Locke the revelator: how john Locke defined modern freedom.

Although I do not agree with John Locke on all points, he was and remains an important and respectable political thinker. Here is a reflection on some of the innovations he offered political thought, with some slightly radical secondary analysis by myself.

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke radically redefines the rights and freedom of the common man. However, some of the more radical sentiments of Locke’s philosophy seem opaque; hidden by a geniality intended to soften the blows delivered to Locke’s contemporary audience, or conversely, lost on modern readers who have lived in a society which has reaped the freedoms of his principles for hundreds of years. In either case, this work will attempt to prove the stated thesis; that Locke radically redefined the rights and freedom of man- primarily through a reconstruction of his arguments (in Ch. 2-4 Second Treatise), and through minor, relevant side analysis.

“Freedom, being the foundation of the rest...”

We first must understand what freedom means to John Locke. Locke opens the second chapter of the Second Treatise with a direct definition of freedom.  According to Locke, men are naturally in a “...State of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without...depending upon any other man (Ch.2, P4).”  This is to say that naturally, man is free to do anything he wishes with himself or his property, outside of killing oneself, and that man MUST be self reliant to be free. Self reliance is crucial, for as Locke will argue, to live reliant upon the will of any other man is indeed slavery (more detail on this to come). Man may not destroy himself because of the responsibilities Locke assigns to freedom. Man has a responsibility to rationality, reason, self reliance and to self preservation. When it does not conflict with his own needs, man should assist to “preserve the rest of mankind (Ch.2 P6).” Man has a responsibility to not harm another man unless to do justice to another who would harm the life, liberty, or property of another man- in this case, man has a responsibility to administer justice. Locke’s ideal of freedom gives the individual much more personal freedom than any thinker of the past, but it imbues upon the individual the cost of constant vigilance in preservation of self. 

In order to explain how man is naturally free, Locke creates what today’s social scientists might call an ideal typology: The State of Nature, and The State of War. These states are ideal in that no one actually lives through a perfect version of the state of nature (or war) as Locke writes, but that these states are examples used to illustrate Locke’s argument. 

First, Locke’s State of Nature- To Locke man is in a natural state of perfect freedom (as described above) and equality. Freedom to do as he pleases (within natural bounds) and equality,  “All power and jurisdiction being reciprocal, no one having more than another (Ch.2 P4)...” Freedom is clearly of fundamental importance to Locke in the state of nature- We must be free to do as we wish in nature, equality as Locke sees it merely explains man’s relation to one another. This state of nature is one of self reliance, natural personal sovereignty, and freedom- in stark contrast to arguments that one man had a natural right of dominion over all others. This State of nature completely refutes the notion of the divine right of monarchs.

The State of War then, as Locke sees it arrises of the inconveniences of the State of Nature, and as a result of clashes of self interest. To Locke, reason must be our guide in behaving in the state of nature- reason is in fact, the Law of Nature. Reason dictates that man must act to preserve himself, and any man who’s actions hinder another’s abilities to preserve oneself acts against reason, and puts himself  “in a state of war (Ch.3 P16).” An aggressor in this state of war may attempt to steal from, harm, or kill another man, to which Locke would say it is “lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can...(Ch.3 P18).” To this extent, Locke has set up the most rudimentary form of crime and punishment- the right to defend and protect oneself from an aggressor by any means deemed appropriate and necessary. 

Perhaps the worst aggression against a man in the State of Nature, according to Locke however, would be one who attempts to put himself into absolute power over another man. To Locke, any man who would attempt to gain absolute power over another would surely enslave him, and dispose of his life at his leisure, and has declared war. To Locke, this man must be killed- he is a deadly enemy of freedom, the most essential tool of self preservation. This ideal was so radical for its time when applied to the current state of society- it calls for complete intolerance of those who would take your freedom, it calls into question the entire proposition of monarchy. Some might even argue that it calls upon free men to kill the king! (Although not quite as radical as quasi-contemporary Denis Diderot “Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest”, this is truly revolutionary thinking.) John Locke calls upon men to be ready to kill for their freedom.

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation that he cannot part with it...No body can give more power than he has himself; and he cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it (Ch.4 p23).” Although Locke references slavery with this passage, it seems clear that this argument was made to further obliterate the notion of divine sovereignty, and to emphasize the incredible importance of self reliance and personal liberty. Because we must naturally preserve ourselves, it follows that we must never allow ourselves to be enslaved, to lose our natural freedom would be akin to death. So much so, that Locke seems to make an exception to his suicide taboo: “For whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, ‘tis in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires (Ch.4 P23 emphasis mine).” One could say that “master” in this passage is code for “king,” and that Locke is calling for revolution; for even if it failed, man would die attempting to preserve or regain, his freedom.

Throughout the rest of the Treatise, Locke explains the necessity of property rights, parental duty and responsibility, and the ordination of civil government and law. Importantly, Locke defines legitimate political power in very limited scope- Law and government’s sole functions according to Locke are to secure the rights and freedoms of the individual and to protect those freedoms from those who would act without reason and endanger that liberty. However, without the revolutionary, reasoned notions of self interest, self preservation, and liberty, we wouldn’t be able to discuss Locke’s ideal government. For as Locke said, it is “Freedom, being the foundation for the rest...” Without Freedom, there is nothing.

Morality and extension of life

It seems in our world that death is regarded as the greatest evil there is. All sorts of groups from atheists to the devout, moral philosophers to drunks at the bar, usually agree on one thing: None of them want to die, and death in general is a bad thing. We live our lives with a distinct fear of death, and though death is inevitable, great pains are taken to insure that we live as long as possible. But, is this a good thing? I will contend that it is in fact not a very good thing, and a myriad of reasons and arguments can be illustrated to drive the point home. I will provide an outline of two here.

First, we’ll briefly look at the issue from the vantage of loved ones and the terminally ill. John Hardwig, in “Is There a Duty to Die?” really sums up the points of this argument quite tidily, so I will only summarize his argument. Some claim that the suffering individual is already ill, and this is burden enough; to ask this person to take on the burden to cease life is too much. But this ill individual does not cease to be accountable to family and loved ones the moment they become critically ill. There are, sadly, many cases where prolonging the life of a family member can destroy the quality of life for the family the ill person will inevitably leave behind- the cost of care can destroy careers, cost the family its home, defer the dreams and hope of the children perhaps to the point of unattainability, and create emotional stresses and duress. These burdens must be considered by the ill person.

Avoiding the arguments for and against a patient’s right to terminate his or her own life through euthanasia or stop treatments, I offer one more less explored point. Hardwig briefly touches on this point in the introductory passages of his piece, but it deserves more consideration. Modern medicine has reached a point where it can prolong lives much longer than in generations past. Is this a good thing? would most people in their right minds really want to live to the point of delirium and incapacity? I would think not. Would these people then want society, their loved ones, and their medical care providers to have to sacrifice their time, services, and perhaps dreams, on their artificially preserved shell of a body? I would think not.  

These medical “miracles” are going to turn into monsters in our life time. The governments of the world have spent little time preparing for the explosion in the geriatric population that is going to rush onto us in the coming two decades. Our entitlement programs, social programs, and healthcare industry are likely to bit hit blindsided by this influx of elderly people. Whereas before an individual could have been allowed to make a rational, reasoned, moral choice regarding the end of their lives, we may well see (and in some cases already are seeing) insurance providers denying treatments to older clients to make way for younger healthier clients. Rather than allowing patients the right to self determination in their end of life scenario- one in which they can carefully examine the quality of life they would continue to live and the quality of life for those around them, these choices are being put in the hands of suits in office buildings who benefit from slashing costs, not providing compassionate care. Is this the morally correct course between the two choices?

