September 10, 2004

Political vs Economic Opression

Why does this nation put such a higher premium on lives that are suffering from politics rather than economics? It seems as if the only people in the world that the USA government wants to highlight are people who do not have the right to choose their leaders in a democratic methodology. These people are indeed suffering, but is not having the right to vote or the right to speak out against your leader as bad as absolute poverty, disease and other problems, born from living in poor nations were people can vote and voice their opinions?

There are far more people in the world suffering from economic oppression than there is people suffering from political oppression. This nation of ours accepts political refugees, but not economic refuges (unless they sneak over from Mexico and we need them for cheap labor). Why is this so? I believe the answer to that is born from the simple fact that the goal of our system is to propagate itself around the world ....not save the people of the world. There are far more people who are poor from the ecnomics of the few controling and hoarding valuable resources and assets (under capitalism and free markets), than from political oppression. Many of the economic poor are very close to this nation and we could not handle or facilitate all the poor...but we can let in a few who seek political asylum and use it for geopolitical one-upsmanship.

Some will ask is it a bad thing to propagate Democratic free market capitalism around the globe, given that it has produced so much wealth in the West. These people thus believe that to spread the system is to spread the wealth. First, this is a fallacy. They have assumed that the West Wealth came from capitalistic theory and practice, in and of itself. This ignores impact of slavery, colonization and the conquest of lands and resources through wars. Secondly, the true goal and resultant of the spread of our system is to increase the wealth and assets of Western transnational corporations and nations via state run industries and resource being privatized in other nations, then eventually falling under our control or dominance.

There is nothing altruistic in the motives of the USA to topple dictators and communist nations with state run industries and resources. The truth is that our nation simply covets those resources and markets but we cannot get at them under their form of governance. Proof of that is born from the fact that our nation has supported and propped up many dictatorships…as long as they did what we needed them to do, especially during the cold war.

If the USA was really interested in the suffering of peoples, as they proclaim for public support before our military adventures like Iraq, then we would focus on the billions of people who are oppressed by poverty in this world, who happen to live under democratic and capitalistic systems. The USA has no interest in those people and places because they are already open for our needs/exploitation. What ever they have of value... we already control it or some other Western power controls it, directly or via the proxy of local façade. Thus, the suffering of the people in those places is not important...let them die or kill each other long as our resource interest are secured, we don't care enough to take action.

It is only in the places were capitalism does not have the control of resources (in other words...places were the West does not have controll of resources) that we pretend to be conscerned about the suffering of the people. How many atrocities have to go un acted upon in Africa...before people realize this.

People like to point out all the people that have been killed under the dictatorship of Saddam as a reason to act and invade the nation. Was Saddam simply indiscriminately killing people or did his regime kill people and groups that sought his overthrow? This begs the question of whether this nation, the USA, would do the same to citizens or groups in this nation who would attempt to overthrow it? I think everyone knows the answer to that, just look what they did to the Black Panthers, who were not even trying to overthrow the government. Furthermore, now that the USA essentially controls Iraq today, in order to maintain control we are using the same tactics as Saddam, which is death and destruction of the opposition to our power and control. Therefore, certainly we cannot say that we intervened because of the death of Iraqis, when we are killing just as many…pro rated.

It is all about gaining control of resources and rarely about the people.


At 10:33 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Political and Economic Opression are one and the same. You don't have strong economy that provides for it people without freedom.

Political freedom brings economic freedom, economic freedom brings political freedom.

At 11:14 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

You see the difference scott…no one deletes your comments here…no matter how ignorant, which is more than can be said for you and your so-called conservative cohorts. Politics = Economics = FALSE. If the government has little money, due to its citizens having little money to tax, it does not matter what form of government it is…there is still NO MONEY. What the West does is that it comes in and says that if you change your politics, privatize your industries, then Western Capital will come into your nation. The trade off is that the West gets control of the resources and most of the profits. If not, the West does not want to trade with you, depriving your nation of potential profits that can help better a nation. Economics was never dependant upon politics. The evolution of humans from hunters and gathers, to pastoral/herders and so on and so forth was not dependant upon politics.

At 11:45 AM, Blogger Scott said...

Of course it was, how the hunter gathers organized themselves was very important. Same with ancent Egyptians and other groups. To get the economic benefits they had to organize politically. Those who couldn't organize usually died out, even if it was organizing just on the family level.

BTW: what was your mini rant about deleted messages and what does it have to do with me. Have I deleted any of your messages, or have I responded to 90% of them.

At 12:09 PM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Scott, that is simply BS. The economics of survival drove everything else. When humans became more concentrated, the result of the advent of agricultural and pastoral living, population groupings became denser. In turn, this density created new needs and new methods. Politics had nothing to do with the creation of the economics. Politics simply grew out of individual’s desires for power and control and the best way to maintain and keep power, order and collect tribute from citizens.

At 2:18 PM, Blogger Scott said...

So are you saying that a family isn't a politcal unit, that needs to be managed and run, nor is a small village even if only 20 people of 2 or 3 families.

At 6:39 PM, Blogger Noah TA said...

You have digressed, scott. The point is the politics has more to due with the allocation of power and control, and collecting tribute, than it does with economics.

At 7:53 AM, Blogger Scott said...

How is tribute and power not economic ? Where does tribute come from, where does the power come from. Its all about economics.

I am suprised that your vision is so limited.

At 11:25 AM, Blogger Noah TA said...

Scott, you need to ask yourself why there was a need to create two differnt terms...politics and economics...if there is a distinction without a difference as you are supposing. I did not make up the seperate definitions..I simply employed them. When one studies Micro and Macro economics, they are not studying political systems. When one studies politics, they are not also studying economics. Politicians are not economist and economist are not politicians. What is confusing you is the economics is at the root of survival and thus is related to politics, sex, military, health and nearly everything else. However, economics does not equal sex, health, politics, military and those other things that it is related to. You need to understand why there exist seperate terms with seperate definitions.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums