The Hills are Alive with the Sounds of ... Profit

Personally, I don't like to reflect much on political personalities and the changes in bureaucratic cogs. Rearranging the deck chairs (or changing the mast head) may have an impact on how people percieve what's occuring, but it doesn't change the underlying reality of capitalism, consumerism, and the fundamental character of the state. My comrade Nullstellensatz wrote recently in his own blog, "Liberals believe that fundamental change can be secured by replacing a few politicians." I would say that description applies to conservatives as well, only on the opposite side of the spectrum. Even the tea baggers are taking a conservative, rather than a radical-right, stance when they call for ousting incumbent officials.

Policies and personalities shape each other, but for all intents and purposes (or at least my own at this stage), I am not interested.

I am interested, however, in the study released last week concerning "mineral riches" lying under Afghanistan.

States the NYT: "The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe. "

This is, in my humble opinion, the best political news of the year so far. My only criticism is the timing of this report. I imagine these particular causes for enthusiasm and concern are not obvious, so let's look at it in more detail.

Why Afghanistan Needs Capitalism

This central Asian, civil-war-torn nation is fucked. Caught between insurgents and imperialists, the every-day people can't get by, industry can't grow, government can't provide services, and the overall quality of life remains as landlocked as the geography. Agriculture remains the central feature of the economy - and opium remains the central feature of agriculture. No matter how much opium occupying forces light on fire, the economic incentive to grow drugs remains. Proving, yet again, that the characteristics of an economy play a decisive role in determining the characteristics of a society.

The presence of valuable minerals is a game-changer. But only, of course, for the long-term prospects. Local industry is hideously under-developed. Even hiring a bunch of people to go dig up some gold is pragmatically implausible. Who has the money to spare for shovels or gold pans, not to mention labor? And you probably aren't going to mine any friggin minerals at all without the use of hydraulics. And then you have to refine the mined product. It's the same way for each mineral, and it requires some serious capital investment. Not to mention supply lines for exports or distribution lines for commercial retail. And the presence of commercial retail in the first goddamn place.

So we can see the opportunities for domestic investment and development of a mining industry in Afghanistan is pretty goddamn microscopic.

That means foreign investment, foreign capital, which is a form of imperialism (which is an advanced stage of capitalism, not to be confused with colonialism, a cruder stage of capitalism). And in this case, foreign business is a little reluctant to put down roots. And will probably be especially hesitant to invest in such a labor-intensive industry. No matter how much investors may foam with lust for the Islamic Republic's rich lithium veins, the present situation just isn't safe enough to support their desires.

It is inevitable that foreign capitalism will attempt to make Afghanistan "safe." (Incidentally, "safe for democracy" is really just a code for "safe for our investments," they don't give a rat's ass if they need a dictator to do it. A sham democracy just looks nice. Foreign policy/public relations brownie points!) And there will be those investors who want to challenge the situation, "get the jump" ... and inevitably get creamed. (The poor sods they get to work for them are the "contractors" you hear about, getting kidnapped or beheaded. Workers get screwed every which way.) But it will take a while. It will take paying off the insurgents like they did in Iraq, and the blood of many more Afghans. Men, women, children. More US and coalition soldiers, too. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, flag-draped caskets you won't see on the news. But we'll squeeze that precious dust from the rocks, by God.

Karzai, inevitably, will also have to go. More warlords and ter'rists too. Allies will become enemies and enemies allies. Eventually, either American imperialism will breed Afghani puppet-capitalists, or the United States will be forced to pull out in a humiliating defeat, and a breed of capitalists more acceptable to the Afghani ruling class (and more marketable to the Afghan people) will assume the role. The top three candidates for the position, in order of least likely to most likely, are Russia, China, and Iran. (I won't get into why right now; perhaps you can muse it over yourself and let me know what you think.)

"But Drez," you poor beleaguered souls may be saying, "I thought you stand opposed to all capitalism, foreign and domestic."

Too true, comrades! I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and as a vast and complicated political system I can't even hoist the goddamn thing. But history has shown (at least so far) that you can't "skip over" the "phases of development." Afghanistan needs some degree of capital investment to make a transition into a more sustainably democratic society. The Afghani working class will only have something to seize and be thus equipped to revolutionize their society - if there is an introduction of capital.

Or should I say ... a re-introduction of capital.

Why This Report is Suspect

(I mean, besides the fact that it's been released by the US government.)

