|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By a contributor, March 9, 2005
For nine-tenths of the population of the advanced countries, for hundreds of millions of peoples in the colonies and in the backward countries this epoch was not one of "peace" but of oppression, tortures, horrors that seemed the more terrifying since they appeared to be without end. This epoch has gone forever. It has been followed by a new epoch, comparatively more impetuous, full of abrupt changes, catastrophes, conflicts, an epoch that no longer appears to the toiling masses as horror without end but is an end full of horrors. (V. I. Lenin, "Introduction," Nikolai Bukharin, Imperialism and the World Economy , 1917)
There is no fundamental difference between what anti-war Republican Ron Paul, a "pragmatic" imperialist, says about the economic disbenefits of the Iraq War, and what various commentators have said about how the majority of the Amerikan population is objectively opposed to the Iraq War on the basis of material interests or worsened material conditions.(1) Nobody relates the united $tates' imperialist militarism to the economic parasitism of the imperialist-country population as a whole. Many individuals and groups who claim to be opposed to the Iraq War, and correctly point to the costs of the war for Iraqis, insist on dangling this carrot in front of Amerikans to the effect that the typical individual in the united $tates has material interests in opposing the war. It is true, as Ward Churchill for instance so correctly points out, that Amerikans will not see peace if they continue to allow u.$. militarism to exist, but at the same time this does not mean that the typical Amerikan would be able to retain their parasitic standard of living if u.$. imperialism ended. Yet the opportunists, and assorted Demokrats, independents, and also Republikans, persist in encouraging Amerikans to oppose or support u.$. military operations on a pragmatic, case-by-case, parasitically selfish basis.
The argument goes that Amerikans have spent so many billions of dollars on the Iraq War, when they could have instead spent the money on social programs or perhaps kept the money for themselves in the form of persynal consumption. Metaphorically for the typical Amerikan, who (with a median age of about 35 years according to Census 2000, has health insurance, and so on) currently does not directly benefit from social programs, the idea is that, by the united $tates' going to war in Iraq, Amerikans had to eat fewer millions of Big Macs, drink fewer billions of gallons of Coca-Cola, buy fewer thousands of Honda Accords, buy fewer millions of football tickets, etc., or were forced to give up some of their future retirement benefits--this is what the costliness of the Iraq War means to the typical Amerikan persynally. The ordinary Amerikan citizen's role as an imperialist-country parasite doesn't enter into the picture.
Fantasies of (even more) parasitism
Nobody can measure exactly what the long-term economic benefits of the Iraq War will be for the typical Amerikan, and the point here is not to argue that none of the bottom 20% in the united $tates, the 20% whom MIM concentrates on mobilizing, got the short end of the stick--in several different senses, including being pressurized into a situation where they had a greater chance of dying from being killed by another persyn.(2) Also, it is acknowledged that for an imperialist-country parasite to lose some of their income, while still remaining parasitic, could be a motivation to occasionally oppose the prevailing foreign policy. However, the issue is not whether any of the bottom 20% in the united $tates lost money or standards of living somewhere, but whether a bare minimum of 50% of the u.$. population is objectively opposed to the Iraq War on the basis of material interests.
There are several issues involved here, and they are complicated. An example is that in some instances, it may actually be in the interests of a persyn from the bottom 20% to go from being unemployed in the illegal or undocumented economy to being enlisted in the u.$. military, the E-1 base pay for less than four months of service being $1142.70 per month, or a rate of $13,712.4 per year. And that's not including food, housing, allowances, and tax advantages from un-taxed allowances. Average pay at the E-1 grade with less than four months of services is estimated to be equivalent to $28,353.16 per year, whereas the average annual income in fellow imperialist country Russia does not even reach $2,000 a year based on the highest estimates. While oppressed nationalities may have an interest in opposing wars for survival reasons related to an anticipated draft for instance, in which case other things have to be factored into oppressed nationalities' decision to support or oppose the war than attractive military pay, these high incomes need pointing out. Average soldiers' military pay in Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine, just to take some imperialist-country examples, are only a small fraction of what they are for u.$. soldiers. The question arises whether an individual below the 20th percentile (by some economic indicator) could actually have a greater objective interest in supporting the Iraq War than an individual above the 20th percentile; although, the actually exploited and super-exploited in the united $tates do not benefit in the long term from u.$. militarism, which implies the continued existence of u.$. imperialism. It is a twisted fact of imperialist life in the united $tates that some oppressed nationalities in the internal semi-colonies are driven to singing "Yankee Doodle," while friends, neighbors and even relatives suffer an up-and-down economic existence.
