I talk elections on the weekends so will use the current conversations to remind how the social Democratic Party platform of over a century and the base of the Democratic Party of labor and justice over Republican corporate power and wealth were divided by Reagan far-right neo-liberal economics being brought to the Democratic Party by Clinton and then again Obama.
Reagan/Clinton/Obama neo-liberalism and Bush neo-conservatism make a far-right wing militarized autocratic global corporate rule government------they call it Libertarian Stalinist Marxism. That is to where NEW WORLD ORDER takes US politics----one party reporting to a global corporate tribunal.
SOCIAL DEMOCRATS ARE SHOUTING ------NO WAY-----WE ARE GETTING RID OF GLOBAL POLS AND RETURNING TO US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/EQUAL PROTECTION/RULE OF LAW/ AND ANTI-TRUST MONOPOLY BUSTING BY BUILDING OUR LOCAL CITY ECONOMIES WITH SMALL, DOMESTIC BUSINESSES
Below you see the new political posing that global pols are already trying to sell-------the idea that Rand and Ron Paul from a raging far-right Republican Texas are really socialists. They are doing this by saying real civil rights allow people to do anything they want-----which is basically what ClintonBush has installed and yes, Clinton/Bush is as close to right-wing Liberatarianism as you can get. Global rich moved all wealth to the top these few decades so the 1% have all your money, our government revenue, and public trusts and now they say-----
WE KEEP THE MONEY AND EVERYONE ELSE GETS TO BE DEEPLY IMPOVERISHED SERFS----EVERYONE INTO POVERTY AND NO ONE OUT.
Knowing that formerly first world quality of life socially Democratic Republic citizens----either Democratic or Republican won't go back to the DARK AGES they are building that global private military and security force to FORCE Americans into this third world status. This militarization will be like Stalin or Mao----brutally forcing people into a 99% poverty structure and calling it Socialism-----that is the Marxist of this far-right scheme. We have all the money and you toil as equals in extreme poverty that we will call socialism. The political left-leaning structures of socialism and communism are not the same---they do not have a 1% rich forcing people into slavery----there is no hierarchy. This is how we know this MARXIST POSING is just like the Clinton/Obama progressive posing.
If you Google Libertarian Marxism you will find all kinds of articles calling this left-leaning-----but look for the right-leaning ones that describe AYN RAND and the Libertarians and extreme right wing wealth and corporate power.
Libertarian meaning liberating is left-leaning------Libertarian as in WE HAVE ALL THE MONEY AND YOU WILL BE ENSLAVED is far right-wing
Social Democracy is called socialism by Republicans----but it is simply a capitalist structure built to assure WE THE PEOPLE have the public governance that gives citizens their voice. That is why Republicans and Clinton/Obama neo-liberals spent these few decades dismantling all that is public----far-right Libertarian Marxism means we have no public wealth or property.
Yes, Libertarians Really Are Lazy Marxists
I have only really just started studying Marxism in depth (though I am stopping short of Capital for now). Subsequently, while reading Bertell Ollman‘s Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in a Capitalist Society, it once again struck me that (right-)libertarianism is really just lazy Marxism. In many ways libertarianism reads like the first third of Marxism: the area which explores methodological questions and the nature of man. Both libertarianism and Marxism are generally fairly agreeable – and in agreement – in this area, but the former never really fleshes out its arguments satisfactorily. Often I find libertarians, after describing some basic principles (non coercion etc.), make the jump to property rights and capitalism being the bestest thing ever, without fully explaining it.*
I will focus primarily on Robert Nozick and Ludwig von Mises here, as they are the only two libertarians who really explored libertarianism from basic principles of man and his relationship to both nature and economic activity (Murray Rothbard was really an interpretation of Mises in this respect). Overall, I think Nozick and Mises combine to form a fair reflection of minarchist libertarianism.
The state of nature and the nature of man
In Anarchy, State & Utopia, Robert Nozick’s ‘State of Nature’ is one where there is no state (government). He asserts that individuals have rights to protect themselves from aggression, they have rights to the fruits of their labour, and they have the right to cooperate voluntarily, free from deception and theft.
It has always struck me how incomplete Nozick’s exposition of the state of nature is. That man should be a priori free from aggression and entitled to whatever he produces is not really in dispute. What bothers me is that Nozick never really attempts to explore the relationships between different men, between men and society, and between men and nature. For Nozick, an abstract expression of individual rights could be extrapolated up to the whole without much discussion of how things link together. This is especially odd because he demonstrated he was capable of understanding and the limits of such individualism in his incisive critique of methodological individualism. So much the worse for his philosophy that he didn’t apply this thinking to it.
