting this “new economic order” now ring the world. Their rules reject “government interference” or any accountability to law, viewing them as barriers to market “freedom.” The aim is ever more “deregulation” and “self-regulation” of market operations, so that the market can be “free” – meaning not accountable to anyone beyond itself. Measurements, such as, for example, level of “efficiency,” do not recognize, much less preserve the interests of life, whether human life or the life of other species (p. 33).

The Body of Laws: At present, a body of laws at the national, regional and municipality levels, specify normative rules of conduct within which all economic transactions, including those which are globalized, must take place. The constraints specified by this body of law protect the common interests of living beings – people and environmental life. The legal perspective is that no private interests or agents should be “above the law.”

The Conflict: The rules of the trans-national trade agreements and the body of laws, are often incompatible, or at least in conflict. In these situations, the trans-national trade agreements decree that:

1. The property of investors should be protected.

2. The traditional and local should give way to the new and more “efficient.”

The distinction between the values of the market and the common interest of society, touches on the security of all life on the planet. Until the market paradigm is seen to be without accountability to life, its assault on planetary life, both human and non-human, will continue unabated (pp. 33-34).

The Evolution of the Market Paradigm: The “global market,” which uses “the market” as its model, is, in fact, a profound perversion of its own model.

The traditional Market: The original market is a place where people exchange money for the goods they need. People meet in a publicly-owned space, some for the purpose of buying, and almost as many for the purpose of selling what they have grown or made. The exchanges serve the growth of life on both sides, not the growth of money as an end in itself. Money is a universal medium of exchange which enables individuals to transact across differences of occupation and goods, without incommensurables of worth having to be decided at the time. No one from outside the market can get rich from producing nothing for it, and the exchanges are, therefore, democratic. Money is not a weapon to reduce others to instruments. As a form of social life, the original market serves the “individual,” and is “free,” and “democratic” (pp. 37-41).

The classical free Market:

Adam Smith (1723-1790): Scottish economist Adam Smith is the founder of the globalized “free market” paradigm. Yet, his concept of the free market diverges as much from the global system as the traditional market diverges from it. In An inquiry into the nature and understanding of the wealth of nations (1776), Smith indeed explains that the pursuit of one’s private interests in the market promotes the public good:

“Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to society . . . By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and in this, as in many other cases, he is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention” (Book IV, Chapter II).

However, to this principle of coincidence between investor and market gain, Smith supposes a set of powerfully qualifying conditions regarding social and productive accountability – conditions, which are, in fact, far more central to his theory than the paragraph which explains the coincidence.

1. There is to be no private monopoly or oligopoly of production or distribution (Book IV, Chapter IX).

2. Because of the cost and insecurity of investing in foreign countries, Smith takes it for granted that domestic capital will not migrate to foreign nations (Book IV, Chapter III).

3. Smith specifies that investment which is “productive” or “wealth-creating” (the only kind of investment he supports) must manufacture:

“some particular subject or vendible commodity which lasts for some time at least after that labor is past” (Book II, Chapter III).

In Smith’s concept, therefore, a market commodity is what is made by human labor and has some lasting value.

4. Smith states:

“The sole use of money is to circulate consumable goods, provisions, materials and finished work” (Book II, Chapter III).

Smith, therefore, rules out stock, bond and currency speculations.

5. Smith strongly stipulates that capital must be re-invested in productive jobs, or else it is perverted from its proper destination:

“No part of private capital . . . can ever afterwards be employed to maintain any but productive hands, without an evident loss to the person who perverts it from its proper destination. By diminishing the funds destined for the employment of productive labor, [such an investor] necessarily diminishes, so far as it depends upon him, the value of the annual produce of the land and labor of the whole country, tending not only to beggar himself, but to impoverish the country (Book II, Chapter III).

6. Government taxation must fall on citizens:

“in proportion to their respective abilities [to pay, and on those to whom] “the benefit is confined” (Book V , Chapter I).

7. Smith states:

“No two characters seem more inconsistent that those of trader and sovereign – the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind” (Book IV, Chapter II).

Every one of Smith’s classical principles for a free market, would be turned into its opposite. The model which the global corporate system appropriates for its self-description, is what, in fact, in every aspect, it opposes. Only self-maximizing money gain, decoupled from every condition remains.

(Pp. 41-45, 82 and 265. See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,”“The classical free Market,” “Adam Smith”; and under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,’” “Freedom and the corporate social Agenda,” No. 9, “Profits at the Expense of Life”).

Adam Smith and Democracy: Neither Adam Smith nor any other economist before the advent of global market advertisements, makes the claim that the market promotes democracy.

Smith does, however, anticipate social Darwinism. He regards the “race of workers” as “inferior,” and asserts that their children are properly left without food when the supply of labor exceeds demand:

“But in a civilized society, . . . among the inferior ranks of people, . . . the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the species; and it can do this in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce” (Book I, Chapter VIII).

(Pp. 58-59 and 266. See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,’” Freedom and the corporate social Agenda,” No. 10, “An anti-democracy Agenda”).

Adam Smith and social Well-being: Adam Smith equates a society’s material wealth with its well-being. He understands the market as a means to achieve the “wealth of nations.” This view still has great influence today (p. 143. Clive Ponting 1991/1992, summarized in Hall 2007c, p. 83).

Adam Smith and the Security State: Adam Smith sees the national government as having two functions, one, that of governing by making and enforcing policies, and the other, hidden within the government, with the function of maintaining the social status quo. This latter part of government, the part which is a conscious instrument of control, Smith calls the “security state.” It has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force and violence, and uses any means at its disposal (surveillance, assassinations, trumped-up murder charges, illegal drugs, etc . . .) to defend the propertied class against the anger of the poor. Smith states:

“As the divisions of property become increasingly unequal, it is more and more necessary to have a “state” to defend those who have property from those who do not.”

Smith does not, as Karl Marx would later, connect why some are rich and some are poor (Parenti 1993. See the present document under “The taboo Nature of One’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment,” “Karl Marx”).

The “neo-classical” “free Market”: In the “neo-classical” stage of the “free market,” “freedom,” which is claimed to be the ultimate justification of the system, has come to have a very narrow meaning. The word has no referent except the freedom of those who have money (See the present document under “The taboo Nature of One’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment,” “John Locke”).

Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992): In The road to serfdom (1944), British economist Friedrich von Hayek defines the “free market”:

“Parties in the market should be free to buy and sell at any price at which they can find a partner to the transaction – free to produce, buy and sell anything that can be produced or sold at all” (Quote pp. 46 and 265).

Freedom and the corporate economic Agenda: Without a description of the life circumstances in which the “freedom” vaunted by Hayek occurs, his statement is misleading.

If the meaning of freedom is self-governing, then in the corporate global market, there is no freedom either for all consumers, or sellers, or producers. Corporations themselves do not wish to be free from government assistance, and although economies of scale lower the cost of commodities, this lower cost is at the expense of life itself – and hence, people’s freedom.

1. Buyers:

a. No Freedom to buy – the Individual: Hayek’s definition of the “free market” is disconnected from life. Those who lack enough money to pay for what they require to live, are not free. Freedom does not exist for those without the means to act freely.

The “neo-classical” market paradigm does not recognize need without effective demand (the purchasing power of money). Need without money to back it up, has no value or reality. Governmental interventions to assist those without the means to survive, are attacked by global system architects and ideologues as “unaffordable” and “government interferences in the free market.” Around the world, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have made “Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP)” (which reduce or eliminate social programs), pre-conditions for new lending to governments so that they can pay back, at high interest, foreign bankers’ past loans to them, incurred without the consent of the people.

b. No Freedom to buy – Society: In the corporate global market, people are not free to either buy or not buy goods for sale. In 1997, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decreed “discrimination” on the basis of the “process of production,” a Massachusetts law requiring the government to refrain from purchasing oil from businesses collaborating with the military dictatorship of Burma (pp. 47-48) .

2. Sellers:

a. “Wage Slavery” and unemployment: Wage slavery is the term Karl Marx (1818-1883) used for the condition of those who must sell their work or service to an employer in exchange for wages or salaries. To be told what to do and how to do it during most of one’s active waking hours, cannot be meaningfully called “freedom.” The lot of sellers of their work who can find no buyer – the unemployed – is still more constrained (See the present document under “The taboo Nature of one’s own social Order,” “The Enlightenment, “Karl Marx”).

b. the great Majority of Sellers have no “Freedom”: The global market seeks to make the cost for which a laborer can sell his work, as low as possible. To this end, corporate employers seek to abolish minimum-wage laws, reduce governmental life-support programs, replace human work by technological devices, decrease labor union participation, abolish work-place environmental standards, and move their operations to countries where labor is cheaper. The more employers are successful in doing this, the less freedom workers have – and they are by far the majority of sellers in the global market (p. 49).

3. Producers: In the corporate market system, people are only free in their work when not bound by the rules of the market.

Employees, who, as noted in Item 2. a. (“Wage Slavery”), represent the majority of the population, must sell their work, and, therefore, are not free, although they are producers.

Artists must create what buyers with enough money will purchase.

