Cowardly capitalism and the rebuilding of Iraq

When radical 'anti-capitalists' talk about neo-liberalism and argue against free markets they tend to accept the 'neo-liberal' claims of free markets at face value. But, as Ellen Meiskin Wood points out 'the distinctive and dominant characteristic of the capitalist market is not opportunity or choice but, on the contrary, compulsion' (2002: 7). Our anti-capitalist might agree and say 'yes, rampant capitalism'.

Today, capitalism is cowardly, not rampant. The occupation of Iraq showed the limits of the military might of the United States (and Britain). Occupied Iraq also provides an illustration of the limits of contemporary capitalism. The New York Times notes that:

Next month the United States and Iraq will gather hundreds of officials and company executives for a two-day conference in Washington intended to send a message that after six years of war, Iraq is open for business, and not just in oil. Now more than ever before, Iraqi officials boast that a trickle of foreign investment — including the first new hotel in Baghdad since Saddam Hussein’s government fell — is at last poised to be a flood.

These claims, however, seem to be hype. Mejul Mahdi Ali, president of an investment commission created to promote the electrical industries, tells a different story.

“Capital is cowardly,” said Mejul Mahdi Ali, the president of Diyala’s newly created investment commission. “It is always looking for a safe place.”

Where the Iraqi state is too weak to secure favourable conditions for capital investment, the free market fears to tread. Iraq is being rebuilt hesitantly, unevenly and with large doses of state subsidies from the 'neo-liberal' United States.

UK Citizenship Test

Julia Svetlichnaja has written a poignant piece about taking the UK citizenship test. Her piece is laced with irony about growing up in the Soviet Union, 'where to be a "good citizen" meant toeing the party line, even if your toes got frostbite' and then moving to London, one of the capitals of the free West.

She paints a picture of a dingy ritual presided over by rude staff, who administer public humiliation to the prospective 'citizens'. In lots of other ways she brings out the petty, bureaucratic, nature of the tests.

'There were no questions regarding history, current affairs, how the country is governed, culture or politics. All the questions were related to Government policies: such as the preconditions for taking paternity leave or who has a priority in free housing... When are children allowed to work? What is their minimum wage? ... In short, all about how to navigate through endless policies and rules, clauses and exemptions, it was all very instrumental; questions did not seek any understanding of what society is about, only how to obey the rules'.

This seems to capture the process very well. The intent is not to create citizens. The intent is not to encourage people to breathe life into the body politic. The intent is not to encourage critical, enquiring, engaged individuals. The intent is to create people who obey the rules.