Enter Marx. Marx emphasised that, naturally, man had ‘powers,’ which are the means by which he achieves specific needs. Eating is a power; hunger is the relevant need. Thinking is a power; knowledge is the relevant need. (The former is a ‘natural power,’ common to all animals; the latter is a ‘species power,’ specific to man). By exercising different powers, the individual emphasises different aspects of themselves, and depending on who they are with, which society they are born into, and their available resources, different aspects of the individual will appear to be important, and different conceptions of freedom, happiness, and even the individual himself will emerge.
This may seem like a digression, but in fact it is essential. Once you have established that the abstract individual, when interacting with society, with others, is a very different beast to a lone man in the woods, it leads you down a different ethical path. What becomes important are the interactions the individual engages in, rather than merely the individual himself. It is not enough merely to say an individual should be granted certain rights and that’s that; we have to explore how these rights affect the individual, even by virtue of being defined.
To define every man as an island who cooperates with society and others only through discrete voluntary actions is to diminish the importance of how society and others shape these actions. More than this, it ignores how the rights themselves interact to produce outcomes that may be inconsistent with the principles upon which those same rights, in abstract, were built. Libertarians will likely think I am about to suggest we strip individuals of their rights, but this is not the point. The point is that the rights are not a neutral baseline, and the emergent relations governing these rights could be opposed to individual freedom.
For example, private property is surely the foundation of libertarianism (private property is to be distinguished from possession, btw). But Marx did not think private property, the division of labour, wage labour and capitalist exchanges could ever take place independently; one necessarily implied the other. Any degree of material wealth that qualifies as ‘property’ implies accumulation, which implies producing more than one labourer can manage, which implies employing others, which implies splitting up their tasks into specific, repetitive actions, which implies that what they produce is not necessarily what they need to survive, which implies they must purchase this elsewhere, and so forth. Adam Smith observed this interrelation when he noted that, “as it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the…extent of the market.” I will explore why this may be undesirable from the point of view of individual freedom below, but for now it is sufficient to show that such an emergent property amounts to more than the individual rights from which it originates.
Purposeful action is productive action (which is why capitalism sucks)
Mises claimed man acts to attain certain ends, and only by achieving these ends can he be said to engage in purposive action. If there were no ends to be sought, man would not act; that he acts tells us he has unfulfilled needs. Voluntary exchange gives man the choice and ability to engage in purposeful action with an ever-expanding range of ends at his disposal. The entrepreneur’s role in this is vital, as he channels the purposive actions of many people in the market place, allowing them to attain the ends they seek. This creates an evolutionary process through which man continually realises his chosen ends.
Marx too believed that only man is capable of purposive activity, and this is what separates man from other animals. However, for Marx, the most purposive activity was labour, not consumption. Man engages in productive activity for two main purposes: (1) the end product of his labour and (2) the ability to exercise certain powers of his choosing when labouring, for whichever reason he deems appropriate (efficiency, enjoyment of the task itself, development of skills, etc.). Marx saw capitalism as alienating because in a capitalist system, the individual becomes separated from both the product and the method of production, as well as the time and location in which it takes place.
This separation can be illustrated by an exchange between the worker and the capitalist. The capitalist pays the worker wages so the worker will produce what the capitalist requires him to produce. In this exchange, the worker becomes separated from the product of his labour, producing not what he wants, but what the capitalist requires him to produce. The worker is also required to produce not how he chooses, but at a time, location and in a manner chosen by the capitalist. The worker then uses the wages he earns to purchase other products produced under similar circumstances. The end result under capitalism is that individuals become primarily tied together by what the capitalist guided division of labour demands, rather than by their own autonomous, purposive action. The result is the worker’s alienation from his own labour and also from the products he purchases (this applies to the capitalists too, in a different form; after all, they are on the flip side of the relationship).
So we have two competing narratives here. In one narrative, the individual is merely at the whims of capitalism, while in the other narrative, the individual exercises control over capitalism. Which is more accurate? Ultimately, the question boils down to whether production or consumption is the more purposive activity.
In consumption, the means is exchange, which requires little in the way of personal development or planning, and is brief. What matters most in consumption is the end result: a good or service. Many goods purchased are interchangeable and the act of consumption is relatively brief.** Services are by definition done by somebody else, and generally speaking, the buyer is only interested in the end result (the outcome of a lawsuit; their health; a new conservatory). I’m not suggesting that purchasing goods and services is not useful and does not yield any positive results; I am merely pointing out that as far as man’s self-actualisation goes, as far as purposive action is defined, consumption does not require or achieve much in the way of planning, personal development or uniqueness.