Capitalists who employ others, are compelled by the “fiduciary duty to stockholders” (inscribed in corporate charters and in the contracts of financial managers) to invest only in economic activities that will net a money profit at the end of the production and exchange cycle. They must, therefore, relate to their employees only as a means to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders.

Professionals remain free to the extent that the services which they provide, are not for sale at a profit. If the services they provide are for sale, as is increasingly the case for doctors in the United States, they become mere functions in externally-prescribed money-sequence operations, such as “health maintenance organizations” (pp. 49-50).

4. Government “Interference”: Government assistance to the global “free market” includes:

a. Domestic police forces to guard both foreign and domestic assets and exchanges.

b. Armed forces to protect private investment in foreign countries.

c. Diplomatic offices to promote and protect private business interests in other countries.

d. Roads and highways.

e. Schooling and training for prospective employees.

f. Natural resources at little or no cost.

“Freedom from government” means no government assistance when those who are to gain are the workers. The corporate system attacks the “civil commons” – the shared basis of people’s lives – because the logic of its sole focus on money, is to aim for control of all means of life, in all societies, so as to derive a profit from these means of life (anything from health care to food to water). The “civil commons,” is established through a public process which requires democracy, taxation and government enforcement. It has never been achieved by a for-profit system (pp. 50-53. See the present document under “Assumption of the transnational Trade Regime,” “Assumptions,” No. 1, “The Right of private Interests to access all Markets”).

From 1971 to 1997, Dwayne Andreas (1918-) was Chief Executive Officer of Archer-Daniels-Midland, the world’s largest merchandiser of agricultural products and commodities. In 1995, sales were $13 billion. In 2008, the Company’s market value was $17 billion, and it boasted of being the “Supermarket to the World.”

Andreas reportedly (and famously) told his son and long-time heir apparent, Michael (1949-):

“The competitor is our friend. The customer is our enemy.”

In 1995, Andreas tells a reporter for Mother Jones:

“There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market, not one! The only place [where] you see a free market, is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not from the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

(Greenwald 1996. Weissman 1998. Forbes 2008. Wikipedia “Dwayne Andreas” 2008, p. 1).

On November 13, 2008, within days of presiding over the largest corporate bail-out in the history of the United States (potentially $5 trillion), addressing the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New York, United States President George W. Bush (1946-) warns against government regulation of the market (!):

“We must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all. For example, some blame the crisis on insufficient regulation of the American mortgage market, but many European countries had much more extensive regulations, and still experienced problems almost identical to our own. History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market. It is too much government involvement in the market” [Infowars.net 2008, pp. 1-2 (for cost of bail-out). Bush 2008].

5. Low Cost Products: Within the constraints of a regulating framework protecting life, the competition among producers and sellers in a “free market” system, reduces the cost of commodities for buyers. But the global market has not such framework. It is de-linked from accountability to society. The only aim its agents have, is to lower the costs for corporations.

a. If corporations lower their costs, while government assistance to people (such as unemployment insurance and health care) continue, then these latter costs are increasingly born by citizens and environmental life.

b. If governments, having signed transnational trade agreements, prohibit all “performance requirements” for corporations operating within their country (such as job creation and maintenance, technology transfer, sustainability of resource use, and re-investment of profit into the country), efficiency may be high for the corporation, but it is commensurately low for the producing society.

c. If governments, having signed transnational trade agreements, prohibit “discrimination against the process of production” of imports, and allow within their borders, free of charge, commodities produced under conditions of severe worker repression, again the conflict between what invades life and what protects and enables it, is settled in favor of the former.

d. If corporations, taunting their low-cost products to a buying country in which they operate, obtain from its government, lowered taxes and “deregulation” of their operations, they thereby free themselves from the costs of sustaining life in the buyer country.

e. The destruction of life and its means promotes the growth of the global “market,” and hence potentially lowers the cost of production. Each good lost to the community or to nature, represents an opportunity to manufacture priced commodities which will act as a substitute (such as pharmaceuticals to treat people’s anxiety, or travel industries to substitute for dead local environments) (pp. 53-56).

By these cost-cutting means, trans-national corporation damage life both in producing and buying countries, and the only efficiency in the system is their own lower ratio of costs to revenues. It is an efficiency which excludes costs to life. On the scale of life, and, therefore, freedom, the system is most inefficient (p. 56).

Freedom and the corporate social Agenda: Corporations are themselves autocratic and hierarchical. Their anti-democratic agenda reveals itself in their desire to control the demand for their products, their censorship of media contents, their lulling of consumers into a sense of security, their preference for a “monoculture” population, their intentional disempowerment of humanity, their speculations which render the value of money meaningless, their efforts to divert blame from themselves, their recognition of life only as a means for profit-making, and their patent conflict of interest with people who are self-governing.

1. Corporations are themselves autocratic: As social entities, corporations themselves are not democratic. Employees are not self-governing. Corporations are top-down bureaucracies, accountable only to their board of directors and to their stockholders, who do not wield their authority by virtue of having been elected. No one within corporations represents any interest beyond the self-maximization of money (pp. 56-57 and 59-60).

2. Controlling Demand: To maximize profits, corporations must control not only supply but must also maintain demand at a high level. They do the latter by pervasive operant conditioning of buyers, the steering of government policy, and the exclusion of alternative goods from public access (such as, for instance, the elimination of non-auto systems of urban transit in the United States). The greater the wealth disparity between corporate “persons” and actual persons, the greater is the disparity in freedom between the two (pp. 41 and 59).

3. Censoring the Media: Corporations control the media with the aim of censoring within it any content which might expose or argue against their increasing control of both life and the means of life. No “market democracy” in the world today, features a critical exposure of the corporate control of society’s life, or even a debate on the subject. This is also true of the recent American elections (November 4, 2008) (p. 61).

Concentration of Media Ownership: At the end of 2006, the United States media were dominated by eight companies, which were providing news and information to the great majority of the population. These companies were:

Company* Market Value

(billion US dollars)

General Electric (owner of NBC) 391

Microsoft 307

Google 155

AOL-Time Warner 91

Disney 73

News Corporation 57

Viacom 54

Yahoo! 40

_____________________

* Shah 2007, p. 2.

Selling Eyeballs: Professor of Communications at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, Sut Jhally, draws attention to the fact that in the media industry, the advertisers are the buyers of the goods (the attention of the audience), the media company is the seller (the greater the potential buying power of the audience, the higher the price which can be charged for an advertisement), and the program is the bait for the buyer – without a program to watch, there would be no audience. The seller attracts the buyer not on the basis of the quality of the program which will surround the advertisement, but rather on potential buying behavior which will result from watching the advertisement. Media companies sell “eyeballs” (Parenti 2008. Jhally 2007).

4. Lulling Consumers into a Sense of Safety: It is to the advantage of corporations to have a dependent, docile, uninformed, uncritical, consumer base.

The Cell Phone Industry: The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980’s, when communications technology, developed by the U.S. Department of Defense, was put on the market – by companies focused on profits. Today, worldwide, more than 2 billion cell phone users are being exposed daily to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) – dangers which include genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and more subtle conditions, such as sleep disorders and headaches. The cell phone industry is fully aware of these dangers. Some companies have service contracts which prohibit either suing the cell phone manufacturer, suing the service provider, or joining a class action law suit. The media regularly claim that new studies have shown cell phone use to be completely safe.

However, epidemic curve projections indicate that from 2006 to 2010, the number of new cases of brain and eye cancer worldwide, is expected to increase tenfold (from 45,000 in 2006, to 450,000 in 2010). Using a cell phone for 10 years or longer, predominantly on one side of the head, doubles the risk of a brain tumor, and more than doubles (2 ½ times) the risk of an acoustic neuroma. Health effects occur at from 0.001 to 0.01 the safety standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, which bases its standards solely, and erroneously, on the amount of heat produced. There does not appear to be a threshold below which cell phones have no health effects (Kovach 2007, pp. 2-3 and 10. Sage 2007, pp. 5, 16-17, 42 and 44).

In 1985, when Guillermo Bedregal, Bolivia’ Minister of Planning, was presiding over the drafting by his emergency team, of the economic shock to be applied to Bolivia, the youngest member of the group, Fernando Prado, exclaimed, “They are going to kill us!” – to which Bedregal answered:

“We have to be like the pilot of Hiroshima. When he dropped the atomic bomb, he didn’t know what he was doing, but when he saw the smoke, he said, ‘Oops, Sorry!’ And that’s exactly what we have to do, launch the measures and then, ‘Oops, sorry!’”

(Quote in Klein 2007, p. 184, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 64. For the extraction of coltan, partly for cell phone manufacture, see the present document under “The global Market,” The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,’” “Freedom and the corporate social Agenda,” No. 8, “Blaming the Victims”).

5. Preference for a “monoculture” Population: Corporations are best at routine, automated work, and this is how they relate to the public. They are best at making possible economies of scale by uniformity both in their methods of production and in the goods they produce. This is true from monoculture farming to the mass homogeneity of media products (television programs, films, magazines, newspapers, books, and even textbooks and learned journals). Diversity raises prices.

