By Ramin Mazaheri and cross posted with PressTV
Part 1 discussed how the West’s coronavirus response totally ignored the needs of their lower classes, and also how Iran’s “Resistance Economy” rejects Western economic liberalism (and neoliberalism) which has always sought to relegate non-Westerners to second-class economic partners.
As I have written previously, the West’s corona response is not just murderously mediocre but middle-class – it assumes everyone has a comfortable home, savings and a stable job. The West is employing quarantining, control methods and collective-over-individualist concepts used by Asian nations, but without having similar cultures of government economic intervention nor widespread trust in their governments. It is not hysteria to suggest that this could prove fatal to their bubble-filled, high-finance dominated economies.
There is a lot of foolish talk from Westerners, who are effectively forbidden to learn about and discuss how capitalism-imperialism truly operates, regarding how corona will cause supply chains to move back home. This has produced a lot of soon-to-be-forgotten agreement from their politicians, who are desperate to show that – all of a sudden – they care about their lower classes. Recall that the “end of irony” was proclaimed after 9/11 – will we see the “end of globalisation” because of coronavirus?
That’s funny.
The state of Delaware is where most US corporations are located and buy their charters – if it is not the world’s biggest corporate tax haven, according to The New York Times and The Japan Times, the state is certainly among the world’s top five. (Indeed, it should now be no surprise why Delaware senator Joe Biden was chosen to be Barack Obama’s running mate amid the 2008 economic crisis.) It could not be more crystal clear, even though neoliberals in the US often try to sow confusion about this fact: “Delaware corporate law requires corporate directors to manage firms for the benefit of shareholders, and not for any other constituency.” So anyone thinking corporations will sacrifice a mere fraction of their stock price in order to move supply chains back home are absolutely deluded about the possibility of patriotism, much less humanity, in “Capitalism with American characteristics”: their laws explicitly forbid it.
The post-corona persistence of neoliberalism – an ideology predicated on reducing government programs and expenditures for the 99% with ruthless efficiency – means that Western governments both national and local will be so strapped for cash in a post-Lockdown climate that they will be forced to try and save every nickel they can to maximise ever-more inadequate tax revenues and income. They will forced to buy from China, Haiti or whoever can save them pennies, because this is exactly what neoliberalism demands – it fundamentally neuters economic patriotism.
Urban hipsters who perhaps previously would pay premiums to “eat local” (because it is tastier) will soon find that unemployment (or a worsening of the seemingly never-ending underemployment for the West’s youth class) drastically alters one’s menu options. They would like to “eat local”, but many will be forced to forego the local farmers’ market to buy their food as cheaply as possible, and regardless of provenance.
So such talk from Esquire magazine bout how corona will usher in a new economy based around “resilience preparedness” is totally absurd: the very basis of globalisation is hyper-specialisation (Adam Smith) and turning every nation into a single cash crop/cow (David Ricardo’s comparative advantage) writ large, and these two concepts are the very opposite pole of resilience. Hyper-specialisation is hyper-resistant… but in one single area; if classic liberalism or modern neoliberalism or the “free market” selected your country to produce hygienic masks, congratulations! According to them you should jack up the price and the rest of us should not try to domestically produce our own.
Contrarily, we can say that Iran has tried to create “specialisation” in the normal way – within a single national economy’s different regions instead of all over the world, messianically and arrogantly. This is why they have employed a “resistance economy” (with many egalitarian principles held over from the “command/war economy” era), which is based around self-sufficiency, protectionism, government intervention to stimulate innovation in vital sectors, and government ownership in essentially every sector with medium or large importance. This, even more than the insistence that Islam is compatible with democracy, is why the West wages war on Iran.
The good news for Iranians: these economic principles are what promote resilience and preparedness, they curtail the indebtedness/poverty of the lower classes, and they will make Iran far more capable of weathering the economic turmoil of the coming months.
It is amusing that some in the West are now clamouring for sensible, humane, patriotic, efficient measures which Iran has employed for decades. Is Iran’s economic idea more exportable to Esquire if we call it a “resilience economy”, perhaps?
The Iranian economy in opposition to the West’s seemingly certain post-Great Lockdown economic chaos
At the root of this economic program is not anti-capitalism but anti-the-type-of-capitalism which today’s Iranians are violently confronted by: neoliberalism and globalisation. This form of capitalism is the most-geared towards maximising the profits and market concentration of the 1%, whereas a “resistance economy” is fundamentally-geared towards satisfying the needs of the Iranian 99%. The Koran sanctions capitalism, after all, but it bans usury and has clear exhortations to equality and the economic redistribution of massively-ordered charity. (If the West would simply follow the ban on usury – exorbitant interest and debilitating compound interest – they would be so much better off….)
If the Iranian Revolution did not satisfy the needs of their 99%… how can we possibly explain its endurance amid all the growth-sabotaging Cold War from the West? The question never was growth, after all, but re-distribution. The same logical argument stands for anti-imperialist Cuba and North Korea – caricaturing these nations as totalitarian oligarchies will continue to lose its false power for as long as these countries continue to not just endure but thrive (considering Western blockades), and for as long as the West’s post-1980 inequality entrenchment continues. Despite the looming economic crisis, does anyone really believe the West is culturally capable of reversing these inequality trends?