In contrast, during production the individual has both means (productive activity) and an end (the product) in mind when he sets out to act. The productive activity itself cannot be separated from the individual and so the two are inextricably intertwined. Furthermore, productive activity requires and/or results in building up some personal attribute, whether a individual’s capacity to reason, his physical strength and fitness, his perseverance or anything else. Generally these attributes will last beyond the original act of production. The end result is both that the individual achieves some goal he chose, planned and set out to achieve, whatever its exact nature, and that through the process he exercises his individualism by realising certain powers (again chosen by him).
The question for Miseans is how exactly the individual can “discover causal relations” between his purposive productive activity and what he produces if he is not producing what he wants, but doing it under the command of someone else. Mises glosses over the role of the worker in his exposition of purposive action; in fact, he explicitly rejects the notion that labour can be considered ‘action,’ because he considers only ends, rather than means, important for man’s individual development. But are any of man’s actions as rational, as explicitly thought through, as deliberate and purposeful, as labour? For Marx, the tragedy was when labour became a means to an end; Mises merely assumed this was the case.
The heart of libertarianism is the abstract individual, who engages in voluntary actions to attain certain ends, and should be allowed to do this, free from outside interference. But such an abstract philosophy is incomplete and incoherent. In the mainstream, Marx is often projected as disregarding the individual, but in fact, Marx was always highly concerned with the individual. The difference is that Marx’s concern with the individual caused him to zoom out to see the context in which the individual operates, and which aspects of an individual’s character are shaped by the context in which the individual labours. Under capitalism, the most important aspect of purposeful individual action – production – is subsumed, under the command of somebody else, and spurred only by the fact that the work is necessary for the worker’s survival.*** Hence, within his most purposive sphere, the individual is not free to act to realise his own ends through means chosen by him; rather, both the ends and the means are determined by forces outside his control. To me, this doesn’t seem very libertarian.
*To be sure, libertarians do have plenty of fleshed out arguments for capitalism’s efficacy as a system; what I am arguing is that it does not follow from their discussion of man and his nature.
**This has the exception of durables, but how often is the joy of these based on one’s own work on them? Cars, houses and gardens are all the pride and joy of people precisely because they themselves engage in productive activity on them.
***We must remember the context (!) in which Marx was writing. What he says was literally true at the time; in modern liberal democracies the reality is less stark, but the underlying mechanics of working life, and why people work, remain the same.
I often place Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism to the far-right along with Libertarianism because they both entail extreme wealth and power of a few.......below you see where Ayn Rand's idea of far-right does not like being tied to Libertarians----the idea that there are no rules-----and everyone can see today this is what we have------global corporations and Wall Street acting as if there are no laws----
ALL OF THIS IS FAR-RIGHT-----THE FIGHT FOR THE FAR-RIGHT IS THE NEO-LIBERALISM THAT PRETENDS TO BE FREE MARKET WHEN IT IS JUST A FREE-FOR-ALL RACE TO THE TOP IN WEALTH.
Below you see Libertarianism being called right wing economics-----AND IT IS. What the far-right are doing is bringing Marxism into the picture to secure the 1% control of wealth.
THESE GLOBAL POLS HAVE NO INTENTION OF INSTALLING A LEFT-LEANING SOCIALISM.
This is why it is important in this 2016 election to be clear about the difference between social capitalism-----which we call social Democracy------and what the far-right Clinton neo-liberals will call the NEW AMERICAN-----making it sound like Marxism/socialism.
Global pols are doing this right now with the term 'public private partnership' ---making the privatization of all that is public seem like a partnership with the public and not a global corporate 1% control of all that is government.
As we move back to social capitalism we want to guard against the next propaganda being built by the far-right-----Libertarian Marxism.
Many people assume that Ayn Rand was a champion of libertarian thought.
But Rand herself pilloried libertarians, condemning libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism. For example, Rand said:
All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis [than a candidate from the Libertarian Party]
[The Libertarian Party is] a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.
Clinton/Obama neo-liberalism is far-right global empire economics----extreme wealth of a world's few with 99% bringing that wealth. What International Economic Zones were to Asian and Latino citizens with the FOXCONN global campuses and global factories are to be brought to the US if global pols have their way. Whether Ayn Rand corporate and wealth or Clinton/Obama Wall Street neo-liberalism----both end with corporate wealth and power and everyone else enslaved.
