The single most important report yet, providing the big picture

[Dover]

as context for fitting all the puzzle pieces we see in everyday news events. This is a remarkable and comprehensive piece that needs to be read in its entirety. I promise you it will be illuminating:

http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Papers/JerryHarris_MilitaryIndustrialComplex.pdf


The George W. Bush administration launced the most serious challenge to
the transnational capitalist class since the begining of the globalist project.
To understand the nature and deepth of this conflict an updated study of
the military/industrial complex was needed which combined an economic
and political analysis that exposed the strategic differences within the
capitalist class.

THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
IN THE CONFLICT FOR POWER
BY JERRY HARRIS

“Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
-- Mao Tse-tung

After W.W. II the U.S. had unquestioned hegemony throughout the
capitalist world. But in the early 1970s U.S. power began a long decline,
particularly as the economies in Europe and Japan recovered. Still, the
U.S. maintained leadership by providing military security for the West.
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a basic shift in this
arrangement. The U.S. security umbrella was no longer needed and
previous American economic hegemony had long passed its peak.
Alongside this strategic change was the emerging revolution in
information technology. As information capitalism became firmly rooted
in all the advanced countries a system of economic and political
globalization rapidly developed. These changing world conditions
presented two choices to the U.S. ruling class; either fully integrate into a
globalized system of world capitalism or reassert hegemony through
military power. Globalization became the choice of consensus, backed by
rapidly growing transnational corporations, the immense power of
speculative finance, a surge in cross cultural exchanges and a
technological boom that pointed to a new economy. For most leaders in
the U.S. and West the Soviet collapse had created the conditions to build
a new integrated multilateral system.

But beneath the new global system remained a powerful nationalist
wing within the U.S. capitalist class. These elements retained a solid base
of support in the military/industrial complex (MIC), the structural heart of
U.S. superpower status. The hegemonists bloc consist of geopolitical
realists and neoconservatives and both believe the defeat of the USSR
provided the opportunity for a unilateral U.S. empire. This strategy was
laid-out in a pivotal policy paper published in 1997 by the neoconservative
think tank Project for the New American Century, and signed
onto by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and other top
White House officials.
As the paper reads, “Having led the West to victory America faces
an opportunity and a challenge…Does the United States have the resolve
to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
What is required is a military that is strong…a foreign policy that boldly
and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United State’s global responsibilities…At
present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy
should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into
the future as possible (and maintain) unquestioned U.S. military
preeminence (to prevent) others an opportunity to shape the world in
ways antithetical to American interests.” (Donnelly, 1997, i)
This vision drives the Bush administration and is a sharp challenge
to the globalist strategy followed throughout the 1990s. This conflict for
power between the globalist and hegemonist wings of the U.S. capitalism
is key to understanding the current world and stems from the undermining
of the old nation/state by globalization. A world economy based on global
assembly lines and run by transnational capitalists has outgrown the use of
nationalist armies protecting and extending national markets. Security was
redefined as global stability to facilitate cross border investments. As
pointed out by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, “Almost
everywhere, countries face the task of harmonizing their foreign economic
policies with their national security strategies. China and Russia both face
this challenge, as do the Europeans and the Japanese. So does the United
States.” (Kugler, 2000a, 8)

To understand the nature of this conflict let me begin by suggesting the
capitalist class consist of different networks of power and interests. These

would include economic networks of productive and finance capital; political
networks that dominate the state apparatus, intellectual circles and the leading
political parties; cultural networks that include media, academic and religious
forces; and the military/industrial complex (MIC). These networks are
interconnected and overlap but are also internally divided into various
fractions, the most important consisting of globalist and nationalist interests.
Fractions in the different networks can link together around common
economic, political, cultural and ideological concerns and coalesce into
defined wings of the capitalist class that attempt to build a broad based
hegemonic ruling political bloc.
Based upon this approach the MIC exists as a separate and
independent network split among a number of different influential
fractions. The most important division is between transnational globalists
and international hegemonists. The globalists support strategic
coordination with global allies in the North and South, humanitarian
warfare and nation building to establish stability in countries not fully
integrated into the global system, and industrial and technological mergers
with allied defense manufacturers. In contrast, international hegemonists
promote unilateral world leadership, unquestioned military preeminence,
preemptive warfare, a protected industrial base and a rebuilt military using
new information technologies....cont'd

[applegrove]

1. I hate the words military industrial complex. But I don't want to be

left out. So I'll put aside my hatred of the 'old words' and read. I hope they shed some light. Cause to me it still looks like just a big ole pile of snakes ****ing at the top.

Picky eh?

[Dover]

2. Let us know what you think. Just abbreviate those "old words"

MIC is a bit fresher like a new coat of paint on an old stained wall.


Although I think your conclusion is probably accurate....pile of snakes whichever way you step...this report distinguishes the two conflicting groups of vipers and draws up a clear map for comprehending, penetrating and navigating all the apparently disparate and insane news items that bombard us daily. The insanity seems to have an order and reason after all, at least in their warped minds. My response to reading this is that at last this illness has been accurately diagnosed. Finding an anti-venom is another matter.

[applegrove]

3. I disagree that globalists are vipers. Sorry. We in the North America

have much wealth and food. For sure some of our poor do not. But globalism is a way to let Africans grow food for cash and that way have lives that are much less dependent on rains, political climate & give-aways and randomness.

I think there should be multilateral norms set. Like universal health care and the like. Remember Clinton was the globalist viper you describe. And if you think about it - to have gained wealth from the less developed nations for 100s of years by exploiting their resources and people, and then to not let them, the poorest of the poor have a good kick at that can, that is what is unconscionable. Event he most far lest third world economists are for globalism. Why instead of phone lines - they have satellite phones in many parts of Africa. A few towers here and there. A way to give a phone to a community that can call anywhere in the world. They either partake in all that we have - or you shut them out.

So globalists are not vipers. I disagree with that entirely.

There is a stage of income in a society where people move off the farms and start with salaries. We all went through this - well in my family at the turn of the last century. And lives improved a great deal when we specialized and had cash in our pockets (farmers didn't have that). Why would you want parts of the world to not go through that stage.

[Dover]

4. No need for the lecture.

You assume far too much.
I presume the "snakes" I referred are the same ones that you made reference to in your initial response.

I am not an anti-globalist.

[applegrove]

5. Sorry if I assumed you were anti-globalist. I actually found that

article southing in that it points out that many groups in power are split down the middle. Yes - a big ole pile the hegemonarchists are the vipers.