Quick Thought: Democracy in Tunisia and Egypt

I've avoided writing on the subject of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings for a number of reasons. One, I didn't want to speak to soon. It seemed prudent to let things sort themselves out and then reflect on them after. Second, I honestly haven't had the time to follow the issue very closely.

But, a professor of mine recently made a remark: "The tunisian and egyptian uprisings seem to have vindicated the Bush foreign policy of supporting democracy in the Middle East. Would these event have occurred had America not taken the stance it had leading to the Iraq war? Would they have been successful any other way?"

Its an interesting question. I'm not one to support many things George W. Bush advocated. But, did the Bush doctrine have an inevitably positive effect on the political climate in the Middle East? I'm not sure yet, so I will leave that question to you. What do you think?

JFK (pt. 6 0f 6)

But why go to the trouble to set Lee Harvey Oswald? If he wasn’t the assassin, who was he really? Who set him up? Who actually had the motive, opportunity, and ability to commit the crime of the century? 

Some theorists claim that the mafia are likely candidates. Not so. Sure, Bobby and Jack Kennedy had connections to, and had burned bridges with the mob. But, the mob simply didn’t have the resources to cover up the evidence, didn’t have the ability to frame oswald, much less get him in and out of Russia with ease, and finally, politicians were off limits to the mafia. You could buy or blackmail government, but you could never kill government. The crackdown on the mafia resulting from their killing of Kennedy would have decimated the mob. The mafia had been employed as contract mercenaries to kill off  Fidel Castro, but this was under the direct supervision of the CIA and other covert operations, and it would only be as employees of such an organization, or elements within it, that any individuals in the mob would consider involving themselves in such a risky, high profile murder.

Lyndon Johnson wouldn’t have had Kennedy bumped off- far too great a risk of discovery, and out of character, according to most credible peers and historians. (Holland) The Jimmy Hoffa/ Teamsters angle holds little water. Groups like the Texas oil Barons or Cuban exiles had plenty of motive, but they, like the mob would need sponsorship from somewhere in the intelligence community.Indeed, all likely candidates seem to lead right to our intelligence community’s doorstep. 

Kennedy desired to cool cold war tensions, had signed the test ban treaty, had made secret overtures to Nikita Kruschev  to peacefully end the cuban missile crisis (his military advisers were begging him to nuke Cuba), planned to withdraw from vietnam, and had refused to back the CIA’s ill fated Bay of Pigs invasion with air support. After the Bay of Pigs he beheaded the CIA- removing founders Allen Dulles, Charles Cabell, and Richard Bissell. This “gang of three” had been big shots in the banking industry and with their histories in the OSS and CIA, had obviously cultivated close ties with defense industry insiders. Their firings, Kennedy’s policy decisions, and the causes he championed in his speeches- peace, prosperity, and understanding between the USA and the USSR meant that what was once a very profitable cold war was about to become a hell of a lot less profitable- in fact, some probably feared that it would come to an end all together.  Kennedy’s refusal to assist the Bay of Pigs invaders had left many anti-Castro cubans, the mercenaries , and CIA operators who fought so vehemently feel betrayed, and some wanted to taste Kennedy’s blood for it. For these reasons, small, reactionary, right-wing factions within our government and defense industry converged and committed the crime of century.

So where does Lee Harvey Oswald fit into this elaborate conspiracy? CIA agent James Wilcott testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Oswald was a double agent working for american intelligence when he was stationed at El Toro Air Force base while in the Marines. The HSCA chose to ignore this testimony. (Marrs, 104) In 1959, the year Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, the US had engaged a counter intelligence program involving up to 40 men- these men would pretend to renounce their citizenship, go to  the Soviet Union, and become double agents. (Marrs, 117) Does this sound familiar? The implication that Oswald was a double agent suddenly makes all sorts of loose ends tie together. Why did the state department let him back into the country after his treason? Why was he not prosecuted? Why was J. Edgar Hoover concerned that someone was using his ID while he was in the USSR? Why circulate so many dopplegangers of Oswald?  Why did Oswald make so many friends with intelligence contacts and hang out with people of apparently disparate political values? Because he was a spy, and his Marxist persona was a front. 

It is by no means certain what Oswald was doing when he came back to America. The more popular theories, circulated by Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs tend to believe that Oswald was likely a double agent tracking the actions of Anti-Castro groups within and without the intelligence community, and/or that he stumbled upon a plot to kill JFK by these groups and had infiltrated it. At some point there was a turning of the screw. Someone knew Oswald was a double agent, or someone had been manipulating Oswald from the get go. They set him up to take the fall for the murder. 

Consider the gross misconduct of the Dallas police. Oswald was interrogated for 12 hours with no lawyer present, thus nothing he said could be used in court, and regardless the interrogation  was not recorded. The chain of evidence for nearly all the items in the case  is broken, non-existent, and haphazzard. Oswald could not be positively tested for firing a gun of any kind when a nitrate test was administered. Oswald’s prints could not be discovered on the so-called murder weapon until after Oswald had died. 

Earle Cabell, brother of the aforementioned Charles,  was the mayor of Dallas at the time of the parade. Its likely that he changed the parade route, in order to make the limo take that deadly slow turn down Elm street. Going down Elm put Kennedy in a deadly triangulation of crossfire, as Garrison worded it. Kennedy could easily be hit from the Dal-Tex building, the TSBD, behind the grassy knoll and several other areas. Who else but agents within the government could make the Secret Service stand down from riding on the back rails of the limo and decline back up protection arrive in Dallas? Who else but intelligence community officials could plant fake Secret Service agents out near the grassy knoll? Who else but government agents could steal the president’s body and make a clean get away aboard Air Force One? Who else but those within the government could insure not just a botched autopsy  but that vital evidence from that autopsy simply disappears?  Jack Ruby, waiting in the wings to clean up the mess of the patsy who knew too much is allowed into Dallas Police headquarters, and Oswald is forever silenced. Of course all the dirty secrets of the CIA and FBI stood to get exposed if a competent investigation had been undertaken. So J. Edgar Hoover performed a quick, shallow investigation.Brought into the Warren Commission,  Allen Dulles whom Kennedy had fired three years earlier, to keep the CIA’s war chest out of the hands of the Warren Commission. Major defense corporations have an owning interest in the major media outlets so maintaining media complicity in the biggest lie of our time has been effortless.

From Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, 1961:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

RESOURCES:

Garrison, Jim. On The Trail of the Assassins. Sherridan Square press. 1988

Hearings Before The President’s Commission on The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Gov’t Printing Office. 1964

Hurt, Henry. Reasonable Doubt. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1985

Nechiporenko, Oleg M.  Passport to Assassination. Carol Publishing Co. 1993

The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Television Documentary. Turner, Nigel;Director. 1988, 1990, 1995.

Blakey, G. Robert G. and Richard Billings. Fatal Hour. Berkley Books. 1992

Armstrong, John. Harvey and Lee. Quasar Books. 2003

RE: Too Many Oswalds..URL: http://www.jfklancer.com/Page4.html

Holland, Max. “The Assassination Tapes” Atlantic Monthly. June 2004

Marrs, Jim. Crossfire, the plot that killed Kennedy.

JFK (pt. 5)

We have now established that Oswald had some strange associations with people closely tied to the far right and intelligence agencies, that his motives are opaque at very best, that he was a terrible shot, and that it appears that someone or some group was impersonating him. Now let’s look at the shooting itself. Oswald could not make the shot. Not with his skills, not from his vanatge, and not with such a sub-par low power rifle.