Corporations think they have captured America-----but they have not. The reason the word fascism is tied to global corporate rule is what I stated above-----in order to move all wealth and power into the hands of the few you have to divide and conquer---so you have to build hate, competition for survival, use of authoritarian force as with police brutality and jailing of groups. That is what the Clinton/Bush/Obama terms have been about. As they created these social structures with poverty, unemployment, and loss of civil rights-----they build the race and class strains with people's need for jobs----and they bring nationalism into play by allowing immigrants from around the world come to the US. All of this is a goal----to destabilize a formerly first world nation being taken third world by a 1% rich through global corporate rule. Add to this the breakdown of our freedom of press and Fairness Doctrine that the Constitution and Federal law written to allow broad discussion of everyone's political points of view---filling this media outlet with lying, cheating, and propaganda so no one knows the truth in America----AND YOU HAVE FASCISM-----
This video gives a good look. Note that some Americans still think corporations make better societal DECIDERS ---not knowing to where global corporate rule will take them.
Stalin in Russia was fascist as he moved USSR from a socialist left----to a right wing autocratic oligarchy that is Russia today. Hitler was a fascist because he used German nationalism to invade and conquer other nations and then captured those nation's economy to his war machine----corporate fascism.
THAT IS WHAT GLOBAL POLS IN THE US TODAY ARE DOING ---CAPTURING OUR ECONOMY TO THEIR EMPIRE-BUILDING MACHINE.
None of this is Democratic vs Republican-----both US political parties have been captured to what neither wants. We can reverse this EASY PEASY----WE THE PEOPLE are 300 million to less than 10% of population working for these global corporations. Let's bring Republicans and Democrats together in getting rid of global corporate pols----Bush/Johns Hopkins neo-cons and Clinton/Obama neo-liberals-----GET RID OF THEM.
CORPORATE FASCISM: The Destruction of America's Middle Class
Published on Aug 30, 2011
A new kind of fascism has taken over America: the merger of corporations and government whereby corporate power dominates. With the emergence of ever-larger multinational corporations -- due to consolidation facilitated by the Federal Reserve's endless FIAT money -- the corporatocracy has been in a position to literally purchase the U.S. Congress.
What is Fascism ?
by Rich Gibson
1. Fascism is the unchecked rule of a class of the privileged, or relatively rich, in power--a full-scale assault on poor and working people. Parliamentary institutions are usually set aside, or so demeaned as to be meaningless. (The Holocaust was legal). Elites issue direct orders, frequently through a populist leader. Wages, any social safety net, working hour laws, labor laws; all come under legal (and extra-legal) attack. The stick replaces the carrot.
Even between capitalists of the same nation, struggle intensifies.
Fascism in its early stages has been popular among masses of people mystified by nationalism, racism, and sexism. These ideas are key to the construction of fascism. But, "war means work" for some, which may also explain its historical popularity.
Fascism requires and is built on the support of capitalist elites. Henry Ford, the Dulles family, the Catholic Church, and the German Krupps among many others, were early supporters of fascism in the U.S.
Fascism is an element of the modern era, which carries forward elements of feudalism. Fascism has taken the form of state capitalism in Japan, Germany, and in more sophisticated ways, the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. But fascism has also grown in less developed countries, Romania, Bulgaria, most of Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Argentina, Guatemala, Chile; and taken significantly different forms.
2. Fascism and capitalism are inseparable. There has never been a form of capital that was not built on a fascist base--from early British action against the Chartists to today's varieties of imperialism. All major capitalist nations have fascist ties.
Hence, while fascism may not be the dominant form of capitalist government, elements of fascist ideology (biological determinism, rabid nationalism, etc.) and fascist organizations (sectors of the police, KKK, skinheads, etc.) are always present. No capitalist government has ever required a revolution to institute fascism.
Fascism does emerge in capitalist crises, the moments when the struggle for production reaches a point when the workers can no longer purchase the products they produce, a crisis of over-production and declining profits and/or an intense battle for cheaper labor, raw materials, and new markets; that is, war.
However, neither war nor capitalist crisis is a pre-condition of fascism; consider Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. In addition, it is possible to live under fascism within a nation that is not itself entirely fascist, that is, to live as a jobless black youth in Sao Paulo, or Los Angeles.