This poor country gets a lot of flak. I mean, people talk about it like it's been the backwaters of the planet for its entire history. And that's just not true; back in the day, Afghanistan was a pretty swingin' place - well, if you were a rich Afghan or a rich Brit, at least. And you have to hand it to the European colonialists: they were interested in "civilizing the savages." Often that meant shooting the crap out of anyone who resisted their rule, but in this case it also meant helping draft a constitution, build up infrastructure, and introduce compulsory education. All very capitalist developments.

Eventually Afghanistan got some indepenence from the Brits, and then - as was fashionable in poor countries in the latter half of the century - went on a Marxist kick. At one point the standard of living began to have similarities to industrialized nations. The US backed the anti-Soviet forces in the country, the corrupt USSR invaded in retaliation, the Taliban took over, and the rest is history. (Or current events, if you will.) Booting out the Marxists in favor of the USSR and then the ultra-right wackos tore the country to bits.

Yay Umerika!

So in reality, the complete disarray of this country isn't an unbroken thread of barbarism, but a dialectic of development and the strategic intervention of international powers and the internal competition for the country's soul, so to speak (will it be a country ruled by might, or will it transcend nationhood and build itself on reason?).

And furthermore, there have been sophisticated studies on the valuable mineral deposits in this region at least since the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1970s, though I don't doubt that the anal-retentive British colonialists also scoured the soil meticulously. The gold, at least, should have been common knowledge in geological (and, presumably, military intelligence; those guys are pretty damn comprehensive in their analyses) circles. The lithium has probably been known since pretty early in the invasion.

Now obviously, the US didn't declare war on Afghanistan just because there are gold deposits under Takhar. We aren't talking about oil, the great consumer-capitalist lubricant. Gold is a capitalist bauble in comparison.

It is the timing of this report that is suspect. At a time when the popularity of "the good war" is steadily sinking, and disillusionment in Obama is building, I think the administration is looking for some way to rebuild the confidence of its own investors. There have been almost 10 years of conflict and there can easily be another 10 and you have to reassure the corporate world that you can, and will, and should slug it out. It isn't a revelation; it's a reminder.

And it should remind us, too. It should remind us that war is a racket. Fought by we the workers, lost by we the workers, and won - win lose or draw for us - by the rich.

There has Gotta be a Better Way

It's not looking too positive now. In another five years the world may start shooing away the gluttonous supply of Afghanistan opium. That's good. Any number of people out of that particular drug trade is positive. Constructive jobs for the Afghan people? Also positive. Without a doubt some citizens remember, or have at least have knowledge of, a better period for their people. Keeping that hope alive can always infuse their struggle with purpose and vigor and throw off the oppossed oppressions of the US and the Taliban.

There is always a possibility, albeit small at this stage, of a third route that circumvents US capitalism and other forms of foreign oppression: a planned economy. Democratic control of the workplace by the workers and nationalization of industries and the co-struggle of workers and farmers - therein lies the key to this route. Such dramatic participation of the people in the economy and government could so radicalize Afghanistan that industrialization could occur in a matter of years and make it a major regional, even world, power. That was the effect on Russia in 1917 when it transitioned to vast Tsarist hinterland to a republic of worker's councils.

But that republic in Russia was quickly lost - an unindustrialized country simply does not have the economic basis to maintain this advanced form of organization for long. It would need to link up to working-class movements in more developed countries, such as Greece, Ireland, or Spain, where those movements are challenging capitalism's global oligarchy. It's a tall task. But otherwise, the people of Afghanistan will end up living in mining towns that resemble work camps, and their harsh but beautiful countryside will be subjected to the worst practices capitalism has to offer. The profit system leaves undeveloped nations few alternatives to exploitation, and so the working class there needs to seize foreign capital with zeal and vigor and just not let go.

Keeping it in the class

According to the NYT, billionaire Dan Duncan's estate has effectively passed into the hands of his heirs tax-free.


$9,000,000,000 split between four children and four grandchildren. All of whom were doubtlessly living pretty decent lives before Pappy passed on. I'm sure they had no problem launching businesses of their own, or going to college, or getting sweet business gigs using the family name. How much have they had to want for? How much have they done to deserve their share of nine billion dollars?


We the workers usually grow up thinking of money as a reward. We're like little monkeys, pulling the levers of capitalism and getting pennies in return. While the gold pours up, into the pockets of the masters of machines. Perhaps they, too, see it as a reward somehow ... their right, as the favored strata of society. Our magnificent benefactors.


Certainly, the NYT says, our friend Duncan "contributed to a wide assortment of wildlife foundations and community institutions like the Houston Zoo and Houston Museum of Science, and an assortment of medical institutions. The various medical centers at Baylor College of Medicine received more than $250 million from Mr. Duncan and his wife, with more than $100 million used to found the Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center."


