Does Capitalism Cause War ?

In my previous entry I linked to an article that was published on The Nation's website. There are some who believe that the eventual US pullout from Viet Nam had more to do with a disgruntled business sector than to anti-war protests. And it is possible that the Decider has managed to lose his biggest backers as well over the bungling in Iraq. The piece referenced above is remarkable in its simplicity and forthrightness. Here's a taste:

It is true that sectors of the economy can profit from war in certain circumstances, but Wall Street really doesn't like war--at least not the one now raging in Iraq, which is beginning to look like a write-off. The defense industry does like military expenditures. And US capitalists in general do appreciate the role of a robust military budget in bolstering the dollar as the ultimate reserve currency, in assuring that the rules of global finance are favorable to our interests and in protecting access to petroleum products. But we really do not like uncertainty. We like an environment we think we understand, one in which a return- on-capital analysis can be based on reliable assumptions of a predictable level of risk.

Now that is very straightforward and pretty much encapsulates the left's historical critique of capitalist economies and their governments. The interesting thing is that capitalism's backers always portray investors as gamblers engaged in an egocentric, Darwinian struggle to survive and thrive: competition. Anyone who actually follows business news knows that isn't true. From the Savings and Loan scandal to Long Term Capital Management to cost-plus Pentagon contracts to the "risky" pharmaceutical industry (how does a "risky" business always manage to turn in the best profits in America?) to monopolies like Microsoft, capitalists do all they can to guarantee profitable returns and government is the guarantor of last resort. Or to play with a Trumanism: the buck doesn't stop here; the bucks are handed out here. (If you live in an American city it is likely that your tax dollars, among other things, fund professional sports arenas.) That's one of the jobs of lobbyists. As with Vegas, what's gambling on one side of the table is a calculated business on the other. It's fine for citizens to pay the costs of their mistakes or misfortunes but one certainly can't expect businessmen to suffer. Suffering is for suckers.

So the business sector has become disheartened with Bush's Iraq policy, not because they dislike war but they don't like losing and the rampant incompetence about Iraq looks to Wall Street like losing. If the adventure had gone swimmingly all investors would have been on board, particularly those in the energy sector (Bush's and Cheney's home base) with all that oil and gas practically crying out for American domination. But businessmen are in a bit of a pickle: we have a consumption crisis. Companies never have enough customers and investment bankers search every nook and cranny for profitable places to invest. Even the supposedly robust economy is a bit of an illusion. To quote again:

There remains, of course, the problem of too many dollars chasing too few deals, a fact reflected in corporations massively buying back their own stock, paying down debt and paying cash for acquisitions where possible. Nevertheless, although there are none of the huge capital-eating growth industries we have liked to finance in the past, such as railroads, automobiles or telecommunications, we have invented other ways, such as derivatives, securitizations and proprietary trading, of tailoring returns on capital to the risk involved.

That was the essence of the dot com boom and bust. The wealthy are awash in money and need a place to plunk it down. You can check out the system's problems or the lack of available consumers. As we all know our economy and our consumption is built on debt and has been for decades. Financiers have been nothing short of brilliant in keeping the train moving down the track. But it's sort of a game of chicken and no one wants to be in the oval office when that locomotive crashes. Aggressiveness in foreign policy is the leading player in the drive to find markets. Business has imperatives, not morals.

Data mining and even wiretapping would go down easily in the finance community if such measures were likely to be effective....

These people don't care. Death and destruction can work well for them. What they can't stand is uncertainty and loss. And this is likely to influence what happens with Iran and Russia and China as well. However, there is always the human element. The citizens of the US could act, scream, make a scene demanding an end to the Bush agenda. Who knows? If he were impeached and convicted he might even vacate the White House. Then again, he might not. To repeat something from the last blog: Hitler made only one mistake: he lost the war.