In her 1993 book, Monocultures of the mind, Indian physicist, philosopher and feminist Vandana Shiva (1952-) draws attention to the disappearance of diversity in thinking as an effect of the global market. The control of people’s brain saves corporations the cost of articulating products which might elicit thinking (and therefore, perhaps resistance) by consumers. The loss of mental life, sometimes called the “dumbing down” of consumers, is advantageous to corporations (p. 56. Shiva 1993).

6. Disempowering Humanity: Transnational trade and investment agreements, unaccountable to any public authority, and superseding the authority of national governments, have enabled transnational corporations and finance capital, effectively to dis-empower the majority of the world’s people. At the speed of an electronic signal, and without commitment to the countries in which they operate, corporations and finance capital move to countries where the labor force is cheaper or financial speculation more lucrative. Workers without employment and countries without funds are the results. Billed under the salable slogan of “free trade,” the system in effect ushers the age of disposable humanity (p. 62).

Currency speculation, in particular, is disempowering national governments. Dissatisfied with a government’s policies, currency traders “punish” it by selling off its currency. Enough traders acting together causes the value of the national currency to plummet, and precipitates a “currency crisis.” Such sudden large sell-offs are feared by governments who see them as “attacks” on the value of their currencies (See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,’” “Freedom and the corporate social Agenda,” No. 7, “Making Money meaningless”).

7. Making Money meaningless: Foreign exchange transactions consist of trading in currencies. Most of this trading is currency speculation – one national currency being exchanged for another to make a profit. At present, the volume of this market dwarfs, and therefore renders meaningless, the value of money as representing real production in goods and services. Speculative money is de-linked from its foundation in production.

* In 1975, global foreign exchange transactions totaled approximately 4 trillion US dollars (4.6 trillion in 1977). In volume, this was equivalent to:

. Every 130 days (4.3 months), the total trade in goods and services for all countries that year (1.3 trillion dollars).

Of these transactions, 20 percent were speculative – that is, their sole purpose was an expected profit from buying and selling currencies, based on their changing values. The other 80 percent were carried out in order to conduct business in the real economy (importing oil, exporting cars, etc . . .).

* In 1986, global foreign exchange transactions totaled 73 trillion dollars.

* In 1998, global foreign exchange transactions totaled 657 trillion dollars. In volume, this was equivalent to:

. Every 2.4 days, the total trade in goods and services for all countries that year (4.3 trillion dollars).

. Every 4.5 days, the entire annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States (8.2 trillion dollars).

Of these transactions, 98 percent were speculative, and 2 percent served the real economy.

* In 2007, global foreign exchange transactions totaled 1,452 trillion dollars.

* In 2008, global foreign exchange transactions are estimated to have reached 2,059 trillion dollars. In volume, this is equivalent to:

. Every 2.5 days, the entire annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States (14.3 trillion dollars).

Table 1 summarizes the global growth of currency speculation.

Table 1: Growth of World Currency Speculation, 1975-2008^(a)

Year	Trading in Currencies (trillion dollars) (percent speculative)	Trading in Goods and Services (trillion dollars)	Ratio Trading in Currencies to Trading in Goods and Services	U.S. Gross National Product (trillion dollars)	Ratio Trading in Currencies to U.S. Gross National Product
1975	4 (20 percent)	1.3	3.5	2	1.8
1986	73	-	-	4	18
1998	657 (98 percent)	4.3	153	8.2	80
2007	1,452	-	-	14	104
2008	2,044	-	-	14.3	143

^(a)References as listed below. All figures in US (unadjusted) dollars.

As noted in Item 6 (“Disempowering Humanity”) above, national currencies represent a new class of assets now disempowering national governments, which have no recourse to its cyberspace manipulations.

Currency speculators now form a constituency which favors instability in the world economic system.

(Pp. 108, 116, 126, 240, 272, 276 and 289. Lietaer 1997, pp. 1-6. Data360.org undated, p. 1. DeFazio and Wellstone 2000, p. 1. Foreign Policy in Focus 2001, p. 3. Wikipedia “Foreign Exchange Market” 2008, pp. 1-3. See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,’” “Freedom and the corporate social Agenda,” No. 6, “Disempowering Humanity”).

8. Blaming the Victims:

The Democratic Republic of Congo: Every year, 540,000 Congolese die from war and related humanitarian causes. This has been so since 1998 and the number who die yearly at the present time (2008) is unchanged from the number who were dying during the 1998-2002 war, resisting invasion by Rwanda and Uganda. Half of the deaths are among children under 5 years, most of these deaths being from preventable causes, such as diarrhea and pneumonia. Life expectancy is 51 years.

To the extent that this humanitarian disaster is covered in the corporate press, it is portrayed as peculiar to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and attributed to age-old, internecine, intractable tribal rivalries, ethnic feuds and internal strife, which have no beginning and no end.

The root cause of the conflict is resources. The Congo has 80 percent of the world’s reserve of coltan (columbium-tantalite), 30 percent of the world’s reserve of cobalt, and 10 percent of the world’s reserve of copper. Other mineral resources include diamond, gold, uranium, tin, silver, niobium, and manganese. The country is rich in petroleum, and its natural resources include timber and hydro-power.

The illegal exploitation of Congo’s natural resources is documented in a 2003 report by the United Nations Security Council. Resources, such as minerals, are extracted by Congolese rebels or Rwandan and Ugandan armed forces or their proxies, and are sold to foreign corporations. These corporations are, according to the UN:

“the engine of the conflict in the Congo. . . The plundering of natural resources . . . [is] one of the main elements fuelling the conflict.”

The war for resources is taking place on several fronts:

a. A la “Disaster Capitalism” of Naomi Klein, the World Bank took advantage of the dislocation produced by the 1998-2002 war and, in 2002, established the legal framework for contracts between transnational mining corporations and the Congolese government. The contracts which the Congolese government has signed not only completely lack transparency, but they are also odious, in the sense that they serve the interest of Western investors, not those of the Congolese people.

b. Between 2002 and 2006, Western powers invested $500,000 to organize elections which side-lined the Congolese pro-democracy movement, and led to the election, in 2006, of the incumbent president, Joseph Kabila Kabange (1971-, president 2001-). Kabila had become president in 2001, after the assassination of his father, President Laurent Desire Kabila. Joseph Kabila’s government gives unfettered access of Congo’s resources to foreign corporations and governments, as documented in a July 2007 study by the International Crisis Group.

c. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) imposes severe financial restrictions on the Congolese government, even to the point where it is unable to pay its own army. This was confirmed in early January 2008 by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, during an interview with the Financial Times of London.

The Congo’s 60 million inhabitants live on an average income of 30 cents per day.

Among the numerous uses of coltan in modern industrial societies, are its use in cell phones, laptop computers, ink jet printers, X-ray film, hearing aids, pace makers, airbag protection systems, and jet engines.

(Friends of the Congo 2008, “Congo Facts,” pp. 1-2. Friends of the Congo 2008, “History of the Congo,” pp. 1-5. Friends of the Congo 2008, “Coltan,” pp. 1-2. Carney 2008a, pp. 1-6. Carney 2008b. United Nations 2003, pp. 1-6. International Crisis Group 2007, pp. 1-6. Naeem’s Blog 2008, pp. 1-3. Wikipedia “Joseph Kabila” 2008, pp. 1-2. Regarding cell phones, see the present document under “The global market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,” “Freedom and the corporate social Agenda,” No. 4, “Lulling Consumers into a Sense of Safety”).

9. Profits at the Expense of Life: Adam Smith conceived the market as a means to achieve the “wealth of nations.” In his view, the market rule of monetary self-interest was instrumental toward the production of more and cheaper commodities for social well-being – profits working for life.

In today’s corporate system, Smith’s instrumentalist ethic has been reversed. The global market paradigm recognizes life only for its instrumental value to increase profits – life working for profits. The imperative of the paradigm is the ability of private, borderless corporations to “add value to the inputs of capital investment,” and the market judges nations in this light – success being defined as the ability to “win the competition in the global market place,” and “attract investors.” Nations caught in the system (and all of them are, or they are targeted for elimination), are thus made to fulfill the demands of the very paradigm which destroys them – which destroys all life, both human and environmental.

Each step in the succumbing of life is declared “necessary,” or “inevitable.” Each promised reward is “more freedom.” Yet the only thing which is ever “more free” is corporate money.

The demand of the global market that everyone sell what they can do at whatever price they can get, so that they can produce more ready-made commodities and services for others to consume, reduces people to dependent functions of money prescriptions. People become labor and consumers within the controlling sequence of money acquisition, living within the pre-determined roles of its demands.

This wheel of Ixion has two commands:

“Obey and consume.”

(Pp. 29, 133, 143 and 221-222. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000. Ixion is the Greek King of the Lapithes, who was punished for his impious acts by being chained eternally to a revolving fiery wheel. See the present document under “The global Market,” “The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The classical free Market,” “Adam Smith”).

10. An anti-democracy Agenda: Corporations are anti-democratic by nature. No evidence substantiates the linkage they claim between democracy on the one hand, and foreign investment and trade on the other. The overwhelming evidence is to the contrary.