No mention of how much damage his oil pipeline could cause. In disruption of habitat. In contributing to Co2 emmissions. In the frayed nerves and muscles of exploited workers. There are dozens of pipeline owners like this; they are innumerable throughout history.


Duncan was also an "avid hunter," although he was not content with the regulated hunting of deer - oh no. When you are wealthy you hunt the exotic, for fame, to have "more than 500 entries in the Safari Club International record book for killing animals including polar bears, rhinoceroses, bighorn sheep, lions and elephants." Most of which are now endangered, thanks to the reckless passion of people - especially rich white people - like Don Douglas.


And it isn't just that the whim of one man decided the buying and selling of billions of dollars in a lifetime, ending in an accumulated $9b horde, or that his donations (which only skim the top of his lifetime profits) inevitably also fund unelected bureaucrats. We have a society in which an increasing number of social programs manifest as nonprofits at the whims of the rich, rather than in a planned, democratic way that could effectively meet the needs of the poor or sick or unemployed.

No, nevermind that. The worst part is we have a government that can't even feebly challenge this family's right to boundless wealth. Somewhere, somehow, our government thought it would be good to suspend the estate tax (we don't really need that money in a recovery, anyhow, right guys?). And now we might never get it back, despite the fact that this looks like a "temporary measure":

"Many lawyers say Mr. Duncan’s heirs have the means and motivation to wage a fierce court battle to challenge the constitutionality of any retroactive tax."

Heirs of wealthy estates can hire lawyers to do just about anything to the laws, given enough time and in the absence of working-class response.

But I say screw it, a death tax is ineffective anyway. Get the wealth at the source - seize the workplaces. Redistribute the wealth from there. We can take care of the capitalist estates after they launch a reactionary counter-attack. All we really need to worry about is organizing against them where it hurts the most.

Let the corporate bidding begin!

The most active sector of society has shifted to the right. And I'm not talking about the Teabaggers.

I'm talking about this report from the Washington Post re: corporate donations to the Grand Ole Party. So we're pretty much assured a shift to the right come November.

Don't get me wrong: it looks like it's going to be close at this stage. Obama's victory is still a perceived landmark for the little-f-left, despite the fact that the man and his administration have left ample space in every issue for criticism among every stripe of supporter. A lot of people still believe in what he fundamentally stands for - hope, change, all that jazz. And he's still African-American, although he's a Kenyan-American, basically, and doesn't exactly come from the tradition of "black America." He's just very much a hand-holding liberal politician, which makes him a corporate puppet when all is said and done.

The economic crisis and the mandate of a new President, however, has put a little bit of fight back in the left's diverse forces. (Just a little bit.) The future seems grim indeed, but there are other sectors of the left getting ready to fight back against the attacks on their standards of living - the nurses who care for us when we are ill (the battle in Minnesota has been foreshadowed by the struggle in Philadelphia), and the teachers whose responsibility it is to groom our generations despite lack of funding and backwards legislation.

These are the two places where struggle is very likely to break out in the near future. We aren't done reclaiming our country from the grip of the last administration's mistakes. (Boy howdy, there were a lot ... have we even gotten started yet?)

Unfortunately, the unions will continue to throw money at the Democrats with the misguided hope that they can possibly compete with corporations like the finance industry, like big oil and big weapons industries that basically ensure they get their man.

They tossed a black man on top of the bureaucracy heap and called it "socialism." Without further explanation, and with tiny reforms that could have taken place under anyone, right or left, the media and political system has again villainized left ideas and government oversight and allowed the rabid right to appear credible and heroic.

So come November we will indeed see some fucking nutty Republicans, maybe even some far-right independents where the Republicans can't accomodate the clueless constituents. We will see Democrats continue to crumple spinelessly. Hopefully the mountains of cash from corporate America doesn't tip the scales entirely, but the real catalyst for change rests as usual on the shoulders of the American working class.

Goldman [Nut]Sachs

Bullshit.

More bullshit.

A bullshit triumvirate, even.

What Goldman Sachs does is usury. Merriam-Websters defines usury as "the lending of money with an interest charge for its use." There is a reason most religions outlaw usury.

"But Dresden," the political economists howl, "without interest rates, we would have no banks!"

Think about that for a minute. Why do we have banks? Ostensibly, we are told from a young age, to house our money. To keep it safe.

Now if that ain't the fox guarding the henhouse!

You know why they have a big fancy safe and an armed guard? Cuz they're bastards, and if people caught on to their game, there'd be riots in the streets, and the people would march into the lobby and redistribute the wealth. Along the bottom. Among the people who created it.