Whatever the estimates of the average pay for u.$. soldiers, it appears that a chunk of the approximately $200 billion that the united $tates will reportedly have spent on the war against Iraq by September 30, 2005, will have gone to military persynnel's incomes, not to mention defense contractors and their employees.(4) So, money is going to u.$. mercenaries and u.$. defense contractor employees. While repressive in function and a typical example of unproductive-sector employment and activity, the military itself is sometimes viewed as an enterprise with a product, as others have noted, a product which society is said to need. So, it is interesting when people talk as if war expenses were irrecoverable or without any benefits other than the "humanitarian"- and "security"-related. What they are looking for are quantifiable benefits from a product whose "production" occurs in large part by interacting with the capitalist market. Understanding the military as an economic enterprise is not necessary, but may be useful for exploring whether and how the population recovers its military expenses.
Even if there were no overall economic benefits from the Iraq War at all, we could speak of much money being shifted around among Amerikans, rather than simply money disappearing in the war effort. Not only does war contribute to increased employment in some sectors, giving money to people who had none or less before, the material actually destroyed during war may be worth less in terms of value than their prices indicate. For certain reasons, the F-22 Raptor, for example, probably does not take as nearly much labor time to produce as implied by its current $150 million-plus price tag (leaving aside the exact relationship between labor value and money price). If the u.$. government buys an F-22 Raptor and loses it, it is not really $150 million that is lost from the viewpoint of the Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation, but rather something less than $150 million worth of value. The point here is that estimates of the cost to the united $nakes of the Iraq War in terms of money actually overstates the true cost, the true decrease in persynal consumption, etc. Components of the cost of the First Persian Gulf War suggest that the costs to the united $tates of the latest war against Iraq are concentrated in purchases of products from capital-intensive industries that also involve skilled labor, again implying money prices that exaggerate the true costs of the war against Iraq in terms of labor value.(5)
The crowd who oppose using AmeriKKKan tax money for the Iraq War have a small point. This is that persynal consumption and also non-military investment have to be suppressed when going to war even if these may increase later. In value terms, society only has so much labor time to allocate, and war does destroy value and even labor power in the form of bodies. At the same time, however, these losses may be more than made up for by war's creating the conditions for foreign investment, decreased prices of oppressed nations' raw materials and other products, increased prices of imperialist countries' equipment--which the "reconstructing" countries allegedly must import--and new sources of surplus value in the form of requiring humyns to labor in imperialist-organized reconstruction. Even if this were not true, and the war were not "rational" from a cost-benefit point-of-view to exploiters overall, it will still remain that some factions of exploiters will benefit from the war. If one faction of exploiters were to point to the unproductive nature of another faction, that would bring on a cycle of criticism that would never end.
Often we hear arguments that amount to comparing the rationality of a socialist future with exploiter life now. It is important to understand that such an argument is consistent with pacifism, not Marx's understanding of class society. According to Marx, exploiters cannot see to the next mode of production, except in their enlightened, intellectually far-seeing minority. We believe Marx has proved historically correct and pacifists wrong and we base ourselves on that scientific understanding of the past in order to go forward. What the Amerikan exploiters really see is not the socialist future but the alternative competing exploiter who is going to export capital, obtain control of oil resources and enjoy military contracts if Amerikan exploiters do not.Pure pacifism is a good thing in the imperialist countries and real Marxism is even better. Picking and choosing from pacifist method to combine with Marxism results in nothing but trouble. Khruschev already proved where that method leads--no where but social-patriotism and fascism.
Various pro-war individuals estimate that there may actually be not only long-term benefits, but also what could be considered short-term benefits, from war in Iraq. As disgusting as these shameless attempts at bribery are, such imperialist transparency is rare and provides an opportunity to demonstrate how the Iraq War is no exception to the rule of Amerikan parasites' (the majority of the population's) benefiting from their country's imperialist militarism, or seeking to benefit from it. Bruce Bartlett, for instance, says frankly in a March 26, 2003, article that "with full Iraqi production, the price might drop to $20 per barrel or less [compared with $37], giving us the equivalent of an annual tax cut of about $120 billion per year. And this is a tax cut the entire world benefits from."(6) As another reference point, on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the spot month contract for light, sweet crude oil was $27.84 a barrel at noon on September 10, 2001.(7)
Robert Looney, of the u.$. Naval Postgraduate School National Security Affairs Department Center for Contemporary Conflict, notes "optimistic" pre-Iraq War oil scenarios people were putting forth: "Prices briefly spike to over $40 but within three months recede to normal levels or even lower with supplies plentiful. This scenario appeared to coincide with the Bush Administration's position in the months leading up to the launching of the war."(8) A "highly optimistic" scenario: "Becker felt that an oil scenario would unfold that is similar to the one at the time of the first Gulf War, with prices rising as war became more certain. However, Becker projected that if the war's first few days indicated that Saddam would be decisively and quickly defeated, as he felt was highly probable, then oil prices should fall sharply as the 'war premium' disappeared and uncertainty about world oil production diminished."(8)
In actuality, oil prices began falling around March 13, 2003, after peaking. Since March 19, 2003, prices have fallen but then increased for a variety of reasons reportedly. On March 9, 2005, oil prices reached or approached all-time highs in different markets.(9)
So, if we were to assume everything is always rational and goes to plan we would therefore take the higher price of oil at almost two years after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and conclude that control over oil was not a goal of the war against Iraq. That would be wrong.