Although much reasonable doubt has been cast about Oswald’s marksmanship, even giving the Warren Commission a break and saying Oswald was an expert shot, if was found that the best gunmen in the country could not duplicate Oswald’s shot:

“During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 [The Manlicher Carcano] in the condition it was found, within the time frame established and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window, and still they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald. Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.” (3 WCH 390-430) 

Not a single expert could hit a moving target under the same conditions, from the same vantage as Oswald. Furthermore, the FBI concluded the following about the Manlicher Carcano: 

*inaccurate from 15 yards (CE 549)

*carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE 2560);  OSWALD WAS RIGHT HANDED! The scope was useless to him.

*unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing nor notated in any previous description of CE 139 (3 WCH Pg 440-445).  NO SHIM WAS FOUND ON OSWALD OR IN HIS PERSONAL EFFECTS AT THE TIME OF ARREST. THE SCOPE COULD NOT BE USED TO ACCURATELY SIGHT EVEN IF LEE OSWALD WAS LEFT HHANDED. THE SCOPE WAS DOUBLY USELESS.

Then we have the preposterous notion of  the single bullet theory. We are told that Lee Oswald fired three shots off in about 8 seconds or less, with a bolt action rifle no less, a low powered rifle that achieved in the Warren Commission’s own words “high powered rifle” results, and executioner’s precision with tree coverage at an already difficult angle in his second two shots- both of which imply less accuracy as the target is moving further out of range.  We are also asked to believe that the second shot created seven wounds, two to Kennedy, and five to Governor John Connally. This bullet was found later at the end of a stretcher in parkland hospital in practically pristine condition.  This same bullet which was found miraculously in such excellent condition also appears to have had to make magical turns in mid-air in order to create the wounds it created:

Neither John nor Nellie Connally have ever wavered on their assertion that Governor Connally was struck by a separate bullet then the one which first struck President Kennedy. This adds a bullet to the equation- the two which hit Kennedy, the one that missed the motorcade and caused pedestrian James Taig a minor injury from debris, and now the fourth, the one (or more)which struck Connally. According to  the Warren Commission’s timeline, and the evidence it provided, Oswald simply could not have fired four shots. We have a second shooter. Furthermore, with Oswald’s ability and the state of the weapon attributed  to him, he couldn’t have been a shooter at all. Lee harvey Oswald was “just a patsy”.

JFK (pt. 4)

Its also Important to note that throughout this time, suspicious “Oswalds” began popping up engaging in strange behavior. Here is a partial list of what appears to be a primary tool of the “sheep dipping” the intelligence community engaged in: 

OSWALD AS POLITICAL DECOY

• Several mundane Oswald/ Oswald family  sightings when he appears to be doing what he is normally doing- looking for a job while he should be elsewhere. Notably one in which he gets a haircut in Jackson Louisiana, asks the barber for a job, and the barber says the mental hospital is hiring. Oswald was taken to  this town by Shaw. Garrison theorizes that perhaps the plan was to dupe Oswald- some errant behavior and worker becomes patient, patient escapes and kills JFK. Oswald never ended up taking the Job.
• A controversial theory that a Harvey Oswald of Russia is the Oswald that returned from the USSR in 1962 with the mission of killing Kennedy.
• 
• The top row shown above is the “American” Oswald, the bottom, the allegedly “Russian” Oswald. This theory, though interesting, is highly disputed even in conspiracy circles. (Armstrong)
  • The FBI commented on the possibility of Oswald imposters before the assassination: "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated." - J. Edgar Hoover memo to State Department, 6/3/60
  • Two men representing “Friends of  Democratic Cuba” attempted to purchase vehicles using the name Oswald, likely for the bay of pigs invasion at a ford dealership in 1961. Oswald was in the USSR at this time. (Garrison 56)
  • The notorious events in Mexico city, where Oswald allegedly attempted to retain visas to Cuba and the USSR, brandished a pistol and threatened several, including the life of JFK is validated by this photo of a man the government claims to be Lee Harvey Oswald  (Below) Meanwhile the testimony of Sylvia Odio to the Warren Commission who claims she met Oswald when he should have been in Mexico City. He was with Cuban exiles and discussing plotting the death of the president.
  • 
  • Several violent or erratic Oswalds  at shooting ranges, car dealerships, and other places in Dallas and Louisiana.
  • Dial Ryder claims to have put a scope on a mauser rifle for a man claiming to be Oswald. Oswald apparently drove to Ryder. Although Oswald did not drive, and did not own a mauser rifle, he allegedly owned a manlicher-carcano. However, a mauser was found in the texas School book depository- it vanished. (The preceeding information is derived from a variety of sources, notably class and a website, the JFK lancer)
  These are just some of many Oswald sightings. Either Lee Harvey Oswald could be several places at once, or there are just too many Oswalds.

JFK (pt. 3)

If Oswald’s  (and the American intelligence apparatus’) behavior in the marines or in Russia aren’t peculiar enough, his return to the states is simply mind boggling. Although the State Department could have, and routinely did deny defectors the right to return to our country, and also would have denied Marina access to America, this simply didn’t happen. In fact, Oswald was given a “repatriation” loan of $436- something that could only be given to a person who’s loyalty to our country is “beyond question”- as Jim Garrison points out, a person who gave away vital US secrets loyalty is hardly “beyond question.” Oswald was greeted upon returning to the States not by any law enforcement officials, but by an Anti- Communist organizer with intelligence connections, Spas T. Raikin. (Garrison 51) This seems an odd welcomer for our so-called Marxist. Moving to Fort Worth, Oswald befriended George De Mohrenschildt. De Mohrenschildt was a “white russian”- tsarist blue blood, an anti-communist, and authors such as Jim Marrs and Jim Garrison contend that he was Oswald’s “handler” for the CIA. Oswald left Fort Worth for Dallas and befriended more white russians (such strange company for a communist to keep) and got a job making maps for the Army- even after being a defector.

Then there’s Oswald in New Orleans, and things get very messy. Oswald befriended anti-Castro cuban exiles and subsequently got in a very public brawl with them when they discovered him handing out leftist “Fair Play for Cuba” leaflets. Oswald was arrested and asked to speak with FBI agent John Quigley, who spoke with him, taking notes, which he subsequently destroyed. Oswald was released. The address on these leaflets was 544 camp street- essentially the same address as Guy Bannister, ex- FBI, anti-Castro operator who was associated with David Ferrie, a mercenary who also worked to organize and train Anti- Castro exiles. Several witnesses linked Oswald directly with these individuals and “Clay Bertrand,” believed  to be Clay Shaw, later found to be a CIA operative. It was said that these men planned to assassinate the president. (Garrison 29-43) Oswald was spotted by witnesses receiving what appeared to be money from Clay shaw at an obscure rendezvous location in a park, and by numerous witnesses with Shaw and Ferrie observing blacks registering to vote in a small town in Louisiana. Numerous employees including Bannister’s secretary and Jack Martin claim Oswald and Ferrie were regulars in Bannister’s office. Many contend Oswald’s leftist behaviors were a hoax; that he was acting as an “agent provacatuer.”

JFK (pt. 2)

We’re told by the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lonely marxist who killed JFK in a bitter attempt to become a part of history. If we are to start with Oswald’s so-called motive, we see that this profile, and Oswald’s behaviors do not line up. It doesn’t take someone with a masters degree in psychology to tell us that a desperate lone nut wouldn’t be so worried about getting away from the scene of the crime. A man who would take such drastic actions for fame wouldn’t deny killing the president or officer Tippett to the television cameras. Although Kennedy had a past as a cold warrior, someone who was a devout marxist couldn’t help but rejoice at Kennedy’s behavior towards the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, and his speech at American University in the more recent years of his presidency. Why kill a man who’s at least willing to extend an olive branch to those you sympathize with? It doesn’t add up. If Oswald was a loner how was he also a family man whom friends described as enjoying spending time playing with his children?

