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.

Terror and the World Market. (Pt 1)

This is a piece written on assignment for a course on globalization. Its probably not revelatory to most readers acquainted with the subject matter, but I need to keep this space a bit more active, and this fills it for now. Further, I wish I had done some further analysis of the international terrorist organization, but frankly, I simply ran out of time. Should I feel motivated, perhaps I'll expand on the work before publishing. This morning will be the first of several parts. The intro, below, really doesn't get to the meat of it at all, but, alas...

Terror and the world market: A Matter of perspective.

The powerful and multifaceted process of globalization surrounds us. It envelops our culture, connects us to corners of the world far and wide, it intensifies interdependent relationships in economics, and weakens the solvency of the Nation State at all turns. Today, Nation States are facing a world where borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The problems of the world can no longer be handled in a unilateral manner. Opportunities arise under these conditions, certainly. The development of alliances, the expansion of world markets, and the ability of individuals to freely move about the world are all emboldened by the ongoing processes of globalization. 

One of the most significant beneficiaries of globalization has been the multinational corporation (or MNC.) Today, MNCs operate throughout the entire world. The multinational corporation of today may acquire resources in one nation, refine these raw materials in another nation, perhaps still even manufacture or finish them in another nation, and then sell them to markets across the world. The investment of capital and monies knows no borders. Because of the general practices of these MNCs, citizens in the first world have access to an innumerable amount of cheap consumer goods, high-end tech devices and fashion items, and a myriad of other products. Much of these products are made from resources acquired in the third world cheaply and manufactured in the third or developing world for low costs. There are significant troubles to this system. Pollution, regulated far less, or less effectively in the third world, knows no borders. There are moral and human rights concerns regarding the acquisition of these resources and the exploitation of the labor force. The connection of the profits of the multinational corporation with brutal state repression, warfare, and other calamities is also a cause for alarm.

Another force has risen as a result of globalization: The international terrorist network. The international terrorist network can be said to “benefit” from globalization in two ways which seem at odds with one another- as globalization continues to expand in influence and scope, the terrorist organization increases its recruiting potential as a reactionary, anti-globalist movement. Secondarily, we shall see that international terrorist organizations use the very tools of globalization: technology, the internet, and the increasingly “borderless” nature of the world to expand their numbers, initiate terrorist activities, and filter funds to keep active. Although hardly the only international terrorist organization, much of the western media’s attention today focuses on Al’Qaeda and similar groups with an anti-western, reactionary, Islamic sociopolitical focus. The list of atrocities attributed to Al’Qaeda is well known. That the goals of Al’Qaeda are inseparably married to violence is another truth. International terrorist organizations like Al’Qaeda are generally believed to work without state sponsorship, and war action has been brought to nations believed to harbor them, thus destabilizing these states to varying degrees.

A set of questions, ones that at the outset the answers seems so obvious, but upon further analysis become more opaque shall be asked: Which of these two organizations does the greatest harm to the sovereignty of the Nation State? Which of these two organizations has the widest negative impact on human life, the ecosystem, and social stability?

to be cont'd...