Peaceful imperialism?--the same old song
Certain petty-bourgeois liberals would like to think that the First Persian Gulf War disproves the theory "that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon."(10) In fact, today's oil price highs indicate a possible dent in profits throughout the u.$. economy, so on the surface it seems that Joseph Stiglitz was right even on January 22, 2003, in concluding that imperialist wars are bad for imperialist economies. The problem here is that imperialist wars are not just about fuel energy, but about perpetuating a system by which surplus value is created and appropriated. The war against Iraq is just a part of a large imperialist strategy of militarism. It would be wrong to mistake imperialist decadence and contradiction for a lack of rationality.
In this context, it is clearer that even if the united $tates' going to war against Iraq truly was a mistake in some way, the larger strategy of going to war to expand and secure the interests of u.$. monopoly capital is not a mistake or historical accident. In fact, the united $tates would not survive without it. The united $tates engages in militarism because it is a matter of life or death for u.$. imperialism, as well as a means for a parasitic population to realize its dreams of even greater parasitic privileges during their own life times. This is something that true pacifists, too, ought to understand: whether they know it or not, by opposing militarism, they are working to end a system that cannot survive without militarism: imperialism. Imperialism cannot survive without militarism, and imperialist-country parasitic privileges cannot survive without militarism. Without falling into the opportunist trap of saying that the only enemies are those who consciously lie to go to war, we can say that going to war against Iraq was deliberate in a sense: it was unsurprising; it was expected. Even if the Iraq War were a mistake, the exploiters still perpetrated it in order to move closer to a goal. For those exploiters who have recently reported disagreeing with the Iraq War as a "mistake," it would be wrong to assume that they were opposed to the war as a matter of principle. The majority of these people would have supported the war under different circumstances, and in fact, the majority did in March 2003, for instance. Repeatedly, Amerikans have supported inter-imperialist wars and wars against oppressed nations, and then to varying degrees complained about casualties and taxes--later, after the invasions.
The question arises is there a difference between u.$. capitalists and lesser parasites and exploiters, like the u.$. labor aristocracy. If people stopped viewing the Iraq War as if it were a conspiracy intentionally perpetrated by a handful of war profiteers, like they should in order to move further away from the approaches of liberal conspiracy theorists who avoid systemic analyses, they would have to conclude that there are limited differences between u.$. capitalists and the u.$. labor aristocracy in terms of orientation toward the world. As imperialist-country parasites, the u.$. labor aristocracy has material interests in u.$. militarism, and they reflect this in polls. Newly reported poll results, for a CNN / USA Today / Gallup poll conducted on February 25-27, "show[s] that a slim majority of Americans, 51%, say it was not a mistake to send troops to Iraq; 47% say it was a mistake" (emphasis in original).(11) The latest poll results, February 7-10, 2005, for the question "All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"--48% responded "worth going to war"; 50%, "not worth going to war"--suggest that some Amerikans support going to war in Iraq, but do not support sending the united $tates' troops to Iraq--which is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. However, there is clearly a couple-weeks delay between the times these two polls were conducted, so perhaps the majority of Amerikans today would answer that it was "worth going to war in Iraq."
Reasons for not going to war in Iraq have focused on reasons other than opposing u.$. aggression as a matter of principle. For example, a July 1, 2003, Gallup telephone poll shows that 56% of Amerikans thought "the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over." 42% did not think so. Among those who did not think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, only 11% indicated "stop policing the world"; 9%, "opposed to war"; 7%, "all about big business / oil / gas"; and 7%, "US looks like a bully." Respondents were allowed more than one answer. Gallup did not allow respondents to choose from concerns relating to Amerikan casualties or taxes, but only 8% indicated "other" as a reason why "the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over." The rest of the answers were about evidence, ineffectiveness of the war, other countries' being more of a threat, and domestic problems needing to be solved first. So, regardless of whether the vote just between Bu$h and KKKerry could have been a referendum on the war, as certain anti-war writers have focused on, few Amerikans themselves privately opposed the war as a matter of opposing u.$. aggression. This is even more clear in cases such as the invasion of Afghanistan or Haiti where u.$. casualties have been much less.
Only a small minority of Amerikans oppose u.$. interventions in general, a code word for which is often "supporting democracy." A January 20, 2005, Gallup poll (field date: January 20) shows that 13% of Amerikans thought it should be a "top priority" for the united $tates "to support the growth of democratic movements in every nation"; 53%, "high priority"; 23%, "low priority"; 9%, "not a priority at all." In total, 89% said it was a priority. The obvious context of this for the respondents was the Iraq War and specifically the rapidly approaching January 31 elections in Iraq; a large majority of Amerikans oppose the self-determination of nations. The subjective basis for the majority of Amerikans, who are imperialist-countries parasites in any case, to support imperialist wars continues to exist.