Undoubtedly, the West’s corona overreaction will make their economies – which were already in a Great Recession – even weaker.
Yes, this will force more Western domestic criticism of neoliberalism and globalisation, but will it really? How can it when France’s Muslims, US so-called “White Trash” and their lower-class counterparts across the “West + client” world cannot even be seen on their televisions? We are logical to believe that open criticism of the ideology of globalisation will be muted very shortly, because all these nations have airwaves which are dominated by a handful of corporations; contrarily, the Iranian government owns all the radio and TV waves – to get the outlook of not-always-selfless private media one can turn to Iran’s extremely critical, thriving print press.
Yes, the West’s reduced economies will necessarily reduce the influence and local reach of governments, but this reduced reach can easily be counter-balanced by the drastic quasi-martial laws which have already been employed. France almost certainly has the most over-policed corona lockdown (800,000 citations already), mais bien sûr: they just had an Islamophobia-based two-year state of emergency, which President Emmanuel Macron legalised into normal police practice.
Yes, the gut-wrenching reduction in wealth for the West’s lower classes may provoke “Western-style populism”, but this ideology is intrinsically reformist and not revolutionary. Look at the Five-Star Movement in Italy – it took them eight years to win significant power, but they have not been able to make significant changes. In their last national election the superb Yellow Vests gained merely half the votes of the (ugh) Animal Rights Party.
Yes, Westerners can see that all the evidence points to the necessity that they must change, but we must recall how very culturally chauvinistic they are: The West is hysterically convinced that their system is supreme – even among their “dissidents”, who are usually just “semi-dissidents” at best – despite all the evidence of failure and their perennial disregard of their own lower classes.
So combine this inherent conservativeness (liberal reformism), with neoliberal cultural saturation, with laws that forbid leavening neoliberalism, with “it’s not totalitarian when the West does it”, and it’s hard to compute a conclusion where the Great Lockdown produces a drastic reform of the Western economy, no? They have to overcome all of these trends, laws and false beliefs simultaneously and in great measure.
That would be a revolution. The West, the great thwarter of progressive revolutions, is supposedly now on the cusp of having one?
The only thing more idiotic than such talk are the commentators who accuse Iranian Reformists of being “neoliberals”, which is as stupid as calling Biden-backing Bernie Sanders or the French “socialists”. The Iranians most associated with the “resistance economy” are indeed Ayatollah Khamenei, ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Principlist Party, but the idea that Reformists aren’t hugely, hugely on board with countless resistance economy principles is just eye-rollingly wrong.
The reality – well-known in Iran – is that there is absolutely no room in Iranian politics for any political group which pushes ending the pro-99%, government-interventionist, fundamentally anti-neoliberal direction of the economy for this simple fact: they would never get re-elected by the 99%, and thus such a movement is necessarily finished before it could ever even could get started in Iranian democracy. Capitalism is sanctioned by the Qur’an, so it will always have a place, but neoliberal capitalism (again, all capitalism is not “neoliberalism” just as all socialism is not “violently atheistic Russian Soviet socialism”)? Not hardly.
Smith and Ricardo’s liberal ideas that each region should produce only that which it was perfectly suited to producing had one fatal flaw: such perfect harmony cannot possibly ever exist in a capitalist-imperialist system, because such a system is predicated upon competition. This is not a small flaw in their ivory-tower thinking, nor am I resorting to a mere humbug attack on “human nature” – competition, instead of cooperation, is a poor foundation for human stability and peace.
Such harmony and mutually-beneficial arrangements (and on a global scale, no less!) could only possibly ever be achieved in a world that has a basis which is definitely not neoliberal, which is very wary of capitalism’s excesses and constant exhortations to battles both big and small, and which tacitly accepts resolutely anti-imperialist and thus essentially socialist economics as the foundation.
You may not want Iran’s culture – that’s natural, they don’t want yours.
But across the West their lower classes are clamouring for an economy with many of Iran’s motivations and practices – they will be ignored, sadly.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the upcoming ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’.
Ramin Mazaheri is truly to be treasured. His work demonstrates the wonderfully liberating power of a consistently socialist (Marxist) class understanding of capitalism and its role in the world, all enriched and held together by his grounding in a spiritually healthy culture. As I see it, the Iranian spirituality that internally strengthens his political class analysis enables this mutual empowerment. I read him as personally blessed by this internal “dialectic” of mutual enrichment. His spirituality strengthens his socialist class consciousness, which, in turn serves to deepen and enrich his spiritual life. He is to be envied. For this gives him the necessary inner strength and clarity of mind to offer leadership at a global level. Western socialists can take a vital lesson from him, regarding the need to integrate Marxist political analysis with some form of workable grounded spiritual consciousness. Ramin demonstrates a rare combination that I believe is now vital to us all.
Thank you Ramin Mazaheri! I could not agree more. But are there still any true socialists in the Western World? I doubt it.