In order to enhance its own growth and expansion, the global corporate market systematically de-democratizes society. Democracy is anathema to a borderless oligopolist regime seeking unconditional (“free”) access to the local markets, resources and jobs in every society.

Worldwide, trans-national corporations seek, singly and together, to open all domestic markets, natural resources, built infra-structures, and labor pools to trans-national control, without the barrier encountered by self-determining people and their governments. No society with democratic accountability of its leadership has ever given away all its bases of wealth, free of cost or performance requirement, as transnational trade agreements specify they should do.

Democracies are likely to obstruct the “free flow of capital and goods” by instituting “protectionist” measures.

Adam Smith did not declare a relation between the market and democracy (pp. 58-60).

Controlling “Democracy”: The filtering of media content may not be sufficient to keep democracy as a shell, particularly in “budding democracies,” and “societies which seek the democratic path.” Other methods include low-intensity warfare, selective assassination, trade embargoes, military invasions, and international propaganda wars against populations and local leaders who resist the appropriation of their markets and natural resources by transnational corporations (p. 61).

Explicit Expressions of the corporate anti-democratic, anti-life Agenda:

Milton Friedman (1912-2006): In a 1970 New York Times Magazine article, American economist Milton Friedman expresses the controlling principle of the global market system:

“The one and only responsibility of business is to make as much money for stockholders as possible. The doctrine of social responsibility [for business] is a fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society.”

(Pp. 42-43 and 265. Wikipedia “Milton Friedman” 2008, p. 1).

The Trilateral Commission: Founded in 1973, by David Rockefeller (1915-), the Trilateral Commission is composed of the world’s leading corporate chief executive officers (CEO’s), United States presidents (past and future), and academics from Harvard University.

In its 1975 task-force report on the governability of democracies, entitled, “The Crisis of Democracy” [written in anticipation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, signed by the U.S. and Canada in 1988, and, in 1993, superseded by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which includes Mexico], the Commission states:

“There is an excess of democracy [in the Western world . . . What is needed is] the apathy and non-involvement . . . [of a] governable [democracy, and more recognition of] the inescapable attributes of government – the legitimacy of hierarchy, coercion, discipline, secrecy and deception.”

(Pp. 58, 61 and 266. Trilateral Commission 1975, pp. 1-6. Wikipedia “Trilateral Commission” undated, p. 1. Wikipedia “Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement” 2008, p. 1. Wikipedia “North American Free Trade Agreement” 2008, p. 1).

Brian Mulroney (1939-, Canadian Prime Minister 1984-1993): In Canada, during the 1980’s, the rising national debt is generally attributed to “excessive social spending.” In 1991, however, economist Hideo Mimoto, chief of the social security section at Statistics Canada, shows that, in fact, from 1979 to 1990, 50 percent of the debt increase was due to higher compounding interest rates, and 44 percent was due to tax write-offs to corporations and wealth tax payers.

With no counter-evidence, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s government represses Mimoto’s study, orders a re-writing of it (although it has already been declared accurate by other economists and more than 20 governments), and launches a major political campaign to:

“slash the deficit by reducing unaffordable social spending.”

In subsequent years, the government reduces the funding allocated to Statistics Canada (pp. 74-75. Wikipedia “Brian Mulroney” 2008, p. 1).

Michael Walker (1945-): In 1993, Canadian economist Michael Walker, founder, in 1974, of the libertarian Fraser Institute (the research branch of trans-national business in Canada, based in Vancouver, B.C. but with offices throughout Canada and in the United States), advocates for more “free trade,” asserting:

“A trade deal simply limits the extent to which a government can respond to its citizens” (pp. 58, 61 and 266. Wikipedia “Michael Walker” 2008, p. 1).

Peter Drucker (1907-2005): In 1994, writing on the transformative effects of the information age, American economist Peter Drucker verbalizes, endorsing it, the view that democracies should be constrained to either remain within the limits of corporate control of humanity’s means of existence, or face the risk of being singled out for “market punishment:”

“Every country and every industry will have to learn that the first question is not, ‘Is this measure desirable?’ but ‘What will be the impact [of the measure] on the country’s or the industry’s competitive position in the world economy?’”

“The impact on one’s competitive position in the world economy should not necessarily be the main factor in a decision. But to make a decision without considering it, has become irresponsible” (Partial quote pp. 60-61. Full quote in Purcell 2005, p. 101).

Deconstructed, the sentence means that democracy or other desirable goals have to accommodate the need of corporations to reduce their costs and increase their revenues (pp. 60-61 and 267. Wikipedia “Peter Drucker” 2008, p. 1).

David Frum (1960-): In 1995, Canadian-born American citizen, neoconservative journalist and former economic issues speech writer for President George W. Bush, David Frum points to life-protective programs when describing “where the axe should fall next:”

“I would say on a single day this summer, we eliminate 300 programs, each one costing a billion dollars or less. The big programs like welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare will take a little time to get rid of” (pp. 76 and 268. Wikipedia “David Frum” 2008, pp. 1-2).

Bill Kristol (1952-): In 1995, American political analyst, founder of the neoconservative magazine, The Weekly Standard, and at present visiting professor at Harvard University, Bill Kristol, unashamedly targets life:

“You cannot in practice have a federal guarantee that people won’t starve” (pp. 76 and 268. Wikipedia “Bill Kristol” 2008, p. 1).

Ian Angell (1947-): Ian Angell, Professor of Information Systems at the London School of Economics since 1986, is well known for his “pragmatic, down-to-earth” views on electronic commerce, his workshops on new tactics for sales and marketing using Internet social networks, and his radical support of capitalism.

In 1996, Angell comments:

“The disposable income of the majority is being reduced. The big question of the coming decades is how to find an acceptable means of scaling back democracy” (Quote p. 118. London School of Economics undated, p. 1. Wikipedia “Ian Angell” 2008, p. 1).

The Toronto Star (Richard Gwynne, October 6, p. A17) reports the comment, not as what it is – an acceptance of wealth redistribution from the majority to the minority of the population, and a realization of the consequent need to dismantle democracy. The paper reports it as a “hard truth,” giving the article the headline:

“Voice of Angell provides hard truths” (Quote p. 274).

Barack Obama (1961-): In the lead-up to the United States elections of 2008, Barack Obama, democratic senator from Illinois, rises to being the democratic party presidential candidate on the basis of the themes of “change” and an “out-of-Iraq” popular sentiment (“Bush lied, soldiers died,” “Withdraw-now,” “The Iraq war is unjust and unnecessary”).

Obama’s first action as presidential candidate, however, is the selection, for vice-president, of one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq war in the Senate, Joe Biden (1942-), from Delaware.

After the November 4, 2008 elections, President-elect Obama chooses, as Chief of Staff, one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq war in the House, Rahm Emanuel (1959-). In October 2002, Emanuel was the only member of the democratic Illinois delegation to support the joint resolution authorizing the war in Iraq.

By November 23, 2008, Obama is planning to name Senator Hillary Clinton (1947-) as Secretary of State. In October 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the joint resolution authorizing the war in Iraq (Democracy Now! 2008a, p. 2. CNN.com 2004, p. 1).

On November 25, 2008, Obama announces his decision to keep Robert Gates (1943-) as Secretary of Defense. Gates was appointed Secretary of Defense in 2006, by President George W. Bush, and since then has been overseeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has proposed sending 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan (Democracy Now! 2008c, pp. 1-2).

On December 1, 2008, Obama announces his nomination of retired Marine General James Jones Jr. (1943-) as National Security Adviser. Jones is former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and presently serves on the Board of Directors of the Chevron Corporation, one of the world’s six largest oil companies. He is also President and Chief Executive Officer of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Institute for 21^st Century Energy, from where he has been calling for the immediate expansion of domestic oil and gas production, and has been challenging the use of the Clean Air Act to combat global warming (Democracy Now! 2008d, p. 1. Wikipedia 2008 “James Jones, Jr.,” p. 1. Wikipedia 2008 “Chevron Corporation," p. 1).

But the 9 million Americans who are being pushed into poverty by the present “economic crisis,” are not as apt as they were prior to the crisis, to be worrying about the war. They are joining the already 37 million Americans who, in 2007, were living below the poverty line. The total number living below the poverty line in 2008, is expected to be 47 million – that is, 15 percent of the country’s population, one out of every six persons. In November 2008, the number on food stamps is expected to exceed 30 million (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cited by Democracy Now! 2008b₁, pp. 1-2. Washington Post, cited in Democracy Now! 2008c, p. 4).

On November 24, 2008, Rahm Emanuel (prospective White House Chief of Staff) announces that the president-elect is re-considering his campaign pledge to repeal the tax cuts instituted by President Bush for the wealthiest Americans. Instead of repealing the cuts, Obama is said to be considering letting them expire, as scheduled, in 2011 (Democracy Now! 2008a, p. 2. Klein 2008, p. 7).

Also on November 24^th, to help him navigate the financial crisis, Obama names:

* Timothy Geithner (1961-) as Secretary of the Treasury. Geithner is the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and has played a key role in the recent government bail-out of Wall Street big firms.