Even if the "not a priority at all" 9% is combined with the "low priority" 23%, that's still only 32% altogether. Unless these 32% are concentrated in the "middle class" (whatever this is according to some subjectivist definition), it is clear that there is no mismatch between the subjective position of Jane and John Doe in the united $nakes of AmeriKKKa and their objective position as parasites and exploiters in the imperialist economy. Really, there is no distinction between them and wealthier parasites who support the Iraq War. Both are objectively and subjectively interested in supporting the Iraq War.
Investing in war, prolonging parasitism
While the typical Amerikan, as a parasite and an exploiter, benefits from imperialist militarism generally, the question of whether the cost of the war eats into the social security program, for example, still lingers and has a bearing on whether Amerikans are objectively opposed to the Iraq War. The question is tricky; the claim is that u.$. workers are paying more than their fair share for the Iraq War than the wealthier classes are paying. Yet, it would be wrong to take this disproportionality and simply conclude that the u.$. labor aristocracy cannot benefit from the Iraq War. Clearly, it is possible for an individual to benefit overall from their country's militarism, but disagree with the particular ways in which the militarism is carried out and funded. The difference is between real overall benefits and the ideal benefits one would like to have. The issue some commentators have raised is whether the u.$. "working" and "middle" classes aren't shouldering more of the burden of the cost of the Iraq War.
So far, the Iraq War has cost the united $tates about $200 billion (by the end of fiscal year 2005). Keeping with the $200 billion figure, that's $200 billion over about two years, or a simple average of $100 billion a year since April 2003. (Actually, by September 2005, more than two years will have passed since March 2003, so the true average is less than $100 billion a year.)
Actual Social Security Administration outlays in fiscal year 2004 alone were $532 billion. The estimate for 2005 is $561 billion. Actual outlays in FY 2003 were $510 billion. For several years now, the social security surplus each year has been greater than $100 billion.(12) This is certainly not denying that AmeriKKKa may have a problem feeding and housing its old people in the (not so near) future, but $100 billion a year is only $675 per year per employed or unemployed persyn in the labor force.(13) That's being generous to the argument about u.$. workers shouldering a disproportionate burden in the Iraq War and assuming that $100 billion is literally "drained" or "siphoned" from the labor force each year, when it could have been kept/put in the social security program or spent on various other social programs, including health care programs.
The particulars of how money could go from the social security program, for example, to war expenses through loans and so on, is, while interesting, not crucial to answering how the expenses could be recovered. Let's just assume that $675 a year for the past twenty-four months has been taken from the typical, or median, u.$. worker. This is actually overstating things; using social security taxes as a guide, the average worker's social security tax (absolute, not rate) is greater than the median worker's social security tax, which implies that $675 taken would be too high for the typical u.$. worker. But let's not quibble about these details. $675 it is.
What must be shown is whether or not the typical u.$. worker will eventually realize a benefit of $1350 ($675 times two, for the two years since Congress passed the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act in April 2003), or at least prevent what would otherwise be a loss of $1350 if they did not go to war against Iraq.
One way to conceptualize the problem in a quantitative way is to assume that if the united $tates (which, it needs pointing out for those who fantasize about a present revolutionary situation in the united $tates, is hugely different from Russia during the First World War in many different ways) does not expand the domain of its imperialist economic dominance (not just its "sphere of influence"), the typical member of its population will suffer a decreased standard of living. Historically, the u.$. population as a whole has benefited from its country's militarism against oppressed nations, and the military's creating the conditions for the super-exploitation of oppressed nationalities. Decadent imperialist countries that do not engage in militarism face increasingly lower standards of living. It is difficult to point to an imperialist country which does not at least benefit from other imperialist countries' militarism (like Liechtenstein does), but still preserves its standards of living. We can imagine that at some point, if the united $tates did not engage in any militarism or were militarist only at the "normal" level, its standards of living would drop by, say, a quarter of a percent each year. While a guess, this is not unreasonable; real wages in 2004 reportedly declined by 0.4% for instance.
