Under the dispensation of the Old World Order, when some powerful group, usually a well armed nation or state, wanted something that some other group or region claimed for itself, the accepted method of acquisition was to just move in and take it.
Under the dispensation of the New World Order, partly as a result of the liberation of currency from its ties to rare metals, the accepted method of acquisition is to buy what one wants. While this seems to be an eminently preferable strategy, holding out the promise of much less conflict and bloodshed, the fly in the oinment seems to be what happens when those who have what others want, don't want to sell.
That's the question that has led me to reconsider the West's historical opposition to communism and socialism. The Western rhetoric was always couched in expressions of concern for individual freedom, the rule of law and human rights in general, even though, strictly speaking, communism and socialism refer to the allocation and ownership of a community's assets and resources.
Now, while it is perhaps accurate to equate the recognition of human rights and the rule of law with an individual's ability to have and own property--i.e. to claim a share of the community's assets as his own--having things (ownership) is not necessarily equivalent to or a sign of individual autonomy. For example, by all accounts, those who were held as slaves on plantations before the Civil War were provided with the necessities of life and, if anything, their caloric intake was higher than that of those they served and, except for the possibility of being sold off and forcibly removed, their access to sustenance was actually more secure than that of those they served. The latter not only faced the constant threat of bankruptcy but generally lacked the practical skills to sustain themselves.
I only use this as an example of the fact that material well-being cannot be taken as a sign of individual freedom.
So, what's my point? Well, I'm beginning to think that the justification for opposing communism and socialism (that they deprived individuals of their human rights) was a fraud. The real object of the opposition, as events since the demise of the Soviet Union seem to reveal, was the principle of communal ownership of the resources and assets that the people of a particular region need to survive. In other words, the real objection was to the refusal to make available for sale what the people of a particular community consider to be their own.
And, of course, that's what privatization is all about isn't it? The selling off of a people's assets, regardless of whether they want them sold and exploited by someone else or not. And isn't that exactly what happening with our own national assets, the forests and wildlands, and even the minerals under ground? Everything is to be parcelled out to favored individuals. Which, of course, means that they are off-limits to everyone else.
Of course, if this interpretation is accurate, then it's more than ironic that communist China, which resists having its natural resources bought up, is quickly acquiring the capacity to acquire by purchase any part of our country they want. That's because, under the rubric of "free trade" what we are really promoting is "freedom to purchase" and those who don't want to sell what they have are going to be most able to take advantage of that.
Posted by Hannah at May 29, 2005 10:37 AM