* Lawrence Summers (1954-) as head of the White House National Economic Council. Summers is former president of Harvard University, and one of the key architects of deregulation and laissez-faire, trickle-down economics.

Summers was a key figure in:

. The repeal, in 1999, of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, prohibiting bank mergers. The very large mergers which occurred after the repeal, created the institutions which, when the crisis occurred, were said to be “too big and too intermingled” to fail.

. Keeping derivatives out of the reach of financial regulators.

. Allowing the banks to carry extraordinary levels of debt, such as 33:1, in the case of Bear Sterns.

In 1991, as Chief Economist of the World Bank, Summers explained:

“Spread the truth – the laws of economics are like the laws of engineering. One set of laws works everywhere.”

In 1993, as Under-secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, Summers was helping shape U.S. policy toward Russia. Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007) was President of the Russian Federation (president 1991-1999). After Yeltsin had initiated, in 1991, economic “shock therapy” for Russia, and after he had, in 1993, stormed the Russian Parliament, setting it on fire, Summers advocated moving faster:

“The three ‘-ations’ – privatization, stabilization and liberalization – must all be completed as soon as possible.”

Both Geithner and Summers are major advocates of financial industry deregulation, which prescribes that there should be very large firms on Wall Street, that these large firms are “too big to fail,” and yet, that these large firms can take any degree of risk they want, in their quest to enrich their company and their shareholders. Both men are among those responsible for the present financial crisis (Democracy Now! 2008a, p. 2. Klein 2008, p. 3. Klein 2007, pp. 275, 285 and 291 and 319, summarized in Hall 2008c. Chomsky 2008, pp. 5-6. Baker 2008, p. 1. Wikipedia “Larry Summers” 2008, p. 1).

During the year prior to November 2008, the direct and indirect financial obligations assumed by the U.S. government, totaled almost 8 trillion dollars (Democracy Now! 2008c, p. 1).

However, on November 25, 2008, Obama nominates Peter Orszag (1968-) as Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and instructs him to examine federal spending closely, cutting out wasteful programs.

Obama explains:

“But if we are going to make the investments we need, we also have to be willing to shed the spending that we don’t need, in these challenging times. When we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is a necessity. We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politician, lobbyist, or interest groups. We simply can’t afford it” (Quote in Democracy Now! 2008c, p. 1. Underline mine).

Naomi Klein’s “Crisis Capitalism” seems to be on course in the United States. The war machinery is on track to thrive, and social programs (the needs of life) are on track to starve.

The Battle – Life vs. Money Acquisition: The “global market” consists of money exchanges between trans-national corporate oligopolies which, through an “invisible hand,” attack government social spending, and transform social orders overnight, producing economic “miracles” one day, and economic meltdowns the next (usually in the same countries). The market is, in fact, a construed aggregate of borderless money investors focused solely on having more money. The exchanges serve the growth of money. The medium of exchange, however, is not money. It consists of instruments without cash reserves, designed to collect interest and financial charges.

The requirements of life are not a component of the “global market” paradigm. Damage to life, to the extent that it is recognized, is dismissed as an “externality.”

Life-protective standards, to the extent that they are recognized, diminish profits.

As public sector goods are “privatized,” and social programs cut, and as corporations are increasingly “free” and people increasingly un-free and insecure, the conflict, perhaps to the death, reveals itself. Life vs. money acquisition (pp. viii-x, 38-40, 55-56, 92 and 140).

“Succeed or perish in the brutal global competition,” is not far off from Hitler’s dictum in Mein kampf:

“Humanity as a whole must flourish. Only the weak and cowardly will perish” (Quote p. 255).

Assumptions of the transnational Trade Regime

The Coup d’état: A world coup d’état has occurred, and is still unfolding. International money capital, seeking to become maximally more, has been accorded well-defined and over-riding transnational rights to rule the production and distribution of goods in the world, uncontrolled by any limit protecting individual, social, or environmental life. Secretly negotiated regulations bind societies and legislatures to a transnational order which decrees illegal whatever claim of life “does not honor trade obligations.” Unfettered money capital has the right to circulate freely through all social and natural life environments across the world, appropriating, exchanging, extracting, exploiting, and re-structuring their life-fabric to maximize returns to stockholders. There is no recognition of any right which this life fabric might have to limit or resist the “free movement” of capital (pp. 64 and 81).

Assumptions:

1. The Right of private Interests to access all Markets: Corporate agents assume that they have the unconditional right to access the markets of other societies, free of charge, without obligation to contribute toward the costs of developing the conditions of existence of these markets. They expect to enter foreign markets, buy and sell whatever they choose, and, cost-free, be the beneficiaries of the country’s tax-supported market infrastructure.

The domestically-financed infrastructure provided by the society whose market is accessed, includes:

a. Armed forces and police protection across its territory.

b. Roads, utilities, sewage systems and water supplies.

c. Laws which:

i. Protect corporate agents.

ii. Protect the goods of corporate agents.

iii. Protect patents owned by foreign corporations (for example, in medicines).

iv. Enforce intellectual property rights (for example, over the seeds of farmers, even against their own growers, and the texts of authors, even against their own writers).

(See the present document under “The global Market,”“The Evolution of the Market Paradigm,” “The ‘neo-classical’ ‘free Market,’” “Freedom and the corporate economic Agenda, No. 4, “Government ‘Interference’”).

2. Only private Interests should be reimbursed for their Losses: Corporate agents assume that only their own losses and damages should be recognized in international trade regimes. They are silent on the subject of losses and damages to other economic sectors, such as workers, governments, publicly-owned resources, environments and communities. Transnational regulations protect private corporate interests in every detail, but do not mention any other interest.

3. The Interest of the public is of no Consequence: Corporate agents not only do not recognize the interest of the public as worthy of being included in international trade regulations (see Item 2, “Only private Interests should be reimbursed for their Losses”), but they claim that the public interest should be prevented from expressing itself, because it is “too costly,” “unworkable,” “against private initiative,” or “communist.”

Governments are the expression of the interest of the public. When corporate agents attack government expenditures, they attack the public interest. The duty of governments is to regulate private interests in order to protect the public. Corporate agents invert the equation – governments should de-regulate, protect and even subsidize private interests, while reducing public expenditures.

4. Private Interests are not liable for the Harm they cause: Corporate agents assume that the losses and damages they inflict in the countries in which they operate, are to be paid for, not by themselves, the culprits, but rather by the victims, as “hard adjustments to the global market,” “harsh but inevitable” consequences of the “free” market, or “necessary adjustments to the tough new reality of investor value.” All international trade agreements render corporate “persons” immune from liability for the harm they cause.

Under this set of assumptions, transnational corporations take the right to occupy one ecosystem after another – whether human (such as our mind, with advertisements) or ecological (such as our food and our water), extract what they require to make a profit, pollute, degrade and exhaust environmental resources, and then abandon the site (thus cutting off the livelihood of communities), all with no requirement to pay for the damages. The global market paradigm does not recognize this behavior as a problem, and governments lend their assistance by exhorting their population to “compete harder.”

The system is structured to exploit, depredate and abandon life across the globe, in order to turn what is appropriated into the growth of money – turning life into non-life. The world’s multiplying Free Trade Zones are demonstration sites for the pure expression of “freedom” in the system (pp. 63-67).

THE DESTRUCTION OF LIFE

Weapons Manufacture and Use: At present, weapons are both the leading and the most profitable commodity in international trade. Weapons are commodities which are researched, designed and produced to destroy human life and its infrastructure with the highest possible efficiency achievable using the knowledge provided by the physical, biological and engineering sciences.

The capitalist system systematically selects in favor of weapons production. The advantages of investments in weapons originate in:

1. The high price of weapons. The government is generally willing to pay those high prices.

2. The rapid rate of obsolescence and turnover of weapons. This is the case both in arms-race market conditions and in war conditions when weapons are destroyed outright.

3. The monopoly, or semi-monopoly of armament manufacturers as a consequence of:

a. The designation of military production designs and methods as state secrets.

b. The high capital costs of armament technology and manufacture.

c. The privileged relationships between established military producers and government defense and procurement agencies.

4. The large-scale and secure capital financing of military research and production. The funding is available through public taxes, resource allocation, and national-debt imposition – mechanisms not available for any other system of commodity production.

From the point of view of neoclassical economics, these circumstances in the global market which favor weapons, are rational. From the point of view of life, of course, they are not understandable, and are seen as the “madness of the arms race,” and the “insanity of the military institution” (pp. 171-173).

In addition, military commodities promote the global market system.

Weapons:

1. Depredate goods (such as food), thereby opening up markets for priced commodities (processed food) to take their place.

2. Clear indigenous and unarmed peoples from lands and resources, thereby ensuring the re-structuring of social organizations around money.