Ten years of this would mean a decline--with respect to the starting time--of 0.25% at the end of the first year, 0.4994% at the end of the second year, 0.7481% at the end of the third year, 0.9963% after the fourth, 1.2438% after the fifth, 1.4907% after the sixth, 1.7369% after the seventh, 1.9826% after the eighth, 2.2276% after the ninth, and 2.4721%, or about 2.5%, after the tenth. Totaled up, that's about 14% of the original income. In 2003, the Bureau of Labor Statistics-estimated median hourly income was $13.65. Multiply that by 2000 hours a year, and you get $27,300 as a quick estimate. Another way of looking at this is to consider that the three-year-average median household income in the united $tates (2001-2003) was $43,527 in 2003 dollars, and then look at war expense figures for households.(15) But sticking with the figures for the median u.$. worker, it seems that the typical u.$. worker could benefit from the Iraq War eventually. 14% of $27,300 is $3,822, or $2,472 more than $1,350 (which is the $200 billion cost of the Iraq War, so far, divided by the civilian labor force level). In this case, the typical u.$. worker is paying only $1,350 to prevent a loss of $3,822, if that indeed is the individual u.$. worker's cost of not going to war against Iraq.
This is an admittedly rather crude way, involving much guesswork, of assessing the benefits of the Iraq War for the typical Amerikan; we also have to consider that the $200 billion is on top of what the united $nakes spends on its military each year, and that the united $tates is engaged in military operations in other countries than Iraq, such as the Philippines. So, in actual fact militarism costs more than $100 billion a year. But this is just proving the point further. Without a military at all, the typical u.$. worker, an imperialist-country parasite, would face even more dramatic income decreases than 14% over a decade. Also, it is not enough for an imperialist country like the united $tates to be just defensive militarily. It must also be offensive to preserve and also to increase its standards of living--relative to new exploiters that might arise from new regions.
The need for a more complicated account of the relationship between the u.$. labor aristocracy and u.$. militarism arises; it is clear that the u.$. labor aristocracy's support for the particular war that is the Iraq War cannot be understood simply from the viewpoint of whether the whole u.$. labor aristocracy has a definite, certain interest in it. Instead, the war against Iraq must be seen for what it is: imperialist-country patriotism in which the whole of u.$. workers play a role as parasites. Going to war against Iraq was not an act of just war profiteers or oil profiteers, or telecommunications profiteers or "reconstruction" profiteers, etc., but an act to perpetuate the existence and dominance of u.$. monopoly capital--as well as, and effectively, the privileges of the imperialist-country population as a whole. For the united $tates in particular, it is fallacious to separate the parasitic privileges of the typical Amerikan from those of the monopoly capitalists. The typical Amerikan obtains privileges tied up with the monopoly capitalists, and they know that the militarist defense of their country is a defense of not just the monopoly capitalists' standards of living, but their own standards of living.
Even if we assume (ridiculously) that the $399.1 billion budget request for fiscal year 2004 was the normal level of the military budget, shouldered entirely by the civilian labor force, and split evenly, that is (an imaginary) $2,694 per persyn in the civilian labor force. The majority of the civilian labor force could vote this situation out of existence, but it chooses not to, so the $2,694 could be considered a kind of discretionary expense. Keep in mind that this is, of course, not anywhere near the typical u.$. worker's true contribution to the military budget. But even among productive-sector workers, the large part of median "wages" in the united $tates are exploiter incomes to begin with, and $2,694 is only a minority part of that exploiter income.
Some have remarked on how callous the $200-billion Iraq War is to some Amerikans when some Amerikans are homeless without affordable housing and when some u.$. children do not have health insurance.
True. It is callous. The average Jane and John Doe in the united $tates are callous toward even their own fellow Amerikans, not to mention oppressed nationalities outside the united $tates.
Ironically, those who keep harping on such things as Iraq war expenses' impact on domestic social programs, as if that affected the typical Amerikan, are providing the average Amerikan more justifications to go to war. They might turn around and reason that if the united $tates does not go to war, the poorest in the united $tates will be among the first to experience negative consequences (though the truly exploited do not benefit from imperialist militarism in the long term), thus destabilizing the situation inside the united $tates. And they will be right. Yet, the typical Amerikan will still assume that s/he deserves his/her current standard of living. Sh*t, even certain "socialists" and even "communists" say so.
So what to do? The majority of the u.$. population does not face poverty when it votes, again and again--at election polls, in telephone polls, and when it chooses not to resist imperialism--for the country's wars. The enormously vacillating majority has repeatedly proved itself incapable of articulating a firm position against imperialist war. As much as it feels guilty for allowing itself to be misled by elected leaders, the majority can make no fine distinctions between different wars in terms of economic benefits and it consistently supports the wars that its government carries out. As a general pattern, the majority will not go wrong: the parasites have an interest in their country's militarism generally. The parasites are intoxicated with patriotism, but it does them good economically--within a parasitic logic, not compared with some distant dream of future productive society.
A January 13, 2005 (field date: January 5-9)) Pew Research Center telephone poll shows that 41% thought "countering the threat of North Korea militarism" was a "top priority." 46% said it was just "a priority." Only 7% said "no priority." 6% indicated that they "don't know." That is 41% + 46% = 87% who have paved the way for "countering the threat of North Korea militarism," which even by the highest estimates costs northern Korea only a tiny fraction of the united $tates' own military budget.(16) Make no mistake about it: if the u.$. population does decide to invade northern Korea and it turns out to be a "mistake," the opportunists will still be there trying to give the ordinary AmeriKKKan citizen an alibi, not only saying that the ordinary Amerikan citizen is objectively opposed to the war against northern Korea, but pretending as if the ordinary Amerikan citizen never supported the war.