Oswald joined the marines at 17 years old, and his time in service is an important facet to investigate. The Warren commission and its champions contend that Oswald displayed overt marxist leanings while in the marines and was a great shot. This is based on the testimony of one solitary marine, against the testimony of all others; Kerry Thornley. (Garrison 47) Thornley, unlike several others did not live in close proximity to Oswald on the base, had served less time with him, and conspicuously was the only marine directly interviewed by the commission. (It is also worth noting that Thornley closely resembled Oswald, and was in several locations that a possible “decoy Oswald” had been sighted at the same time; both also worked at Riley Coffee Co. in New Orleans.) In contrast, Nelson Delgado, who bunked with Lee Oswald, and described him as a friend had this to say to the commission:

Q. Did you fire with Oswald?

DELGADO. Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn.

Q. Missed the target completely?

DELGADO. He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know going to the range. (8 H 235)...

Delgado also refused to characterize Oswald as a Marxist. If that doesn’t clarify the majority opinion on Oswald’s marxist or marksman status, fellow marine Sherman Cooley offers the following: “if I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas.” (Hurt, 99) Again, Cooley refused to identify Oswald as a communist. Avoiding the overwhelming testimony which contradicts the pre-set notion the Warren Commission had in mind was, sadly, a patent feature of their “investigation.” Oswald was apparently good at hitting one target- himself. An injury he sustained using an unauthorized handgun on the base led to the first of his two court martials in the marines. Regardless of this, even if Oswald was a legit communist, would the marines have stationed him to be a radar operator at a base with the untouchable U2 spy plane? If so, it would be an incredibly foolish thing to do.

Oswald was also administered a russian language examination at El Toro air force base during his tenure with the marines. Many have found this to be at odds with the typical training a marine would have received. Jim Garrsion contends that only an officer training to be an intelligence agent would have likely received russian lessons. This and other behaviors point to a strong possibility that Oswald was working for some government intelligence agency. 

Oswald received an early discharge from the marines in september of 1959 for “hardship” to take care of his mother, whom he claimed was ill. He stayed with his mother for three days and departed for New Orleans, and quickly thereafter, the Soviet Union. Oswald received his passport to Russia in record time, within 24 hours. Passports from the Soviets typically took between 5-7 days to process. (Nechiporenko, 40)  Oswald was given quick employment and ended up marrying Marina, the daughter of a soviet Colonel. The Warren Commission made much of Oswald’s attempt to slit his wrists in Russia, but the man who dressed Oswald and put him in his coffin saw no such scars on his wrists. (Men Who killed...) This indicates that either a separate “Oswald” was burried in 1963, a different “Oswald” attempted suicide in 1959, or the information about a suicide attempt was simply false. This is one of several classic examples of so-called “sheep-dipping” - the process of putting a man into a character, for better or ill to serve in his role as an intelligence officer. Oswald also proclaimed his intentions to reveal details of classified information he had knowledge of to the Russians at the US embassy. J. Edgar Hoover later stated that none of this was investigated because the US embassy, The  Marines, and the O.N.I. had given Oswald a “clean bill.” (Garrison 50) [coincidently- Gary Powers’ U2 spy plane was shot down by the russians not long after Oswald’s arrival in the USSR. Pure conjecture- If Oswald was working for the intelligence community as a double agent, could they have had him provide the russians with vital information to sabotage Eisenhower’s treaty talks and prolong a profitable cold war?]

Returning briefly to Oswald’s marksmanship, while in Russia, Oswald was a member of a gun club. Those in the gun club also sited Oswald’s poor skills. (Blakey, 139) This account gives us a much larger context within which to judge Oswald’s skills with a gun. Since Oswald spent from 1959 till mid 1962 in Russia, we can fairly say that Oswald had only a little over a year to go from “maggie’s drawers” to Marksman who could pull of three of the most incredibly difficult shots in history with a broken scope in under nine seconds (liberal estimate) with a lousy bolt action rifle. Simply put, we’ve now ruled out  or cast serious doubts on Oswald’s motive and ability. 

I Shouted out, who killed the kennedys... ( JFK pt.1)

I shouted out,”Who killed the kennedys...”

...when after all, it was the CIA. *

*Well, the CIA, FBI, and others...a lot of others.

We know the scene all too well. Dallas Texas, November 22nd 1963; the President’s motorcade makes a slow, against the rules 90 degree turn down Elm Street as it passes the now infamous Texas school book depository building. In very short order, shots ring out, fatally wounding President John F. Kennedy. We also know of a 24 year old man named Lee Harvey Oswald, who worked at the school depository, was there that day, and is said to have fired the fatal shots from the sixth floor of the same building. The Dallas police, using a crystal ball or the best detective’s intuition in history are able to nab Oswald within an hour or so. He’s booked for the murder of officer J.D. Tippett, and also for the death of the President. Within two days, (in a shining example of the Dallas homicide unit’s incompetence regarding the most important murder investigation of the 20th century) Oswald is gunned down by Jack Ruby, a strip club owner in Dallas, in the police department headquarters parking lot, live on national television. The Warren Commission, assigned by LBJ to investigate the murder, the FBI, and the Dallas homicide investigators all agree on one thing: Oswald killed the president, and he sure as hell acted alone. Of course, the mainstream media is all too supportive of this thesis, even today. 

The problem is, they’re all dead wrong. JFK was murdered by rouge elements within the intelligence community in collusion with anti-Castro Cubans, and perhaps some help from the American mafia. This is widely known as the “military industrial complex” theory among conspiracy buffs. But, before we discuss this however, the burden lies with us to disprove the official conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman, and perhaps, even a gunman at all.

Power, Perception, and Poverty: a short look at a long standing crisis.

The poor in the United States of America have always faced a steep, uphill battle for survival. The struggles for food, shelter, and opportunity have been (and continue to be) hastened by popular sentiment, biases and prejudices, the contrary interests of employers, the wealthy, and the marketplace, as well as the cyclical troubles of the capitalist economy. Seeing even this modest and incomplete offering of the host of troubles that beset America’s impoverished, it is clear that no brief piece of writing can do justice to the complex array of troubles faced by the poor. The goal of this piece then, will be to offer a cursory overview of the problems of public perception and how they confound the problems of the American poor and working poor. Additionally, some linkage to the plight of the working class can be traced to the effects of these issues.

There is a perception amongst much of the public and many policy makers that the poor are in their predicament based on merit- that if they would only “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” they could remove themselves from their dire situation. The allowance in the public mind made for the very old and the completely disabled exemplifies the distinction acted upon by policy makers for two centuries or more- those “worthy poor” and the “unworthy poor.”

The “us and them” mentality that shades the issue of poverty can be said to trace its roots back to the enlightenment era of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The notions of individualism, freedom, and property rights were tied closely together by thinkers such as Locke, Hobbes, and the American revolutionaries^[1]. This notion of individual freedom and responsibility led in no small part to a decline in the sense of social unity. As industrialization pushed greater numbers of people into large cities, community ties dissolved, disparate and unfamiliar groups crowded together. When poverty inevitably struck, citizens felt no social ties to the poor, and governments felt little social obligation. The poor were seen not as wards of the society, but as malignancies to be controlled, shiftless losers to be sanctioned.

This led directly to the “reforms” of Jeremy Bentham and his followers. (Piven & Cloward, 12) From Bentham derives the concept of the “house of industry”- best  known as a “work house” or “poor house.” These were tenements where the poor, criminals, the physically and mentally disabled, were all forced to live. These work houses were dangerous- poorly built, overcrowded, and breeding grounds for disease. The relief these work houses offered wasn’t a desirable alternative to even the wretched conditions of eighteenth century factories. It was a deliberate sanction on poverty.