3. Terrorize movements opposed to the global market regime (p. 174).

The State of the Earth: The limits of the Earth are upon us, in terms of our environment, our resources, and the number of humans which the Earth can sustain at whatever standard of living we choose. Nature is in collapse, weather patterns are menacing, the end of cheap oil is now, the planet is running out of fresh water, a major nuclear accident remains a probability, genetic engineering poses a major problem for our food supply, which is already in jeopardy, and technologies of transcendence, such as artificial intelligence, artificial life, nanotechnology, and robotics, as well as the convergence of these technologies, threaten the very foundations of life on the planet (David Noble 2005. Clive Ponting 1991/1992. Other references. All summarized in Hall 2007c, p. 83, and Hall 2008b, p. 49).

Population Growth: World population is increasing exponentially – from 2 billion in 1930 to 6.7 billion in 2008 (Clive Ponting 1991/1992, p. 240. Other references. All summarized in Hall 2007c, p. 88).

Every four years, humanity is adding to itself a number of people equal to the present population of the Untied States (300,000,000) (United States Bureau of the Census 2006, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 64).

Urbanization: The world has 20 cities with more than 10 million inhabitants each. Tokyo has a density of 2,600 persons per square kilometer.

Urbanization is decoupled from industrialization, and even from development per se. In Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo) and in Maputo (Mozambique), 60 percent of residents earn less than the cost of the minimum required daily nutrition (Clive Ponting 1991/1992, pp. 309-310. Mike Davis 2005, p. 1. Other references. All summarized In Hall 2007c, pp. 89-91).

Water: In 2003, 434,000,000 people were facing water scarcity. This is defined as an availability of water of from 500 to 1,000 cubic meters per person per year. It includes 36-72 cubic meters per year (100-200 liters per day) for personal use, and in addition to this, the water needed for agriculture, industry and energy production (Worldwatch Institute 2005, p. 62, summarized in Hall 2005b, p. 7; in Hall 2006b, p. 27; and in Hall 2007c, p. 92).

Grains: From 1998 to 2005, the world reserves of grain decreased from 120 to 80 days of consumption (Worldwatch Institute 2006, pp. 22-23, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 8).

Productive Land: In 1999, the earth=s available productive land was 12,000 square meters per capita. In order to sustain a Arich-world@ lifestyle, 100,000 (70,000-120,000) square meters per capita are needed (Ted Trainer 2005, p. 279, summarized in Hall 2006a, p. 17).

Cropland: From 1996 to 2005, the world cropland area decreased by 7.7 percent.

On a per capita basis, from 1960 to 2005, the earth=s cropland area decreased from 5,000 square meters per capita to 2,100 square meters per capita (David Pimentel et al 1996, p. 2. Ross McCluney 2005, p. 156. Other sources. All summarized in Hall 2006b, pp. 10-12, and in Hall 2006a, p. 17).

Wild Fish: From 1995 to 2003, the world=s wild fish catch decreased by 9.2 percent (Worldwatch Institute 2006, pp. 26-27, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 15).

Forest Cover: From 1990 to 2005, the world forest cover decreased by 2.2 percent (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 2006, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 20).

Coral Reefs: In 2006, coral reefs in all regions of the world were threatened by warming waters. In ten areas, the reefs were completely dead (Dinyar Godrej 2001/2006, p. 75. Other sources. All summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 40).

Atmospheric Carbon dioxide: The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 383 parts per million – a 37 percent increase over its pre-industrial concentration (280 parts per million, in 1850) (James Hansen 2007, summarized in Hall 2007c, p. 85).

Ecological Footprint: Humanity=s ecological footprint is a measure of its use of renewable resources – its demand on the biosphere. The unit of measurement is the number of planets needed at the present rate of resource use, one planet equaling the total biological productive capacity of the Earth during the year in question.

From 1961 to 2001, humanity=s ecological footprint increased from 0.5 planet to 1.25 planet (Living Planet Fund 2006, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 32).

In 1999, David Pimentel (Cornell University, Department of Ecology) estimated that it would require at least three times the earth=s entire resources and physical area to provide the world population with the material and energy consumed by an average North American citizen (David Pimentel 1999, cited in Ross McCluney 2005, pp. 177, 182 and 304, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 6).

Depleted Uranium Contamination: As of 2003, the uranium contamination of the Earth was estimated to be in the range of the equivalent of 821,679 Hiroshima bombs (Numerous sources, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 49).

Technological Threats of Life: Technological threats to life include unsustainable industrial methods of agriculture, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics (Many sources summarized in Hall 2006b, pp. 50-53).

The State of Humanity: “Globalization” (free trade for the entire world), is not structured to care for life. The “free market” leaves out the more than half of the world’s people who do not have the choice of being “free market agents.” It does not cater to people in the following categories:

* In 1999, 2,800,000,000 people were living on less than $2 per day.

* In 2000, 2,400,000,000 people were without access to improved sanitation.

* In 2000, 2,000,000,000 people were without electricity.

* In 2001, 1,700,000,000 people were living in countries facing water stress.

* In 1999, 1,560,000,000 people were living in countries where more than half the population had no sustainable access to affordable essential drugs.

* In 2003, 1,100,000,000 people had no access to safe water.

* In 2001, 924,000,000 people were living in urban slums.

* In 2004, 800,000,000 people went hungry on any given day.^(a)

* In 2002, 641,000,000 people were living in countries in which life expectancy had decreased from 62 to 46 years during the past 20 years.

* In 2001, 467,300,000 people were living in countries where development, as measured by the United Nations human development index (HDI), had decreased during the past 10 years.

* In 2001, 354,300,000 people were living in countries in which the international debt was 25 percent of exports or more.

* In 2003, 135,000,000 people were threatened by desertification.

* In 2002, 55,000,000 people were either infected with HIV or were AIDS orphans.

* In 2001, 40,000,000 people were displaced from their homes.

* In the late 1990’s, 27,000,000 people were slaves (Numerous references, summarized in Hall 2005b, p. 8).

⁽^a) On November 6, 2008, in Rome, Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), announced that worldwide, 923 million people are now “food insecure” (Democracy Now! 2008e, p. 1)

The State of non-human Species: The extinction crisis – the race to save the composition, structure and organization of biodiversity as it exists today – is finished, and we have lost.

During the present century, 2 of the Earth=s species will functionally, if not completely disappear. These species represent 1/4 of the genetic stock of the planet (pp. 4-5, 16 and 63).

Table 2 summarizes the collapse of the Earth=s wilderness.

Table 2: Species Extinction Rate ^(a)

Time Period

Extinction Rate (all species)

(per year)

Distant Past

(100,000,000 years ago to 20^th century)^(b)

0.5 to Aseveral species@

Recent Past ^(c)

(1950-2000)

100

At present ^(d)

(2006)

3,000

Future ^(e)

(2050, projected)

(by 2100)

5,000 or more

10,000 or more

Footnotes to Table 2:

^(a) Stephen Meyer 2007, pp. 3-4 and 46. Wilson 1992/1999, pp. xiv, 29-31, 38, 132-133, 189-190 and 210, summarized in Hall 2005a, pp. 5 and 7. World Bank and United Nations University 2000, p. 5, summarized in Hall 2006b, p. 30, and in Hall 2007a, p. 49. Other sources. All summarized in Hall 2007b, pp. 3-4.

^(b) The period from 100,000,000 years ago to the 20^th century, is the period after the recovery of diversity from two great extinction spasms:

i. The Permian Extinction: 245,000,000 years ago, the AGreat Extinction Spasm No. 3,@ in the Paleozoic Era, ending the Permian Period.

ii. The Triassic Extinction: 210,000,000 years ago, the AGreat Extinction Spasm No. 4,@ during the Mesozoic Era, Triassic Period.

Both spasms sharply reduced biodiversity (up to 87 percent of marine animal species). Recovery to a level of diversity similar to that which prevailed prior to these two extinctions, took 100,000 years B that is, until 100,000,000 years ago.

^(c) The Red List of Threatened Species, published since 1963 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, the AWorld Conservation Union@), recorded, in 2006 (its last update), a total of 784 species extinctions between 1500 C.E. and 2006. This would be an extinction rate of (784 / 500) = 1.57 species per year. However, the list is far from complete:

i. The 2006 list includes the evaluation of 40,168 species, plus an additional 2,160 sub-species, varieties, aquatic stocks and sub-populations. A conservative estimate of the total number of living species on Earth B both described and un-described B is 13,620,000. The list, therefore, includes (40,168 / 13,620,000) = 0.01 percent of existing species.

ii. More than 17 percent (more than 7,000) of the species listed in 2006 have not been evaluated since 1996.

iii. The determination of which species are listed, has more to do with aesthetics and economics than ecology and biology. Charismatic mammals with which we can identify, such as the Pandas, get our attention and support. The many thousands of disappearing aquatic invertebrates do not. There are about 11,000 species less than 2 millimeters in size. About 15 percent of these have highly specific niches.

^(d) The rate at which new species are appearing is less than one per year.

^(e) The land and the oceans will continue to teem with life, but it will be life as a homogenized assemblage of organisms selected for their compatibility with humans (p. 4).

The human Selection of Species: Not all species will disappear at the same rate. Those species able to adapt sufficiently rapidly to the fast-paced and ever-increasing human-induced disturbances imposed on them (such as habitat encroachment and global warming), have a good chance of surviving. Their future is bright. The species which will become extinct are those too specialized to be able to adapt sufficiently rapidly, and they are often the apex predators, the keystone species. Life will be diminished.