There appears to have been a build-up to the January 13 poll results. For instance, an earlier August 3, 2004, CNN / USA Today / Gallup telephone poll (field date: July 30, 2004 - August 1, 2004) shows that 15% of Amerikans actually believed that "North Korea poses an immediate threat to the United States." Fully 62% believed that "North Korea poses a long-term threat to the US, but not an immediate threat." Only 16% said "North Korea does not pose a threat to the United States at all." 7% indicated "no opinion." An April 8, 1999, Pew Research Center telephone poll shows that, then, 29% of Amerikans thought "countering the threat of North Korea militarism" should have "top priority in the US government." 49% said "a priority but not top priority." Only 14% said "no priority." A pivotal 8%, "don't know."
Similarly, an August 3, 2004, telephone poll by the same group shows that 18% thought Iran was an "immediate threat" to the united $tates; 60%, "long-term threat"; and only 17%, "does not pose a threat." 5% indicated "no opinion." Later, the u.$. population may belive there was a "mistake" with Iran, and of course the opportunists will be covering up for the 78% who explicitly identified Iran as an enemy of the united $nakes. On June 18-22, 2003, months after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, 56% of Amerikans expressly indicated that they would "support . . . the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons" according to a June 23, 2003, Washington Post / ABC News telephone poll.
On April 3-8, 2002, 56% of Amerikans "approved" Bu$h "calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea an Axis of Evil" according to an April 17, 2002, Pew Research Center telephone poll. Now, as of February 7-10, 2005, 22% of Amerikans believe that northern Korea is the united $tates' "greatest enemy"; another 22% says that Iraq is still the "greatest enemy"; 14%, Iran; and 10%, China--according to a Gallup poll.(17) Less than 3% indicated "none." Less than 3% said the united $tates itself is its greatest enemy.(18)
The majority-exploiter Amerikan population, in the privacy of their own comfortable homes and without being accountable to any electorate, votes for and enables imperialist militarism. And it does so in-between government elections. The politicians do what their electorates expressly want them to do, and in fact it is in the interests of the parasitic electorates. There is no incongruence between the objective and subjective positions of the typical Amerikan, particularly with regard to their country's militarism as a whole. When Amerikans do oppose carrying out military operations against oppressed nations, it is typically for a lack of evidence that the particular instance of imperialist militarism is justified strategically. The quality of this "opposition" is typical of classes who are reactionary, vacillating at best.
They benefit from imperialist militarism; they vote for it; they support it; they perpetrate it murderously; and expectedly they reap what they sow . All anti-imperialists and true pacifists, who oppose all terrorism, must acknowledge this and speak truth to the parasites. There will be no end to war when the system of imperialism still exists. This should not be a reason for the parasites to perpetuate militarism, but to end it if they are truly peace-loving--unless they are so decadent that their continued parasitic privileges trump the lives of the September 11 dead.
Long-term benefits of the Iraq War for the typical Amerikan
I have so far suggested that the specific numbers involved in whether the ordinary Amerikan citizen is objectively opposed to the Iraq War don't matter. And this is the truth--unless we want to get hung up on examining, on a case-by-case basis, whether the u.$. population as a whole supports u.$. militarism. The AmeriKKKan people have again and again, dozens of times, proved unwilling to vote for a "socialist" administration even though 1) they have been able to under bourgeois democracy--not just be electing a socialist President--and even though 2) opportunists have incessantly said it would be in their interests to do so.
However, it is useful to indulge the case-by-case approach to show how it is still wrong for this particular war.
The question of how low the world price of oil would be if the situation in Iraq were to stabilize is an interesting point, but this is bigger than oil or any other natural resource in Iraq.
To begin with, Iraq had an estimated population of about 25 million in July 2004 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html). For comparison, Israel had a population of about 6 million in July 2004 (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html). If the united $tates succeeds in getting a puppet or at least a lackey government in Iraq, it will be able to steal the labor of Iraqis in a net transfer of labor value to the united $tates, a concept that MIM has explained in various places.(19) The united $tates only needs to get the equivalent of $7,900 for every Iraqi alive today to make up for the $200 billion the u.$. government has allocated for the Iraq War. In the long term, it is quite easy to imagine how the u.$. population could obtain the equivalent of $7,900 in persynal consumption for every Iraqi alive today. (Iraqis who die can also be replaced with other Iraqis for the present purposes.)