We see a modern descendent of the work house policy in “welfare to work” and “workfare” legislation. Not only do “workfare” programs force the poor to work for the lowest possible wages, there are correlating negative consequences for the working class- the loss of wage and job security and bargaining power. (Piven & Cloward 24-5) As living-wage careers evaporate, working class and downsized workers are forced to take lower and lower paying jobs. (Katz 349-52) A product of the public’s contempt for the poor which resembles the draconian nature of the work houses, as Katz was apt to point out, is the ever increasing expansion of the American prison system, which so often locks up the poor. (Katz 343)

The crux of much of Katz’s argument is that in denying relief to the poor we deny and commodify citizenship in our country- full citizenship is conceptually attached to employment. This is a logical continuation of the notion that the vast majority of the poor are simply lazy.

Racial attitudes in this country do not have a particularly rosy history. There are no shortage of examples of americans of all classes and in all eras describing minority groups- Native Americans, African Americans, the Chinese, Latinos, and so on in the same unfavorable light as the poor: shiftless, lazy, prone to crime, untrustworthy. Thus, as the landscape of urban America became more diverse, and the problems of poverty besieged the American city, Poverty was not merely seen as a reprehensible defect of character, it was/is often seen as a racial trait, or racial problem. This plays into, and helps to generate negative racial attitudes and cognitively distances white America from the problem. In following Katz’s argument, it also excuses exclusion from full citizenship for minorities- based not on their race (overtly), but on their unemployment, a more broadly acceptable reason for sanction.

Gender inequalities cut both ways for Americans. Women, as pointed out by Piven and Cloward throughout “Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate” often work seven days a week in non paying jobs as housewives and child rearers. When the time comes that these women require aid, they have trouble meeting eligibility or receiving sufficient aid because they have little or no history in the commercial work force. The additional hardships of seeking childcare in order to work, as well as lower wages due to existing gender inequalities exacerbates the problem for women. Katz, on the other hand points out the problems that males face when seeking assistance: Outside of food stamps and Supplementary Security Income, there exist no significant aid programs for men until they reach the age of 65. This puts men who lose their jobs in a very tough position. There is also an immense social stigma attached to a man receiving relief. If a man cannot find a job, or find one which pays a living wage, he may be forced into the “underground economy” (crime), and will often end up a statistic in the criminal justice system.

This writer is not convinced that there is a significant connection between economic conditions and attempts by employers, capitalists, politicians, and policymakers to eliminate or drastically reduce relief programs. The major connection appears only to be the mode of justification for these cuts. In hard times, employers and politicians will employ the rhetoric of Reagan, that prosperity must trickle down, that people must earn their keep, and that there are simply not enough resources to spread around, especially for those who don’t want to work. The resulting cuts in spending will be applauded as fiscally responsible, meanwhile wages and job security plummet and poverty and wealth divides grow. In more prosperous times, the Clinton route will be used: the poor will be funneled off the dole and into a dead-end, no benefit, sub-subsistence wage job. Less people will be wards of the welfare state, but more people will be poorer, and the working class will see another dip in wages. “Pimping” the poor as untapped markets will seem a charitable, honorable sentiment, but as Katz notes- is working at a McDonald’s for minimum wage really time better spent than at time at home, on welfare, raising your children? (Katz 349)

And this speaks directly to the question of citizenship and social responsibility. Is a citizen nothing more than a consumer? A worker? If a citizen is merely a tool for the production and consumption of cheap goods, what good is he? What choice has he really? The choice between several types of soda? But neither consumption nor labor will protect the citizen from the possible loss of his work, and thus his citizenship.

Resources

Piven & Cloward: “Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate”

Katz “Democracy, Work, and Citizenship”

Gruber, James [lecture Notes] 1/5/11-1/19/11

---

^[1] Piven and Cloward site peers (Burke, Townsend, Bentham) of my examples on pg 26 of “Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate.” As Locke and others came first, I posit that it is fair to site them as originators.

A Quick One...

Tonight In Rep. Paul Ryan's response to President Obama's State of the Union address, we heard a bit more civility and classic republican ideology. One line though, as innocuous as it seemed, stood out:


"We believe government's role is both vital and limited — to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders ... to protect innocent life ... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves." 


Since when did the Republican Party start taking credit for the social safety net? The social safety net would usually include: major government programs of entitlement and assistance, universal healthcare, and stimulus and infrastructure spending.


Didn't these guys run on a platform of repeal and opposition to even the most lukewarm, dead-in-the-water Obama versions of the "safety net?" Have I been following a completely different political party?


That's all for now.

Terror and the World Market. (Pt. 4/4)

Conclusion:

So, Which of these two organizations, the international terrorist organization, or the multinational corporation, does the greatest harm to the sovereignty of the Nation State? While it wouldn’t be accurate to claim that a terrorist organization strengthens the Nation State, it is clear that the Nation State will weather the attacks of the jihadists. Meanwhile the erosive nature of MNCs cause manifold crises of power for the Nation State- from political and economic pressures to bend laws to their will, the wanton disregard of law in the name of profit, and the globe trotting manner in which these corporations seek profits with no loyalty to any state makes the MNC of today a force on par with the British East India Company- and companies like Black Water, Halliburton and Bechtel already closely parallel the British East India Company today.

Which of these two organizations has the widest negative impact on human life, the ecosystem, and social stability? American and the international community is already engaged in a multi-pronged effort to defeat and destroy terrorism. The unnecessary loss of innocent life is a crime no matter how it occurs. That states sponsor, protect and ignore multinationals who cause the deaths of innocents across the world is despicable. That MNCs are allowed to run amok and create generational crises by devastating environments and habitats is equally criminal.

In the end, terrorists will always exist. Their numbers will be small, they will kill innocents across the world, and in whatever just and rational means are available, they should be sought out and brought to justice. But one of the gravest threats to world stability today, much graver than terrorism, is the unchecked power of multinational corporations. If the Nation States of the world do not step up, environments will be ruined, millions will have starved to death or died of preventable diseases, and it won’t be a handful of lunatics with the blood on their hands. It will be everyone who participates in this system of economic exploitation.

“The most powerful statement against terrorism would be for governments of the rich nations to redress the deep inequities in the trade system and reverse the marginalization of poorer countries. The WTO’s current configuration makes this impossible, and extending its work into new areas of the global economy will only make matters worse.

A matter of perspective helps. On September 11, 3000 people died in the towers as a result of terrorism. On the same day, 24,000 people died of hunger, 6,020 children were killed by diarrhoea, and 2,700 children were killed by measles.”

-(faux) WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO), trade liberalization statistics report

⁶ This is an incredibly candid and critical analysis of the neoliberal policies the WTO and GATT embraced for much of the last three decades, published BY THE WTO. The abstract really says it all: 

“Studies such as those from which the following facts are culled demonstrate that current trade liberalization rules and policies have led to increased poverty and inequality, and have eroded democratic principles, with a disporportionately [sic] large negative effect on the poorest countries. It is such studies that have provided the impetus for restructuring the WTO as the TRO.” 

Has the WTO begun to rethink its neoliberal agenda? No, it hasn’t, the page is a hoax, but the statistics are real.

References:

“A Brief History of Transnational Corporations” Jed Greer and Kavaljit Singh. 2000. Online source. Retrieved 12/19/10 Url: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/221/47068.html

“Multinational Corporations”. Encyclopedia entry, “Reference for Business.” Online Source. Retrieved 12/19/10. Url: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Mar-No/Multinational-Corporations.html

“The British East India Company- The Company that Owned a Nation (or Two.)” George P. Landlow. Online Source. Retrieved 12/20/10 Url: http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html

“The Annexation of Hawaii.” Online Article. Retrieved 12/10/10. Url: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=189

The Sun Never Sets- Confronting the network of foreign military bases. Joseph Gerson. South End Press, 1991. Print.