Thus, for the first time in the history of evolution, not forces of nature, but rather humans are the selectors of species. The type of life which will survive, is in the hands of humans (Stephen Meyer 2007, pp. 8-9, summarized in Hall 2007b, p. 5).

The Case of Money vs. Life:

The metaphysical Principle of “the Market”: The principle which sustains the corporate sovereignty under which we live, is that unfettered money, in the form of transnational corporate capital, has an indelible right to circulate freely through all societies and natural environments across the world. This capital has the right to appropriate, exchange, extract, exploit and re-structure all life in order to maximize returns to stockholders. Citizens and communities have no right to limit or resist its “free movement,” and no right to protect either their lives or their resources.

This relationship of investment to societies, together with the strict exclusion of any social alternative which might limit, replace, or surpass this principle, is a prescription for total corporate world rule (pp. 81-82).

Corporate media and information systems consistently select only the messages which do not contradict this organization of societies to serve money. Life becomes an instrument of corporations, required to feed its demand for the growth of money. The market paradigm is not able to recognize any common interest of life (pp. 130 and 143).

The metaphysical Principle of Life: In contrast, life, whether human or environmental, is perpetually sustained and its growth provided for, by its own spontaneous cycles, with no requirement of any productive plan to make this happen by artifice. This is “the great harmony” which all cultures throughout history (until the global market system) have recognized.

As the ability of technology to disaggregate and destroy natural life systems has increased, this difference in means of life production, has become decisive in the organization of life on the planet. Rogue money is taking over human economies and their environments at an exponential rate. Humanity is being programmed according to the dictates of the global market paradigm – and this humanity, so programmed, is, for the first time in the history of any species or culture, threatening the very foundations of life on the planet.

The only way in which “sustainability” of the environment can be achieved, is by humans not systematically depleting, polluting, or destroying the environment. If not destroyed, the environment will take care of itself. The invading corporate mechanism now dismantling and poisoning it, needs to be restrained. And the method of this restrain must be external, because the global market paradigm cannot recognize the obvious reality that environmental stability and biodiversity are needed for all life, including human life. Focused solely on money, the market paradigm cannot see that the one-way program of turning nature into parts for commodities, and the rest into a bottomless sink for industrial effluents, is ecologically insane (pp. 160-161).

my conclusions

A radical critique

McMurtry’s analysis raises the discourse about the depredation of life on the planet, both human and non-human, from the level of a “liberal complaint” to the level of a “radical critique.” These are Michael Parenti’s phrases to connote the piercing of the unseen wall which prevents asking why the poor are poor (Parenti 2008).

To wear a halo and give charity to the poor is hailed by society as generous. To ask why the poor are poor is to incur ostracism and possibly murder.

But we are all guilty, because both rich and poor, we subscribe to the market paradigm, equating money with well-being, and not challenging the sanity of a society whose economy is based on money as the gateway to meet life’s needs, rather than constructing an economy which meets life’s needs as the gateway to enrich the experience of living.

Money always has had the tendency to conflict with the requirements of life. The acquisition of money depends on minimizing one’s contribution (“cost”) and maximizing one’s take (“returns”). As a value principle for a society’s economy, taking maximally more out than what one has put in, is so contrary to the interests of life, that it is bound eventually to come into conflict with life. Unchecked, it may invade life and, like a cancer, destroy it completely (p. 120).

The acquisition of money is an individual, ego-centric endeavor. The requirements of life are usually in common (air, water, food, love, transportation, disease prevention etc . . .). Money acquisition is blind to life. Its radar screen does not register life needs. Adam Smith’s providential “invisible hand” which converts the selfish pursuit of profit to the promotion of the social good, is but another of the innumerable ways in which the rich forestall insight by the poor about their exploitation of them – why the poor are poor.

Russian novelist, dramatist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) knew about the importance of justification for doing evil. In The Gulag archipelago (1973-1978), describing the oppressive Soviet system, he writes:

“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he is doing is good,

or else that it is a well-considered act in conformity with natural law . . .”

Solzhenitsyn also knew that the wolf-tribe appears from within our people. It stems from our own roots, our own blood. It is our own:

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds

and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us, and destroy them.

But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.

And who is wiling to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

(Quotes in Sheehy 2008. Wikipedia “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn” 2008, p. 1).

References

All unspecified page numbers refer to:

McMurtry, John. 1999. The cancer stage of capitalism. Sterling, VA: Pluto.

Specified page numbers refer to:

Ackerman, Frank, 1997. “Overview Essay,” in Human well-being and economic goals. Frank Ackerman, David Kiron, Neva Goodwin, Jonathan Harris and Kevin Gallagher, editors. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Ali, Tariq. 2008. “Uncle Sam’s Pakistan.” Presentation, September 24, Seattle, WA. Recorded and broadcast by Alternative Radio, Boulder, CO.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/ALI010.shtml.

Baker, Dean, 2008. “Andrea Mitchell hasn’t heard about the financial Crisis.” November 5.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=11&year=2008.

Berkeley University, 2000. “In memoriam, Bernard Q. Nietschmann, 1941-2000.”

http://geography.berkeley.edu/peoplehistory/Nietschmann/NietschmannMemorial.html. Accessed November 6, 2008.

Bush, George W., 2008. Presentation to the Manhattan Institute, New York, N.Y., November 13. Recorded and quoted by Democracy Now!, New York, N.Y. Headlines: “Bush: Don’t blame market for financial Collapse.” November 14, 2008. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/14/headlines. Accessed November 16, 2008.

Canadian Action Party, 2008. “Toward a mixed Economy – A Place at the Table for Society.” (Video).

http://www.canadianactionparty.ca. Accessed November 6, 2008.

Carney, Maurice,

2008a. Interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! “Corporations reaping Millions as Congo suffers deadliest Conflict since World War II.” January 23. Reproduced in Third World Traveler. (Maurice Carney is co-founder and executive director of Friends of the Congo, an advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.).

http://www.democracynow.org.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Congo_watch/CorpsBenefits_CongoSuffers.html. Accessed November 18, 2008.

2008b. Interview on CounterSpin, “Maurice Carney on the Congo.” November 14.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page 3651. Accessed November 18, 2008.

Chomsky, Noam, 2008. “What next? – The Elections, the Economy and the World.” Presentation to “Encuentro 5,” Boston, MA, week of November 17. Broadcast by Democracy Now!, November 24, 2008. Transcribed by “a friend,” November 25, 2008.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/25/18552890.php. Accessed November 28, 2008.

CNN.com, 2004. “Hillary Clinton: No Regret on Iraq Vote.” April 21.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq/hillary. Accessed November 29, 2008.

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6^th edition. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University/Gale Group.

Data360.org, undated. “GDP, United States, 1947-2008, unadjusted and in constant 2000 Dollars.” According to its website, Data360 is “a non-profit, non-partisan organization helping people and organizations clarify issues that are of importance to them.”

http://www.data360.org/graph_group. Accessed December 5, 2008.

Defazio, Peter, and Paul Wellstone, 2000. “U.S. Congress concurrent Resolution on taxing cross-border Currency Transactions to deter excessive Speculation.” (DeFazio was a Congressman (D-OR), and Wellstone was a Senator (D-MN). The Resolution was introduced on April 11.

http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/ushouseres. Accessed December 5, 2008.

Democracy Now!,

2008a. “Obama reconsiders Pledge to repeal Tax Cuts for Wealthy,” “Obama to name Geithner, Summers to Top economic Posts,” “Clinton and Richardson to be in Obama’s Cabinet.” Headlines. November 24.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/headlines. Accessed November 29, 2008.

2008b₁. “Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson dissect Obama’s new economic Team and stimulus Plan.” Headlines. November 25.

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2008/11/25. Accessed November 29, 2008.

2008b₂. “Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson dissect Obama’s new economic Team and stimulus Plan.” Transcript. November 25.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/25/naomi_klein_robert kuttner_and_michael_hudson. Accessed November 29, 2008.

2008c. “Federal Reserve and Treasury announce new $800 billion Plan,” “Obama pledges Government spending cuts,” “Report: Gates to remain as Defense Secretary,” “Number of Americans on Food Stamps set to top 30 million.” Headlines. November 26.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1126/headlines. Accessed November 29, 2008.

2008d. “Change or more of the Same? Obama introduces national Security Team.”

http://www/democracynow.org/2008/12/2/change_or_more_of_the_same. Accessed December 2, 2008.

2008e. “UN – Rising Food Prices pushing more into Hunger.” Headlines, December 10.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/10/headlines.

Forbes, 2008. “Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.” November 26.

http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=ADM. Accessed November 27, 2008.

Foreign Policy in Focus, 2001. “Repairing the global financial Architecture – Painting over Cracks vs. strengthening the Foundations. Post-Bretton Woods financial Trends.” Author unstated. November 15.

http://www.fpif.net/papers.gfa/trends. Accessed December 7, 2008.

Friends of the Congo, 2008.