$7,900 per replaceable Iraqi over, say, 50 years is only $158 per Iraqi per year. $158 is about 15% of the highest estimate of the per capita income in Iraq at the end of 2004 ($1,020).(20) If unions continue to be repressed in Iraq and Iraqis become "accustomed" to such low incomes, much more than $158 in superprofits per Iraqi would be easily achievable, and it could more than make up for any amount allegedly "stolen" from the typical Amerikan to pay for the Iraq War. Consider what would be the situation if the Iraqi per capita income never recovered to even $2,000, but per capita product was worth (in labor-value terms) $2,500. In a scenario where Iraq becomes, in addition to oil production, another unproductive service sector or high-tech productive sector appendage of the united $tates, many Iraqis could be non-exploited, but intra-firm wage differentials (an Iraqi being paid an exploiter income of $10 an hour, while an Amerikan is paid an exploiter income of $20 an hour) could be another source of income for Amerikans.
The u.$. population, the Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation in particular, benefits from u.$. militarism in general. Except for opportunists, pointing this out should not discourage solidarity with Iraqi workers. Opportunist pandering to how the Iraq War hurts the AmeriKKKan worker is itself harmful in creating the subjective basis for attacks against those same Iraqi workers. Already, various commentators are complaining about Iraq reconstruction jobs being outsourced to non-Amerikans. There have already been calls to increase some u.$. government employees' already-high salaries in Iraq.(21) u.$. contractors have outsourced jobs to other firms, employing non-Iraqis for as little as $3 a day, seemingly harming both Amerikans and Iraqis, but perhaps actually transferring wealth from oppressed nationalities to Amerikans.(22) Some Amerikan employees have been paid with Iraqi money, rather than u.$. money.(23) Unsurprisingly, Amerikans have been particularly interested in jobs in Iraq. Witness the various on-line advertisements and résumés for example.(24) And it is not just the individual contractors benefiting from the reconstruction, but also Amerikans back at home, who produce over-priced products that the contractor firms and individual contractors buy.
It is relatively easy to point to ways in which $200 billion could be recovered, even from Iraqis themselves in the long run, by investment, loans, lower oil prices, unequal exchange, etc. Now, the concept of the long run has a certain history of being perverted by bourgeois economists to justify their conclusions in defense of capitalism. But the long run is important for understanding the very real benefits that accrue to the u.$. population, the white oppressor nation in particular, as a result of u.$. militarism's creating the conditions for the appropriation of super-profit as well as surplus profit. Benefits from a stable Iraq subordinated to the united $tates need to be calculated over a period of decades since March 2003, not just a few years. Actually, this is the time interval that the labor aristocracy itself considers when it thinks about its children's future, as well as itself in its old age.
Rather than calling for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, MoveOn.org has focused on agitating for the retirement benefits of parasites and exploiters (as opposed to another parasitic faction's retirement incomes). In doing this, it has injected into the public consciousness the notion that u.$. imperialism will last for another 37 years.(25) Let's just take this as a vote of confidence, a statement of goals, a dream of continued parasitic privileges. So, plug in 37 years into the pragmatic labor aristocracy's calculations for whether to support the Iraq War. Even if we accept William Nordhaus' high, upper-bound, pre-war estimate of $1.9 trillion for the total cost of the Iraq War, that is still only $51 billion a year spread out over 37 years (even if the Iraq War ends in less than this time).(26) The Bureau of Economic Analysis' preliminary estimate of the 2004 u.$. gross domestic product is about $11.7 trillion. $51 billion is only about 0.44% of $11.7 trillion (leaving aside the issue of whether we should subtract some amount from the 2004 GDP).(27) That's less than half of a percent. Obviously, Nordhaus would preclude overall benefits from the Iraq War, but we can say that even if the war does by some imaginary means cost $1.9 trillion, the united $tates only has to obtain $51 billion a year for 37 years to break even from going to war against Iraq. If the united $tates, on the other hand, recovers none of the cost, the $51 billion a year, for 37 years, "mistake" will be tiny in comparison to the GDPs in these years. In fact, it will not be a mistake, but a bad gamble.
Various cost-benefit analyses of the Iraq War are wrong to ignore the benefits in the form of long-term accumulation, the perpetuation of parasitic standards of living, and the forestalling of their decline. Warwick J. McKibbin, for example, is wrong to consider preventing economic disbenefits from terrorism as the only benefit from going to war against "terrorist" countries.(28) This is completely devoid of any analysis of surplus value and its accumulation. While many in the bottom 20% of the u.$. population suffer in different ways from the Iraq War, the typical Amerikan, who is an oppressor-nation parasite and an exploiter who receives hidden capitalist income, derives no material loss from u.$. militarism generally. On the contrary, they keep and potentially even increase their standards of living. This happens intensively, by increases in the typical Amerikan's capitalist income, and extensively, by more and more Amerikans' acquiring parasitic imperialist-country privileges and often even capitalist income outright.