3. Fascism deceptively calls for the national unity of social classes, class-collaboration, but actually promotes the division of people by race, sex, culture, nation, or religion. Fascism was, under Mussolini and, later, Hitler, conceived as the "corporate state", that is, all the resources of the society were directed toward the support of corporate profits in the name of national unity and economic development. In order to motivate warriors and bolster profits, fascism conceals the real and insoluble tensions between those who own and those who work.
4. Fascism frequently is employed as a strategic base for war. Fascist shifts in government and official ideology grow with war preparations.
5. Violence and terror, made tolerable by racism and sexism (ideas which view people as sub-human) become public policy.
6. Fascism relies on mysticism, organized irrationalism, a culture which turns to superstition, irrationality (extreme religious dogmatism, the fear of sexuality, celebrations of misogyny, death, and hopelessness--serving to explain apparent systematic despair), and retards science and social production in order to mask its own decay. Indeed, fascism is organized decay.
There is a jagged line which runs from conservative Christianity to anti-semitism to anti-communism which underpins much of fascist writing. But, there is no consistency to fascist ideology, other than to preserve capitalism. Fascism is irrationalism organized to sustain inequality and authoritarianism. Even so, the role of the ideology of irrationalism can become powerful, that is, Nazis sacrificed the productive work of many Jews in order to kill them.
7. Fascism is virulently anti-communist. Communists (and perhaps some anarchists), who have been the only consistent and effective anti-fascist fighters, are the fascist's first targets.
8. Fascism has only been defeated internally (primarily by the actions of indigenous national resistance), perhaps, twice: in Albania and, maybe, China. However, resistance movements have changed fascism and halted its birth.
9. There is evidence that combined theoretical and physical struggle causes fascism to retreat--in ideology and materially. In ideology, there is a growing body of research which indicates that vocal and written opposition to fascist ideas does cause a reevaluation and moderation of thinking in individuals. In pre-fascist Germany in the 1930's, areas which actively put people on the streets to fight the Nazis regularly caused Nazi withdrawals--and minimized fascist group membership. There is nothing inevitable about fascism. It is a political movement, reaching from production relations into the mass consciousness, and can be combatted physically and intellectually.
10. If these factors are true, then it seems effective resistance to fascism must be based on a class analysis of society, an internationalist perspective that attacks imperialist war, a multi-racial, anti-racist/sexist, organized approach (as opposed to ephemeral coalitions based on sex, race, religion), willingness to consider violence, and the grasp of the critical role of ideology in combatting fascist practice.
If that does not totally confuse most Americans-----the 1% wanting all Americans to be completely confused about what is real information and what is real history have thrown into the mix that America was built on Mercantilism. This is what Baltimore citizens have to listen to and it comes from the heavy presence of FREE MASONRY-----and the fact that Baltimore and Maryland has a close connection to the old-school British royalty-----what these royalists don't know is global corporate rule creates a world's rich that will not be the same kind of royalty that brought us the American colonies----and your family tree to British royalty has no bearing in GLOBAL CORPORATE RULE.
Free Masons in Baltimore are tied to the idea of Mercantilism because American colonies were captured by an East India Trading corporation that was the British state global corporation. So, American colonists were being taxed to death by British royals while their global corporation East India Corporation was soaking them in costs----SOUND FAMILIAR? This was what brought slaves from Africa----considered part of mercantilism-----it brought all of Europe looking for gold----mining is mercantilism----THAT IS WHY AMERICAN COLONISTS FOUGHT THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR. America was founded not on mercantilism-----it was founded on INDEPENDENCE FROM GLOBAL MERCANTILISM.
The US Constitution was written such that American citizens would not be taken control by global aristocracy and global corporations-----like the British royalty and their East India Trade Corporation.
Yet here we are today----Reagan/Clinton----Bush/Obama creating global corporations and empire-building seeing the US as yet again a colonial economy----THAT IS WHAT INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE AND TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT policies have as a goal.
Mercantilism is the base of capitalism-----it is when we allow global monopoly to take hold that it kills capitalism and national sovereignty. Free Masonry is always tied to this because these are the few percent getting rich from working for the 1%. Right now in the US, Free Masons that are mostly Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are now going to be thrown under the bus as global immigrants take their place as the global Free Masons.
IT IS EASY PEASY TO REVERSE THIS AND RETURN TO GOOD------OLD-FASHIONED-----US CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
This is what the global corporate tribunal and global tribunal court being built in TPP and International Economic Zone policies will be----only rather than having one pesky set of royalty in Britain-----the global tribunal will be the 1% of the world---YIKES!