The Carribean: Struggle, Survival, and Sovereignty. Catherine Sunshine. South End Press, 1985. Print.

Globalization: A Basic Text. George Ritzer. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

“Gatt-zilla Vs. Flipper.” Press Release, Common Dreams. Online Source. Retrieved 12/20/10. URL: http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0404-06.htm

“Gerber uses WTO to suppress laws that promote Breast Feeding.” Peter Montague. Online source. Retrieved 12/20/10. URL: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/15-gerber-uses-the-wto-to-suppress-laws-that-promote-breastfeeding/

“Water is Life, Not a Commodity.” Steven Lendman. Online news article. Retrieved 12/20/10 URL: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/066000-2010-03-09-the-business-of-water-privatizing-an-essential-resource.htm

Water Supply Conflicts. Dustin Van Overbeke. Academic Research Project. Additional sourcing inline on the article. Online source. retrieved 12/18/10. URL: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/VANOVEDR/

The Bhopal Disaster and its Aftermath. Edward Broughton. Online article. Retrieved 12/19/10. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1142333/

“Big Pharma Slammed over 3rd World Domination” Online News magazine. Retrieved 12/20/10/ URL: http://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Preclinical-Research/Big-Pharma-slammed-over-third-world-drug-domination

“Deaths From Flu” Online Source. Retrieved 12/15/10. URL: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/flu/deaths.htm

Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in the Age of Globalization. Reza Aslan. Random House Books, 2009-2010. Print.

“Patraeus: Double Digits on Al’Qaeda in Afghanistan” Spenser Ackerman. Online News piece. Retrieved 12/20/10/ URL:http://washingtonindependent.com/87341/petraeus-double-digits-of-al-qaeda-fighters-in-afghanistan

“Trade Liberalization Statistics” World Trade Organization. Report on GATS round and inquiries. Retrieved 12/20/10 URL: http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e.html

Terror/ World Mkt. Part 3 (of 4)

2: The International Terrorist Organization- The Bastard Child of Globalization

The most active terrorist groups operating in the world today are Islamic, jihadist, extremist groups. Counting non muslim and muslim groups which consider themselves political revolutionaries, those that claim they are acting in self defense, the death toll in all parts of the world, from 1990-2010, by all known terrorist groups comes to roughly 25,000 casualties

. The attacks of September, 11, 2001 on American soil appear to be one of, if not the deadliest in world  history, claiming just under 3,000 lives.

Attacks of this nature are heinous and represent the absolute worst that humankind is capable of. However, it is worth noting: more than 63,000 people die from the Flu each year- more than double the amount of people who have died as a result of twenty years of terrorist attacks combined. (wrongdiagnosis.com) In fact, as stated earlier, some 25,000 people die from illnesses related to lack of access to water in this world every single day.Fear-mongering on the part of western media does little to explain the aims of Jihadist terrorists and even less to shine an accurate light on the threat these groups pose to society.

In the book, Beyond Fundamentalism, social scientist Reza Aslan goes a long way to explain the motivations and impact of islamic terrorist organizations: Although Jihadist terrorist organizations such as Al’Qaeda are critical of what they see as imperialist alliances to Israel, and imperial presences throughout the middle east on the part of America and western allies, AL’Qaeda Strategically attacked America with the hope of drawing its military to Afghanistan and Iraq, so as to engage US forces in guerrilla conflict and bolster their own propaganda machine. Al’Qaeda is unconcerned with nations and nation-states, although it is distinctly anti-globalist. AL’Qaeda, and like minded groups asserts no loyalty to a state, only to its far right, radicalized form of sociopolitical islam. Despite its anti-globalist stance, Al’Qaeda uses the internet, weakening borders, and other trappings of globalization to its benefit. (Aslan, paraphrased)

Al’Qaeda and like minded jihadist terrorists make a stark black and white distinction: You are on the side of Islam (their version of Islam, mind you) or you are an infidel- marked for death. Because of this, Al’Qaeda and other jihadist groups see fellow muslims who disagree with their doctrines as apostates, expendable, even as enemies in and of themselves. This is why many jihadists target other muslims. This is also one of many reasons that these groups enjoy very little popular support in the middle east or the muslim world at large. (Aslan)

When a terrorist organization strikes, it has caused an immediate wound to the victim state- not just in human life, but in displaying the weaknesses of security in the state. If the aim of the terrorist is to force a change in policy, say the departure of US forces from Saudi Arabia, he is unlikely to achieve his goal. The reaction of nation states to terrorist activities is so often to clamp down. Tighten security, restrict movements of citizen and non citizen alike, and it many case some degree of limitation is placed of civil liberties. In a sense, the terrorist attack serves to give the Nation-State a dose of steroids. Some states, such as Israel, stay in a state of heightened security forever, others eventually rescind to less martial statuses. 

If the goal of a terrorist is to cast attention to his cause and disrupt international unity, or demilitarize a so-called imperial power, that too can be said to be an epic failure. Take the example of the 9/11 attacks. In effect the opposite of the listed intentions occurred. The world community, including nations with poor relations with the United States (Such as Cuba and Libya) flocked to support the US immediately following the horrible attack. Pro-American sentiment spanned much of the globe. The plight of the Palestinians, American military presence in Saudi Arabia and a host of other muslim nations, the Iraqi sanctions, none of these events were deemed suitable for discussion by the mainstream media in the wake of 9/11. These situations, even though related to the terrorist attacks (in word if not in actuality as Aslan would note,) were simply too sensitive, too complicated- they could not be addressed. Finally, the inevitible reaction to the terrorist assault was in fact more militarism. The Americans and their allies are now entering their tenth year of combat and occupation in another muslim land, Afghanistan, and their eighth in the ongoing Iraq war. Expanded military operations throughout the world targeting   Al’Qaeda and other militant groups have taken place in Pakistan, and likely other territories, and to some success- The Al’Qaeda organization, once estimated to have 1,000 or more operatives is now suspected to have approximately 100 or less left alive. (Ackerman)

Because, as Reza Aslan points out, jihadists are more concerned with their “cosmic war”- an epic, apocalyptic endgame between ultimate good and ultimate evil, they are unconcerned with the outcomes of these wars, they are unconcerned that their anti-globalist movement will do little to ease their alleged grievances against the imperialist and hedonistic west. That their actions spur not isolationism and a rescinded empire, but global adventurism on a grand scale, and recoil from the indigenous muslim community is not their concern. Let it not be misunderstood, no matter how unlikely the ability for terrorists to attack America in the way they did on 9/11 again, they would do it if they could. The west should not underestimate the resolve of zealots who believe that with god on their side they can slaughter innocents across borders and indiscriminately. But, the jihadist terrorist organization, like the anarchists who terrorized the world before World War I, will fall from favor- they will become a barbarous relic- a reminder of mankind’s cruelty in years to come. The global jihadist movement is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

⁵ This figure is my own. It is based on a liberal estimation taken from a listing of all or most known terrorist attacks in the world from 1990-2010. The list’s academic credibility, and thus my estimate, is somewhat suspect, however, as it was retrieved from Wikipedia. however, in looking at information from reliable news sources regarding some key attacks, the information seems fairly accurate. As no better, comprehensive list or figure appeared to be in circulation at the time of this writing, I chose to include this information, with the caveat that it may not hold up to strenuous research. URL for the listing in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks

Terror/ World Mkt. Part 2

Multinational Corporations- The cost of business in a global world

The multinational corporation is one of the most ubiquitous and influential organizations of our age. There are many differing opinions on the definition of what a multinational corporation is. For our purposes, a multinational corporation will be defined as a corporation which invests in, acquires raw materials and resources from, and/or manufactures products in two or more nations. 