Cooperation.
Every government which has ever existed requires a certain minimum level of cooperation from the population that it governs. Without at least some level of cooperation from the population the government simply does not posses the capability to funcion. Traditionally, such governments head as quickly as they can to the nearest airport or seaport with whatever they can carry off, when this happens (as that is the only thing that they can do while staying physically attached to their own butts).
The real, and in fact only, question that I have for the American People is,
When do we decide that enough is enough?
“Traditionally, such governments head as quickly as they can to the nearest airport or seaport with whatever they can carry off, when this happens (as that is the only thing that they can do while staying physically attached to their own butts).”
Or play Last Stand in their high tech fortress with the “Walking Dead” Masses.
As for your question, Maybe when it’s too late and even then..
And Saker, you remind me of this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kM9HAYcIPe8
Way to represent Russia and La Resistance.
Maybe some debauched Elites will eat you Wide Eyes Shut style or feed you to animals.
I’ve seen no zombie monster armies. No tanks on the streets. No airstrikes. No infantry/artillary skirmishes, no apartment buildings vaporized by errant fire (admittedly, some cases are suspicious),
I have to tell you that it is clear that order is prevailing, basically.
Also,
I must admit that, while it is still not ‘chique’ to say the word socialist out loud…
Here in hillbillyville, that is… 😏
Also one more thing, if you will allow.
Someone said that language always gives it away.
The root of the word socialism is social. That is natural, given that we are social beings.
The root of the word communism is, of course, commune. Commune suggests a oneness within a group, and/or a group effort, right?
In a setting such as, say for instance, a village would not this be the best way for living families to interact with one another?
A bit like the way a family should interact within itself, from among all of its members, in honesty.
Right? How could that not work better, mathematically speaking of course?
Neo-liberalism is only a stage on the way to neo-feudalism.
“Neo-liberalism is only a stage on the way to neo-feudalism.”
Or to class war, revolution, and world socialism, no?
The steered economies date back to the theories of Freidrich List in Germany and Alexander Hamilton in the United States during the 19th century. Both states were intent on playing catch-up development and overtake the British who were then in the vanguard of the world economy. It is generally unknown that the British themselves had adopted the mercantilist policies first outlined by Thomas Mun prior to the classical school. Exports good, imports bad.
Tudor England and beyond when the English monarchs banned the importation of woollen cloth in an early version of infant industry protection transforming England from an importing wool country into the most formidable wool and later manufacturing country in the world.
The Rise of Mercantilism:
It was the same in both the United States and Germany who played catch-up with the UK in the late 19th century. The proto-architect of US mercantilism was Alexander Hamilton (1789-1795) who overcame the free-trade preferences of Thomas Jefferson in the early stages of US economic development; but it was the civil war – 1861-65 – essentially a conflict between the protectionist north and the free-trading south, which settled the issue. Ex-Commander of the Union Army of the Potomac, Ulysses Simpson Grant, later to become US President argued that:
“For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks that protection can no longer offer it anything. Very well then, gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade.”(1)
In Germany, Friedrich List (1789-1846) who also had scant regard for any ‘free-market’ nonsense and the Ricardian corollary of comparative advantage was instrumental in promoting a system of political guidance from above as a policy for economic development.
‘’ … the first stage (of such a long-term policy) is one of adopting free-trade with more advanced nations as a means of raising themselves from a state of barbarism, and of making advances in agriculture; in the second stage, promoting the growth of manufactures, fisheries, navigation and foreign trade by means of commercial restrictions; and in the last stage, on after reaching the highest degree of wealth and power by gradually reverting to the principle of free-trade and of unrestricted competition in the home and in foreign markets. (2)
This was a policy which was taken up by Bismarck and enabled Germany to outperform its European rivals, principally the UK. And in many ways German nationalist mercantilism which pretty much dominates the EU, is unfortunately still much in evidence today.
Error. nationalist mercantilism assuredly DOES NO dominate the EU today – quite the contrary.
“Smith and Ricardo’s liberal ideas that each region should produce only that which it was perfectly suited to producing had one fatal flaw: such perfect harmony cannot possibly ever exist in a capitalist-imperialist system, because such a system is predicated upon competition.”
– very accurate statement indeed…i have a perfect example; I am in a classic car club. Every member treats it with strong socialist principles, ie the club exists to pool knowledge, resources, they need rare components. But the manufacture of these components cost money. No one wants to invest up front. Then i step in and say “OK i will invest the funds” and i calculate a reasonable margin, to get back the investment within 3-4 years… Others suddenly are stung by this and accuse me of profiteering…Then gradually 5 others start to produce the exact same part and i try to reason with them and say “why dont you let me have the market for my own manufactures, why not produce other components …there are so many other parts that are in short supply..” the answer invariably exposes the underlying jealousy – “aka – a strong competitive spirit….” but by copying my components, the total achievable rate of return is reduced for everybody as we are now in a price-cutting war…the socialist club spirit is under strain…
I contrast this attitude with that of my eastern European counterparts, where the principles of cooperation still remain strong and the club atmosphere thus remains harmonious…