“Coltan.” November.

http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/new/coltan/php. Accessed November 18, 2008.

“Congo Facts.” November.

http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/congofacts/index.php. Accessed November 18, 2008.

“History of the Congo.” November.

http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/historyofcongo/index.php. Accessed November 18, 2008.

Greenwald, John. 1996. “The Fix was in at ADM.” Time Magazine, Vol. 148, No. 20, October 28.

http://www.nd.edu/~mgrecon/datafiles/articles/admpricefixing.html. Accessed November 27, 2008.

Hall, Francoise.

2005a “Ask the Mosquitoes.” March 19 (13 pages, unpublished).

2005b. “Global Trends – Predictable Atrocities.” June 4 (29 pages, unpublished).

2006a. “The brief and disastrous Reign of Homo petrolatum.’” September 30 (61 pages, unpublished).

2006b. “Our physical Environment, our Capacity to understand, our Morality, and our Spirituality.” November 24 (95 pages, unpublished).

2007a. “Global Warming – an Assessment of possible Solutions.” May 26 (64 pages, unpublished).

2007b. “The End of the Wild.” June 23 (66 pages, unpublished).

2007c. “Balancing Demand and environmental Degradation.” October 14 (117 pages, unpublished).

2008a. “The moral Universe of the “free World.” March 30 (51 pages, unpublished).

2008b. “The Myth behind corporate Globalization.” June 1 (58 pages, unpublished).

2008c. “The corporate Coup for the World’s Water.” July 10 (85 pages, unpublished).

2008d. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

Holy Bible:

Old Testament:

Amos 2:6-7 and 8:4-8.

Isaiah 3:15.

Jeremiah 5:27-29.

Habakkuk 2:6-7.

Ezekiel 16:48-50

Malachi 3:5.

New Testament:

Yeshua.

Saint Paul: Romans 13:1 and 13:4.

Ephesians 5:23 and 6:5.

I Peter 2:13.

Infowars.net, 2008. “Total Bailout cost heads toward $5 trillion.” (Steve Watson) October 15.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/October2008/151008Bailout_figures.htm. Accessed November 11, 2008.

International Crisis Group, 2007. “Congo – Consolidating the Peace.” Africa Report No. 128, July 5.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2829. Updated November. Accessed November 19, 2008.

Jhally, Sut. 2007. “How TV exploits its Audience.” Presentation in Amherst, MA, March 8. Broadcast by Alternative Radio, Boulder, CO.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/JHAS004.shtml. Accessed November 20, 2008.

Klein, Naomi.

2007. The shock doctrine – the rise of disaster capitalism. New York, N.Y.: Henry Holt/ Metropolitan/ Picador.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008c. “The corporate Coup for the World’s Water.” July 10 (85 pages, unpublished).

2008. Round table discussion. Democracy Now! 2008b₂. “Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson dissect Obama’s new economic Team and stimulus Plan.” Transcript. November 25.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/25/naomi_klein_robert kuttner_and_michael_hudson. Accessed November 29, 2008.

Kovach, Sue, 2007. “Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation.” Life Extension Foundation Magazine. August.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/aug2007_report_cellphone_radiation_01. html. Accessed July 6, 2008.

Lietaer, Bernard. 1997. “Global Currency Speculation and its Implications.” Presentation to a seminar of the International Forum on Globalization. Reproduced in International Forum on Globalization News, No. 2, Summer 1997. Reproduced by the Third World Network.

http://www/twnside.org.sg/title/nar-cn.htm.

London School of Economics, undated. “Professor Ian Angell – Introduction.”

http://personal/lse.ac.uk/ANGELL. Accessed November 26, 2008.

McMurtry, John. 2002. Value wars – the global market versus the life economy. Sterling, VA: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008a. “The moral Universe of the “free World.” March 30 (51 pages, unpublished).

Naeem’s Blog. 2008. “DR Congo – Disaster Capitalism in Action.” November 11.

http://brnaeem.blogspot.com. Accessed November 19, 2008.

Parenti, Michael,

1993. “The JFK Assassination and the Gangster Nature of the State.” Presentation, November 22. Berkeley, CA. Recorded by TUC Radio, San Francisco, CA. Broadcast November 14 and 21, 2008.

http:www.tucradio.org/new.html.

2008. “Diversity and Orthodoxy in the News Media.” Sonoma State University, Department of Sociology, Keynote speech, Project Censored, Modern Media Censorship Lectures, Sonoma, CA. August 28.

Purcell, Rod. 2005. Working in the community – perspectives for change. Self-published (Lulu.com, Morrisville, N.C.).

Sage, Cindy, 2007. “Bio-initiative Report – A Rationale for a biologically-based public Exposure Standards for electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) – Section 1, Summary for the Public.” September 18.

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_1. Accessed November 16, 2008.

Shah, Anup. 2007. “Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership.” April 29.

http://www.globalissues,org/articles/159.

Sheehy, “Mr.” 2008. “Recruiting Solzhenitsyn to destroy ‘them.’” July 19. The Gulag archipelago was first published in English by Harper& Row, New York, N.Y., in 1985.

http://ateacherwrites.wordpress.com/2008/07/19. Accessed December 6, 2008.

Shiva, Vandana, 1993. Monocultures of the mind. New York, N.Y.: Zed Books.

Trilateral Commission, 1975. The crisis of democracy – report to the Commission on the governability of democracies. Task Force Report #8. Michael Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki, authors. New York, N.Y.: New York University.

http://www.trilateral.org/projwork/tfrsu. Accessed November 15, 2008.

United Nations.

1993, Report of the truth commission on El Salvador. Summarized by Equipo Nizkor, at:

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/salvador. Accessed November 8, 2008.

1999. Human development report 1999, New York, N.Y.: Oxford University.

2003. “Security Council condemns plunder of Democratic Republic of Congo’s Resources.” January 24.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7642.doc.htm. Accessed November 19, 2008.

Weissman, Robert, 1998. “The Competitor is our Friend, the Customer is our Enemy.” Corp-focus weekly column, “Focus on the Corporation.” July 10. (Robert Weissman is editor of Multinational Monitor Magazine).

http://lists.essential.org/1998/corp-focus/msg00023.html. Accessed November 27, 2008.

White, Matthew,

1999. “Historical Atlas of the twentieth Century – Wars and Atrocities in the four Quarters of the twentieth Century.”

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-2000.htm. Updated September 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

2001/2005. “Historical Atlas of the twentieth Century – Deaths by mass Unpleasantness – Estimated Totals for the entire 20^th Century.”

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm. Updated September 2005. Accessed September 4, 2008.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

Wikipedia,

Undated.

“Trilateral Commission.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed November 15, 2008.

2008.

“Dwayne Andreas.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 10. Accessed November 27, 2008.

“Ian Angell.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated October 7. Accessed November 27, 2008.

“Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 7. Accessed November 15, 2008.

“Carvaka.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated September 30. Accessed October 22, 2008.

“Chevron Corporation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated December 2. Accessed December 4, 2008

“Roberto d’Aubuisson.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated October 5. Accessed November 7, 2008.

“Jose Napoleon Duarte.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 4. Accessed November 8, 2008.

“Peter Drucker.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 10. Accessed November 13, 2008.

“Jacques Ellul.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. October 17. Accessed November 8, 2008.

“Foreign Exchange Market.”

http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki. December 5. Accessed December 5, 2008.

“Milton Friedman.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 12. Accessed November 13, 2008.

“David Frum.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 9. Accessed November 17, 2008.

“David Gauthier.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 2. Accessed November 6, 2008.

“George Grant”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated September 14. Accessed November 8, 2008.

“Martin Heidegger.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 9. Accessed November 9, 2008.

“William Stanley Jevons.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated October 8. Accessed November 4, 2008.

“James Jones.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated December 2. Accessed December 2, 2008.

“Joseph Kabila.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 10. Accessed November 20, 2008.

“Bill Kristol.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 10. Accessed November 17, 2008.

“Alfred Marshall.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 4. Accessed November 6, 2008.

“Philip Mirowski.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated October 31. Accessed November 6, 2008.

“Mozi (Mo Tzu)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated October 22. Accessed October 22, 2008.

“Brian Mulroney.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 26. Accessed November 27, 2008.

“North American Free Trade Agreement.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 15. Accessed November 15, 2008.

“John Rawls.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 4. Accessed November 6, 2008.

“Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 5. Accessed November 7, 2008.

“David Ricardo.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 3. Accessed November 5, 2008.

“Oscar Romero.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 6. Accessed November 6, 2008.

“Antonio Saca.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 7. Accessed November 8, 2008.

“Salvadoran civil War.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 4. Accessed November 8, 2008.

“Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated December 7. Accessed December 7, 2008.

“Lawrence Summers.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 29 [sic]. Accessed November 28, 2008.

“Michael Walker.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated November 9. Accessed November 15, 2008.

“Leon Walras.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Updated October 27. Accessed November 4, 2008.

Zarate’s political Collections, “Leaders of El Salvador.” Reproduced by Terra Espana.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/salvador.htm. Updated February 17. Accessed November 7, 2008.

***