Multinational corporations generate immense profits, and own and control an incredible share of the world’s production assets. “A rough estimate suggests that the 300 largest TNCs

 own or control at least one-quarter of the entire world's productive assets, worth about US$5 trillion. TNCs' total annual sales are comparable to or greater than the yearly gross domestic product (GDP) of most countries... Itochu Corporation's sales...exceed the gross domestic product of Austria, while those of Royal Dutch/Shell equal Iran's GDP. Together, the sales of Mitsubishi and General Motors are greater than the GDPs of Denmark, Portugal, and Turkey combined, and US$50 billion more than all the GDPs of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa.” (Greer and Singh, emphasis added) The amount of MNCs, along with the money they make, is also astounding: “There are over 40,000 multinational corporations currently operating in the global economy, in addition to approximately 250,000 overseas affiliates running cross-continental businesses. In 1995, the top 200 multinational corporations had combined sales of $7.1 trillion

, which is equivalent to 28.3 percent of the world's gross domestic product. The top multinational corporations are headquartered in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan; they have the capacity to shape global trade, production, and financial transactions.” (Referenceforbusiness.com) It shouldn’t be too surprising to note that the top MNCs come from the northern hemisphere (generally synonymous with “the western world” for our purposes). The relationship between northern nations and MNCs with nations from the southern hemisphere is often ugly.

What accounts for the economic dominance of the multinational corporation of the global stage today? Why do corporations wield the power to “shape global trade” in such ways? Why are the dominant global players primarily of European and American origin? There are several factors. 

Although MNCs do much to circumvent, avoid, and overpower the Nation State, typically, and historically they have enjoyed the favor of government powers in their home states, and are courted by developing and third world governments eager for investments. That the MNC enjoys preferential treatment by governments while simultaneously subverting and weakening the power of governments, is a peculiar, but easily understood phenomenon. 

The rise of the multinational corporation is tied to the history of colonialism. Throughout the early colonial period of the 1500s-1700s, as european powers expanded their reach to regions across the globe, they brought their native companies to the new lands. The european corporations were seen as “agents of civilization” and were important to developing trade relationships between these new markets and the old world. (referenceforbusiness.com) The British East India Company became a true behemoth. Formed to take advantage of the asian spice trade by a group of London businessmen, “It gradually became a commercial body with gigantic resources, and by the force of unforeseen circumstances assumed the form of a sovereign power...” (Landlow) The British East India Company came to become an “imperial power in its own right,” with its own military and navy, often acting as de-facto ruler of territories larger than its home nation, until reigned in by the crown in the 1800s. (Landlow)

The industrial revolution served to intensify the global aims of corporations. Innovations in manufacturing and transportation spurred this on, and state support of global expansion by corporations, particularly by the United States and Western Europe was the rule. American foreign policy from the 1890s through the World War II period, as illustrated by Michael Mann in “American Empires, Past and Present” and others gives us a striking series of examples of the marriage of the state and expanding MNC power. 

In 1893, under the premise of promoting democracy, the United States Overthrew Hawaii’s Queen. When President Grover Cleveland investigated the causes of the Hawaiian revolution, it was determined that the “American minister to Hawaii had conspired with the businessmen to overthrow the queen.” (Digitalhistory.edu) Despite the allegedly democratic aims of the overthrow, “In 1894, Sanford Dole, who was beginning his pineapple business, declared himself president of the Republic of Hawaii without a popular vote.” Dole and Del Monte (both American fruit companies) were the primary beneficiaries of the revolution, usurping thousands of acres of land to create fruit plantations. (Gerson, 6-10)

An entire history of American intervention on behalf of corporate interests, albeit much bloodier, mirrors the Hawaiian ordeal in Central and South America in this same period. In the period of 1898-1934, The US Marines invaded Honduras seven times, Nicaragua five times, Cuba four times, The Dominican Republic on four occasions, and various other nations numerous times, leaving a massive death toll and brutal regimes friendly to American business in their wake. (Sunshine, 32) Notable corporations who lobbied for these interventions and benefitted from them included Alcoa, Standard Oil, United Fruit, Domino Sugar, and others. This tradition of “gunboat diplomacy” in the name of democracy, but essentially for the benefit of multinational corporate interests carries on today: No bid contracts for western MNCs in the reconstruction process and the auction of natural resources to western MNCs have been trademarks of both the current Afghani and Iraqi wars, both fronts in the “war on terror.” 

That European and American multinational corporations have such dominance today is a matter of historical precedent. Contrary to neoliberal “the world is flat” sentiments of an evened playing field, exemplified by economist Thomas Friedman, the world seems to only be flat if the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere are playing on two separate boards.

Equally important to the rise of the multinational corporation has been its ability to influence, or reap the benefits of the policies of international trade organizations, agreements, and bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Agreements such as NAFTA and GATT were shaped under heavy influence from top multinational corporations, and organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) serve to push a pro-business, neoliberal economic agenda. (Greer and Singh) 

International “Free trade” is the sacred mantra of the multinational corporation. However, just as an unregulated free market has historically lead to monopoly, anti-democratic worker repression

, insidious political influence by corporate interests, and troubles with worker health, environmental troubles, and increasingly reduces wages and employment benefits in America, the same is true of a world free market- but on a grander, and less regulated scale, and often with much more dire consequences.

Often, political democracy is packaged automatically with the notion of unrestricted free markets. The sentiment of those who see exporting democracy to the developing world appears to be that a “free country” MUST, by definition, also have a “free market.” To some extent, this is a logical argument in theory. In practice, however, a “free society” or “democracy” is actually often just so many code words for laissez faire economic policy and the ability of MNCs to freely exploit the market of said nation

. What government is in power in this country is insignificant to the freedom loving MNC, so long as it benefits from diminished taxes, reduced government encumbrances, and without other profit diminishing restrictions.

An MNC is likely to receive diplomatic and military assistance from its “home” state in its quest for profits, but this is not always completely necessary. Often, the “host” state- the foreign government the MNC seeks to do business in, will bend over backwards to attract investment. One such example of this are the increasing development of “Special Economic Zones” and “Special Administrative Regions.” (Ritzer, 124) These zones characterize the MNC’s lack of concern for freedom in other aspects of the host society- they are often located in countries with totalitarian governments, otherwise restricted markets, and notoriously horrible human rights records. These zones are essentially cordoned off areas where control over investment, labor, and administration is essentially vested in the multinational corporations that do business there. Naomi Klein has characterized these zones as “denationalized:” under the control of the western MNCs who’ve set up shop there- Nike, IBM, Old Navy, etc. The wages paid in these zones are often well below subsistence levels. These zones are characterized as sweat shop labor- unskilled, with terrible working conditions which violate international human rights. Pollution is incredibly problematic and living conditions are wretched. Corporations will leave or reconstitute in order to take advantage of tax holidays enabling them to import raw materials and export finished products completely or relatively untaxed. MNCs will deflect blame for the conditions in these areas as either the responsibility of the sub-contractors they’ve hired to manufacture there, or of the nation-state (which has already relinquished most sovereignty over the region in question.) (Ritzer 124-5)

With this rudimentary understanding of the rise of the multinational corporation, we can begin to answer some of the questions posed in the introduction with regards to the MNC. In what ways do MNCs negatively affect the sovereignty of Nation-States? What are the MNC’s effects upon the environment, human life, and social stability?

Thus far we have seen it demonstrated that a multinational corporation derives great benefits from working with home governments to force open markets and with host governments all too eager to collect tax revenue and investment capital from these MNCs. But, as one might expect, the MNC also benefits from reducing the power and relevancy of the Nation-State at home and abroad. Through trade agreements and organizations, and by use of its immense power and influence as an economic powerhouse, the MNC rebuffs state power at every turn in clever ways, often to the detriment of society, and at severe cost to life and environment.