Why do the banks, in our society, safeguard the housing deeds? Why do they stand between us and our ability to have a good life? Why are we only allowed a home when it brings them a profit?

Goldman Sachs contributed to the financial meltdown of the global economy! Not just a local economy, not just one country. THE WHOLE. FUCKING. PLANET. The whole thing. From pole to pole, from midnight to afternoon. Iceland collapsed because of the fallout of the decisions made behind these doors:



Countries. Livelihoods. Lost. Right there under those flags.

All the government money? To the banks. To Sachs.

Fraud is the least word for what has gone on here. It's outright banditry on the one hand, and one giant systemic old boy's club on the other. Their thirst for profit, their industry's outright ownership of the US government, is swiftly driving the world economy into convulsions.

And yet they scream bloody murder when they're held to standards of accountability. And their welfare, of course, is intrinsically tied to the stock market - that so-called indicator of economic prosperity. There is no daily measure of how the working class fares. If we had a play-by-play of job turnover, petty layoffs, workplace safety violations, etc. etc. etc., we would be consumed by a collective dread at the drudgery we share under a common yoke. But so long as the focus is on high rolling pricks like the fine business majors at Goldman Loot-and-sacks, we'll go on believing that teachers at failing schools ought to be fired and business execs who crash a planet's economy can be given a second chance.

"The heathen were able, by the light of reason, to conclude that the usurer is a double-dyed thief and murderer. We Christians, however, hold them in such honour, that we fairly worship them for the sake of their money.... Whoever eats up, robs, and steals the nourishment of another, that man commits as great a murder ... as he who starves a man or utterly undoes him. Such does a usurer, and sits the while safe on his stool [or in his corner office], when he ought rather to be hanging on the gallows, and eaten by as many ravens as he has stolen guilders, if only there were so much flesh on him, that so many ravens could stick their beaks in and share it. Meanwhile, we hang the small thieves ... Little thieves are put in the stocks, great thieves go flaunting in gold and silk."
- Martin Luther, as quoted by KARL MARX in Capital, volume 1

It's time we gathered up the money-lenders and imprisoned them for life, and never let interest and credit rule our society again.

Another word on Private Property

There is, naturally, a difference between the terms "private property" and "individual property," although the former is a term we are never invited to examine.

Individual property belongs, in essence, to a person. For example, in my tiny Minneapolis apartment there is a dresser I am using as an entertainment center, a folding TV tray made of black wood - from Target - a filing cabinet from Officemax, a wobbly shelf system I picked up from a thrift store called Savers. These possessions belong to me, as an individual. Day where I invite people into my home to watch TV, they don't take the dresser when they leave. The property is recognized as mine. The man who comes to fix the internets doesn't take the router when he leaves. "Possession is 9/10s of the law," the old adage goes; truly, the courts and cops and lawyers and jury duty summons serve their purpose in keeping an ordered society that will defend your individual property from hoodlums and ne'er-do-wells. Justice, on occasion, is served.

Private property is the twisted perversion of individual property. It is the Mr. Hyde to individual property's Doctor Jekyll - making the word "property" a gentleman by day and a rampaging monster by night (or even in mere shadows). Under the twisted logic of capitalism, a corporation has as much right to a factory as I have to my dresser or television. My furniture - my personal belongings - even my car (technically belonging to the bank) - regardless of their incapacity to feed and clothe and house people, is lumped into the same ideological category as the Ford plant in nearby Saint Paul. Gigantic plants for metalworking that employ hundreds of people and that are the foundation for an entire economy of steel are considered alongside your two-bedroom-one-bath house.

And yet what is the rhetoric in society? That Marxists socialists, who call for the "re-appropriation of the wealth," want to rob you of your home and the contents of your bank account, want to melt down your SUV for a statue of Lenin, want to give your iPod to orphans in Harlem.

Let's get something straight out the gate, yall. We have bigger fish to fry than playing musical chairs with the housing market. (The capitalist-bred Recessasaurus, however, is coming for you, and we defend your right to your home.) When we talk about "abolishing private property," we mean the springs of social wealth ought to be taken into the hands of society so that all may drink from it. Everyone ought to have access to the basic needs of the human condition without worrying about the next paycheck, the overdraft fees, the bills. In a global society of plenty, we can provide more than enough to go around.

But it means the wrenching of the means of production from the hands of profit-seeking capitalists and corporations. As long as absolute wealth is the goal of our economic system, supply will never meet demand in a way that is humanitarian and fair.

Yes, not only can you keep your iPod - you can have a stake in the social direction of Apple, too.