It is no longer the case that the Amerikan working class is the " 'principal supplier of soldiers' "; at most, it is the principal supplier of mercenaries who gamble their lives for exploiter incomes or at least their neighbors' or children's exploiter incomes.(30) As Lenin pointed out, whole imperialist-country populations are parasitic, and this is even more true today with the petty-bourgeois AmeriKKKan worker who lives off the backs of oppressed nationalities of the Third World and the internal semi-colonies. The inherently militarist system of imperialism is doomed, and with it the parasitic privileges of the exploiters and oppressors in the united $tates.
Notes
1. "The Myth of War Prosperity," March 6, 2003, http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul63.html
2. "Rulers talk about the draft," July 11, 2004, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/draft/draftupdate07112004.html
3. "Fiscal Year 2005 Military Pay and Allowances : FY 2005 Average Annual Salary Charts," http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/pay/bl05enlistedsalary.htm
4. "The Calculator," March 2005, http://costofwar.com/numbers.html
Steve Schifferes, "The cost of the Iraq war: One year on," April 8, 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3603923.stm
"Kerry Exaggerates Cost of War in Iraq," September 13, 2004, http://www.factcheck.org/article253.html
5. William D. Nordhaus, "The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq," October 29, 2002, http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/iraq.pdf
6. Bruce Bartlett, "The 'Cost' of War," March 26, 2003, http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett032603.asp
7. Associated Press State & Local Wire, Business News, September 10, 2001, LexisNexis
"World Oil Market and Oil Price Chronologies: 1970 - 2003," March 2004, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html
"Volatility at the Pump : Oil prices were adjusted more than a dozen times in 2004," http://www.philippinebusiness.com.ph/magazines/oil.htm
8. Robert Looney, "Strategic Insight: Oil Prices and the Iraq War: Market Interpretations of Military Developments," http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/apr03/middleEast.asp
9. "With speculative fever high, oil prices hit fresh highs," March 10, 2005, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/136563/1/.html
10. Joseph Stiglitz, "The myth of the war economy," http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,879652,00.html
11. Joseph Carroll, "Americans' Opinions About the Situation in Iraq," March 8, 2005, http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=10024
12. "Budget Estimates and Related Information," March 4, 2005, http://www.ssa.gov/budget/
13. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, LNS11000000 (Civilian Labor Force Level, February 2005), http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln (accessed March 10, 2005).
148,132 thousand persyns
14. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, "November 2003 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates : All Occupations," November 24, 2004, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_00al.htm
15. U.S. Census Bureau, "Income 2003 : Three-Year-Average Median Household Income by State: 2001-2003," August 27, 2004, http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income03/statemhi.html
"The 3-year-average median is the sum of 3 inflation-adjusted single-year medians divided by 3."
16. "Last of the Big Time Spenders : U.S. Military Budget is the World's Largest, and Still Growing," http://64.177.207.201/static/budget/annual/fy05/world.htm
Christopher Hellman, "Last of the Big Time Spenders: U.S. Military Budget Still the World's Largest, and Growing," February 4, 2002, http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html
17. "Poll Says Americans See N. Korea As Threat," February 17, 2005, http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/16/221823.shtml
18. David Pakman, "Americans On: World Countries & US Enemies," February 23, 2005, http://www.heartheissues.com/americanson-enemycountries-g.html
19. MC5, Imperialism and Its Class Structure in 1997 , August 8, 1999, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/
20. Steve Schifferes, "Iraq's economy declines by half," October 10, 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3181248.stm
21. "Pay and benefits : Six-figure wages still not enough," March 14, 2005, http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-694982.php
22. Nicolas Pelham, "Contractors in Iraq Accused of Importing Labor and Exporting Profit," October 14, 2003, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1014-01.htm
23. Ariana Eunjung Cha, "$1.9 Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors," Washington Post, p. A01, August 4, 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37822-2004Aug3.html
24. "Jobs in Iraq," http://jobsearch.about.com/od/internationaljobs/a/iraqjobs.htm
"Jobs with American Contractors in Iraq and surrounding countries," http://www.jobline.net/jobiraq1.htm
25. "Now George Bush is misleading us about Social Security," http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/SocialSecurity_WMD.pdf
26. William D. Nordhaus, "The Economic Consequences of a War with Iraq," Carl Kaysen et al., War with Iraq : Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives, 2002, http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/AAAS_War_Iraq_2.pdf
27. "News Release: Gross Domestic Product," February 25, 2005, Table 9, http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm (accessed on March 9, 2005).
28. Warwick J. McKibbin, "The Economic Costs of a War in Iraq," March 7, 2003, http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/papers/mckibbin/20030307.pdf
29. Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot, "The Economic Costs of a War in Iraq: The Negative Scenario," December 9, 2002, http://www.cepr.net/Costs_of_war.htm
30. V. I. Lenin, "Bellicose Militarism and the Anti-Militarist Tactics of Social-Democracy," http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/jul/23c.htm