Proponents of international trade agreements often argue that such agreements will have no negative or erosive effect on domestic law. Across the world, however, examples of the WTO and GATT treaty’s stifling effect on domestic policy are too numerous to count. Take the example of Dolphin safe Tuna and American law. After a two decade consumer boycott, laws were passed in America that inevitably illegalized the sale of Tuna which did not conform to strict safety standards which protected Dolphins. However, over time, pressured by fishing corporations, governments brought complaint to GATT and subsequently the WTO over the restriction of free trade caused by the Dolphin safe laws. Inevitably, the Clinton administration buckled- the Dolphin safe label would remain on cans of tuna, but unsafe tuna would be allowed into the USA anyways. Dolphin levels continue to deplete in dramatic numbers. (Commondreams.org)

Although there are dozens, if not hundreds of additional examples of multinational corporations using the WTO as a foil to supersede or override the laws of Nation-States, perhaps none are as baldly calloused and inhuman as the example of Gerber Baby Food corporation versus the nation of Guatemala. In the 1980s, to combat infant mortality in Guatemala, the country enacted a law that limited the ways in which baby formula manufacturers could market themselves to mothers and forced these manufacturers to place notices on their packaging stating that breast feeding is more healthy for the infant. The law worked, and infant mortality rates dropped dramatically in Guatemala. Gerber however, was not pleased. It refused to comply with the law and inevitably took its case to the WTO. Under pressure, the Guatemalan government changed its laws- and infant mortality rates have been steadily on the rise ever since. (Montague)

Here in America and in western Europe, our homegrown multinationals work to minimize nation-state power by convincing populations and politicians that government simply does not work. This is generally how it works: Politicians who’ve been given sizable campaign contributions work to slash budgets on public programs, then when these programs have been so anemically funded that they could no longer possibly function properly, the politician declares that the “system is broken” and that the government had its chance and failed, its time to step aside and let industry work its magic. The psychological ramification for voters: a decreasing confidence in governments to solve problems. The polls reflect this lack of confidence, and politicians respond to what they see as voter (or consumer) demand, and respond with increasingly less ambitious, less socially focussed agendas. Problems are not tackled by the government, grow worse, and more develop. The government continues to be seen as an inept force, and the “snake eats its own tail” as it were. 

Overseas, the multinational doesn’t have to convince the population that the government is inept. Through “structural adjustments” administered by the IMF or World Bank, or through economic pressures exerted on these small nations by the most powerful of MNCs, privatization is simply forced on desperate developing Nation-States. The multinational corporation of today sees everything as a commodity to be bought and sold. An area which has had a particularly dreadful effect on the poor in the southern hemisphere is the commodification of water.

MNCs are scrambling to privatize the world’s water supply. When given the opportunity to privatize the water, the multinationals jack the prices up 80-100% on average, and the safety and quality of the water decreases. (Lendman) “Over two-thirds have no access to clean water, and an estimated 25,000 people die daily as a result. The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes contaminated water to 80 per cent of all sickness and disease worldwide. In the last decade alone, the number of children killed by avoidable diarrhea illnesses exceeded the death toll from all armed conflicts since WW II. Every eight seconds, a child dies from contaminated water.” (Lendman) When a corporation gains control over a nation’s water supply, citizen access drops dramatically due to the economic hardships. This creates immense human tragedy, and obvious social tensions.

The most famous example of water privatization creating social turmoil is the instance Bechtel Inc. versus Bolivia, in what amounted to a “water war.” The water supply to be privatized was in the arid, desert-like Cochabamba region of Bolivia. In 1999 the World Bank recommended privatization of Cochabamba's water.  "Bank officials directly threatened to withhold $600 million in international debt relief if Bolivia didn't privatize Cochabamba's public water system.” (VanOverbeke) “After International Water [Bechtel] took over the water services in Cochabamba, the monthly water bill reached $20 in a city where the minimum wage is less than $100 a month. These increases forced some of the poorest families in to literally choose between food and water ($20 is nearly the cost of feeding a family of five for two weeks).” (VanOverbeke) Protests inevitably developed, and the Bolivian government stepped in on behalf of Bechtel, declaring martial law and killing four citizens in the process. In the end however, Bechtel was kicked out of Bolivia and the water supply was renationalized. Many nations have not had it so lucky.

Other notable areas where commodification can kill the poor include aggra-business and pharmaceuticals. “With respect to their influence on global agriculture, MNCs control 80 per cent of land worldwide which is cultivated for export-oriented crops, often displacing local food crop production... Additionally, because MNCs control much of the world's genetic seed stocks as well as finance the bulk of biotechnology research worldwide, they are poised to reap large financial rewards from patenting life forms.” (Greer and Singh) The Dhoha Declaration technically enables poor nations to develop generics of expensive western drugs for reasons of public health (not for profit), but at every turn “Big Pharma,” western governments and international trade organizations are making it more and more difficult for the third world to get cheap drugs. As a result, people are dying. (outsourcing-pharma.com)This barely scratches the surface.

Environmental consequences produced by the multinational corporation have been devastating. A lack of international regulation practically encourages sloppiness, enables the use of harmful chemicals in the developing world that have been outlawed in first world nations, and at the very least does nothing to inspire responsible environmental stewardship by the MNCs. As a result of this “casual” approach to international environmental issues, a laundry list of maladies  can be attributed to the operation of MNCs across the world. The Union Carbide (a Dow Chemical subsidiary) disaster in Bhopal, India was the worst in history. An explosion and toxic gas leak killed 3,800 people within a day, and had long lasting residual health effects on the local population. Dow attempted to distance itself from legal responsibility immediately. Dow abandoned the site, neglecting to clean up the mess. Hazardous chemicals continue to affect the area and its water supply to this day. (Broughton) The recent BP offshore oil disaster and the less recent Exxon Valdez disasters have had negative environmental impacts that are hard to quantify, but are assuredly severe. Oil disasters around the world, such as in China and Nigeria, have been dealt with even less efficiently. “Twenty MNCs account for about 90 per cent of the sales of hazardous pesticides. MNCs also manufacture most of the world's chlorine- the basis for some of the most toxic...synthetic chemicals known such as PCBs, DDT, dioxins and furans, chlorinated solvents, and thousands of other organochlorine compounds. These chemicals' impacts on health include: immune suppression; birth defects; cancer; reproductive, developmental, and neurological harm; and damage to the...organs. As a group, MNCs lead in the export and import of products and technologies that have been controlled or banned in some countries for health and safety reasons. For instance, 25 per cent of total pesticide exports by TNCs from the US in the late l980s were chemicals that were banned, unregistered, canceled, or withdrawn in the US itself.” (Greer and Singh) This is but the briefest list of environmental calamities that come with the cost of “doing business” in the world for multinational corporations.

¹ TNC- transnational corporation. As defined by Greer and Singh, matches this writer’s definition of MNC. It is worth noting that the source material for their statistical data comes from the 1990s, all indications are that the wealth of the MNC has only grown, despite the world wide economic crisis.

² Figure of 7.1 trillion dollars is assumed to be $USD.

³ For a thorough, if biased history of corporate monopoly and worker’s repression in the USA, a reading of CH. 11-13, “A People’s History of The United States” By historian, social activist, and WWII veteran Howard Zinn should prove insightful.

⁴ The notion of freedom in the modern world is an interesting problem. While modern freedom was in so many ways defined by enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke (who did devote much time to defining proprietary freedom and rights) and the vanguard of the American Revolution, it would appear that every western politician since Reagan and Thatcher has defined freedom in the liminal terms of the market place (in action and policy), whilst paying only lip service to the broader enlightenment principles of liberty. An interesting problem, but off topic for the issues at hand.