|
NATO or
the UN
Supporting the Interests of Capital
By Connie White Recent international political events --
that is, U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq in Middle Asia
-- have brought to fore a discussion of whether the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the United Nations (U.N.)
is the best (read: most "humane") organization to help
the U.S. occupy Middle Asia. The fact is that NATO and the
U.N. are two sides of the same coin. We should always look
for the solution as an independent representation of the
interests of the working class.
The interests of the ruling class “the capitalist class” are clearly international (i.e.,
global). These international interests are driven by the
international nature of capital, that engenders forms by which
the interests of capital would be protected and defended against
the encroaching and demanding interests of the majority of
society -- the toiling masses of workers, peasants and slaves.
As an international economic system,
capitalism is ultimately represented in the political
expressions of national governments, as well as international
cooperations (e.g., trade agreements). Protection of the
international interests of these governments and cooperations is
codified in institutions such as NATO and the U.N. The
"bourgeois language" of the media reads as if
international conflict between countries really comes down to
the organizing of society along the lines of democracy
(bourgeois democracy, of course), and socialism (the
"enemy"). (Today the slogans "good"
and "evil" have been resurrected from cold war days.)
Socialism has been (incorrectly) linked
with the USSR example. Because of the collapse of the
Soviet economy, socialism is criticized as bankrupt. This
"bourgeois language" is the ideological framework used
to (inaccurately) describe the basis for international conflict
between nations.
In fact, nothing could be
farther from the
truth. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems
(i.e., modes of production), and international conflict is based
in the bourgeoisie maintaining the capitalist mode of production
against the encroaching possibility of the socialist mode of
production. There has been no example of the socialist mode of
production (the USSR notwithstanding – but that is another
discussion), and the bourgeoisie wants to make sure there is no
possibility for that "example" to raise its head.
When NATO was established in 1949, the
North Atlantic Treaty consisted of 14 articles, the most
important of which were the articles ". . .defining the
area to be covered by the Treaty.. ., setting forth the
obligations of the member states if an armed attack should occur
within the defined area. . . ; and providing the basis for
political and economic co-operation within the alliance."
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1961)
"The treaty
formally and definitively recognized that a brief chapter of
world history had ended, a chapter which had been marked by a
European and American coalition with the Soviet Union to defeat
the Axis powers in World War II and establish a new
international order after that defeat." (Encyclopedia
Britannica, supra, emphasis added)
If we recognize that capitalism is an
international economic system, we also recognize that what we
refer to as competition is an international phenomenon.
Within the international framework of capitalism are
international conflicts between capitalists, and these conflicts
take on the character of international conflicts between
nations.
In fact, these conflicts are for the domination
of markets by capitalists, not the domination of the world by
this or that country or government. It is only to the
extent that these "national governments" represent
certain economic interests in the world market that there
appears to be a conflict between nations.
If we refer back to the quote from the
Encyclopedia Britannica (and remember what has earlier been
stated about "bourgeois language"), we see that NATO
was established in order that certain economic interests could
dominate the world economic scene. Today, in 2003, we also
have newly formed cooperations like the European Union Rapid
Reaction Force. See analysis in "PaxAmerica In
Decline." at http://www.nathanielturner.com/paxamericaindecline.htm
The success of the Russian Revolution, and
its example of soviets and workers’ councils, could not be
allowed to proliferate. Since "the need of a
constantly expanding market for its production chases the
bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. . . . ,"
(Marx), it also engenders an international interdependence of
nations and peoples. (This international interdependence
is the precondition of a socialist economic system -- the only
thing left to do is for the international working class to seize
ownership of the means of social production.) The examples
of state capitalism and workers’ cooperative governments that
were being raised internationally by the Soviet Union, and by
China, had to have a counter-balance until laissez faire
capitalism could win a foothold within those countries.
I posit that NATO and the U.N. are nothing
more than the "special bodies of armed men" that in
some ways regulate conflicts, but at all times defend the
economic interests of capitalists in the international world
market. The working class cannot depend on these
"special bodies of armed men" (i.e., NATO and the
U.N.) to do more than ultimately defend bourgeois interests.
(Cases in point: the U.N.’s
intervention into the civil wars in Korea and the Congo, as well
as its bombing of Iraq, and brutal embargo of that same country.
The U.N.’s intervention in the Congo ended with the
assassination of Patrice Lumumba. In Korea, bourgeois
media made it seem like U.N. intervention was to repel an
aggressor nation but, in fact, the division of North and South
Korea was the result of WWII, and the North allied itself with
the Soviet Union and the South with international capital.
We should also always remember UNSCUM, the Christmas bombing of
Iraq, and the brutal and genocidal sanctions, which were all at
the behest of the U.N. We should never call on any of the
murderous "special bodies of armed men" to intervene
to bring peace anywhere in the world.}
The U.N. and N.A.T.O. will bring
"peace" only as it benefits the interests of world
capitalism.
connierw@earthlink.net |