The Colonial Economy: Mercantilism
Beginning around 1650, the British government pursued a policy of mercantilism in international trade. Mercantilism stipulates that in order to build economic strength, a nation must export more than it imports. To achieve this favorable balance of trade, the English passed regulatory laws exclusively benefiting the British economy. These laws created a trade system whereby Americans provided raw goods to Britain, and Britain used the raw goods to produce manufactured goods that were sold in European markets and back to the colonies. As suppliers of raw goods only, the colonies could not compete with Britain in manufacturing. English ships and merchants were always favored, excluding other countries from sharing in the British Empire’s wealth.
Between 1651 and 1673, the English Parliament passed four Navigation Acts meant to ensure the proper mercantilist trade balance. The acts declared the following:
- Only English or English colonial ships could carry cargo between imperial ports.
- Certain goods, including tobacco, rice, and furs, could not be shipped to foreign nations except through England or Scotland.
- The English Parliament would pay “bounties” to Americans who produced certain raw goods, while raising protectionist tariffs on the same goods produced in other nations.
- Americans could not compete with English manufacturers in large-scale manufacturing.
The Navigation Acts severely restricted colonial trade, to the benefit of England.
The colonists initially complained about these strictures on trade. In New England in particular, many colonists evaded the restrictions of the Navigation Acts by smuggling. But although relations between England and the colonies were often full of friction (as in 1684, when Charles II revoked the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s charter as punishement for smuggling), the two sides never came to any real conflict. Instead, England developed a policy of salutary neglect toward the colonies, which meant that the trade laws that most hurt the colonial economy were not enforced. Threatened by the presence of the French in North America, British officials knew that at some point they would have to clash with the French over the domination of the continent, and they needed the colonists to support them when that time came. The British did not want to alienate their much-needed allies through aggressive trade restrictions.
With the prospect of war against the French looming, the British employed salutary neglect to maintain the colonists’ loyalty.
The Triangular Trade
British mercantilism manifested itself in the form of the triangular trade. Trade routes linked the American Colonies, West Indies, Africa, and England. Each port provided shippers with a payoff and a new cargo. New England rum was shipped to Africa and traded for slaves, which were brought to the West Indies and traded for sugar and molasses, which went back to New England. Other raw goods were shipped from the colonies to England, where they were swapped for a cargo of manufactured goods.
Mercantilism and the triangular trade proved quite profitable for New England tradesmen and ship builders. But in the Southern Colonies, where the Navigation Acts vastly lowered tobacco prices, economies suffered. The triangular trade also spurred a rise in the slave population and increased the merchant population, forming a class of wealthy elites that dominated trade and politics throughout the colonies.
Every category of American politics is now filled with NEW AMERICANS and Clinton/Obama neo-liberals champion this. As immigrants are brought to the US to fill these US International Economic Zones or told to join the military and gain citizenship in 10 years--------immigrants who have been in the US for decades----having heard all kinds of pathway to citizenship talk-----are aware that these citizenship rules keep changing and get harder to achieve. Well, that's because the DREAM ACT for immigrants will move them into International Economic Zones and FOXCONN global factories and enslavement just as happened in Asian, Latino, and African nations. NEW AMERICA is the DAVOS, Switzerland mantra of NEW WORLD ORDER----and it is simply the flooding of US by immigrants brought here thinking they are coming to a better life----and finding that global corporations are taking the US economy to the same conditions as are in their own nations. This is what global mercantilism and colonial economic zones ruled by a global corporate tribunal will look like-----THAT IS WHY GLOBAL POLS ARE USING THESE TERMS---NEW AMERICA----NEW AMERICAN----it does not end well for the immigrants or US citizens. Latino immigrants already here for decades understand this----Asian and African immigrants may not.
Picturing the New Americans
- Emily Anne Epstein
- Dec 12, 2015
The Somalis who live in Minneapolis are much like regular Minnesotans —barbecuing, riding speedboats, going to the playground, and hosting dinner parties. According to Nazaryan, they are also avid Snapchatters, posting selfies of their every move. “I was kind of surprised, given how conservative the culture can be, to see the younger generation going out, dating, and using social media,” Nazaryan said. “In Somali culture, it’s really important to be connected and communicate with each other.”
But earlier this year, the community garnered headlines after a handful of Somali-American men were accused of planning to join ISIS. Three have plead guilty, despite intense efforts from local leaders to counter extremism.
"People only pay attention to them when there are these anomalous cases," Nazaryan said."I think it is worth looking at how this community lives, because they’ve also come as refugees from a country that continues to be torn apart by Islamic extremism — and have been both benefactors of our generosity and victims of our suspicion."