The Paris Commune and Democratic Representation of Today

Representation; the word itself conjures up images of men in powdered wigs gathered together, stamping out constitutions and forging mighty democracies.  The concept of representation is the very bedrock, the very embodiment of any democracy worthy of the name, or so it is said.  But representation today has become a byword, something to not be taken seriously, almost a joke.  Surely, the current political climate has not helped make the case for solid representation of the people with great angst coming from these same people directed towards the democratic systems that seem to fail them over and over again.  But we in the here and now can learn from history in this situation.  Not that we can repeat history but we can take from it.  The historical moment in time we can learn some lessons from is the Paris Commune.   

The Paris Commune of March to May, 1871, was in effect a governing body made up of the people of Paris; the workers of the city.  This experiment of workers self management was established after the Parisian government abandoned the city as it was besieged by the invading Prussians.  As the government was traveling to Versailles for transplant, the workers took advantage of the opportunity that was made available and rose to immediate action, thus the commune was born.  Eventually and sadly, this great time of history was eradicated by the French government through barbarian acts of bloodshed.  Despite its disappearance, this commune of the mid seventeenth century left a radical example that is far ahead of our modern time of superior technology and culture. 

Now I will point out and discuss a few of these radical examples.  I warn you; these seemingly simple yet incredibly revolutionary ideals might be too much for the person accustomed to the way things are done in an Americanized political system. 

We will begin with the intricacies of such a system.  The democratic system consists of several levels of tiers, with the highest office being the executive office of president or prime minister.  Below the executive office one will find the judicial level which sole purpose is enforce the good law of the land.  The judicial level has judges, who in theory are unbiased in their upholding of the law and also included in this level are other officials attached to the office of law.  Then there are parliaments and congresses, the creation of laws and statutes are the tasks for which these bodies are intended for.  Generally speaking, you then have below this tier what we would call, at least in the United States, the federal level of government, the state or regional government body.  These state apparatuses are in a sense, duplicate or replicas of the federal government on a smaller scale.  Then this mode of government continues along the line to the community level where you have councils and council men.  This is a very general outline of a much more complex system of politics, bylaws, machinations, administrations and bureaucracies.  The majority of officials who make up such a system are called representatives.  These representatives, from the lowest councilman to the highest office of president are placed in their respective positions through elections, which occur after a span of several years depending on the system.

The problem with this kind of representation is that the elected representative, who, again in theory, is supposed to be an advocate and arbiter of the people, the champion of their needs and wants, turns out to be the exact opposite.  The political representative in essence is a servant while the people are this servant’s master; meaning that the representative’s sole reason for existence is to work on behalf of the master, to please the master at all costs.  If the servant fails to do his job adequately he will experience serious repercussions.  The modern representatives are not true representatives or servants; they do not serve, they lead and the interests of the people whose vote was used for their office are not their interests.  The representatives engage in a game in which favors are thrown back and forth between the elected official and those special interests in which both benefit.  The one who loses in this game of high stakes are the very people the official has sworn to serve, who at best receive crumbs off the servant’s table.  Corporations, lobbyists, industries and the highest bidders are the ones the representatives of the people have sworn to serve, albeit in indiscreet ways.  Political representatives, these servants, make certain to see their needs, their personal agendas, are fulfilled first.  This is where earmarks and pork barrels come into play.  As pure as their intentions might be, no political official, from the most important office to the most insignificant, is immune and it would be naïve to think otherwise.  But what is the flaw, what is the malfunction in a system of representatives that is supposed to work, a system in which some proponents say work despite the discontent of many who live under these systems? 

A major issue is that the average representative is not from the people.  The average politician, who comprises a large majority of these systems, is usually groomed for the arena of politics; they are from lives of privilege or from families which reside on the upper crust of society, far, very far from the common family of society. 
                                        
Is it not foolish to think that a politician not from the people, disconnected from the people and their experiences, with interests separate from the people, can wholeheartedly represent the people? 

How many democratically elected representatives are wealthy; how many live in luxurious houses in relative comfort and ease while the common working man resides in cramped housing in overpopulated neighborhoods?

Yet, this democracy continues on unchallenged, with the unwavering support of people who decide to not think deeply on these matters.  Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Returning to the subject of the flaw, when a representative lives beyond the means of livelihood of the people they are chosen to represent, one cannot have the expectation that these same people will be their immediate priority.  With the common allowance of perks, extra benefits and royalties elected political representatives receive , again, the people do not share in this bounty, the gap between official and constituent widen more and more and eventually become chasms.  Electoral promises never materialize, yet the lies keep pace and the working man and woman continue to believe in hope that maybe this time it will be different.  Some things are beyond comprehension.

This is where the Paris Commune becomes relevant.  First, the representative elected by the commune was truly a representative in every sense of the word.  They came directly from the body of working class Parisians.  They were from the people and of the people unlike many of today’s political representatives with their condescending false empathy.  A representative of the commune’s caliber understands the people, their experiences, their struggles, their needs, their perspectives and their minds since this representative is one the people.  Because of this qualification, a once voiceless people can now have voice. 

Also of equal importance, a representative in the commune did not receive pay above the average rate of his fellow workers.  Today, this radical ideal is not in existence as many politicians and higher up representatives, apart from perks and generous benefit packages, is financially worth or receives in salary much more then the average working class family.  The commune, in its criteria for its representatives, corrected the grievous mistakes that the democratic system is still guilty of committing.  A representative that is fully of the people; a representative that receives no special benefit, no preferential treatment and higher pay than his peers is a representative that will have the interests of the people first and foremost without the temptations that perks bring.  This elected official will have no incentive in duty apart from meeting the needs of the people.  What an amazing concept for us, is it not?  Equally amazing is the job security of the representative of the Paris commune – if the public trust is broken or responsibilities are not executed competently the representative would be liable for recall at a moment’s notice.  This was to ensure job completion and accountability.  In the United States alone, how many professional politicians would be out of a job if Paris Commune type regulations were in effect today?  Rather, the question should be how many professional politicians, without the security of guaranteed terms and with the prospect of facing real accountability from the people would actually keep to their job description and serve the public good first?       

Some words concerning the aforementioned paragraph.  One is led to believe that term limits is a way of dismissing a representative through the usage of the voting booth.  This is indeed a fallacy as many a bad politician, both republican and democrat, has been re-elected by influence, connections, capital and preying on the ignorance of the voting public.  A recent example is former President of the U.S, George W. Bush.  Despite administration corruption, lies, scandal, an unpopular war in the Middle East and approval ratings constantly sinking, Mr. Bush served two full terms (8 years) without even the threat of impeachment from congress.  Another recent example is Michael Bloomberg, currently mayor of New York City.  Some unpopular actions of his are the West Side Stadium, his pet project for the sports team the N.Y Jets, which ultimately failed, his idea to charge already strugglers workers a fee to ride into sections of Manhattan during certain hours, his insistence that social services do more with less funding due to immense budget cuts and his virtual silence in the face of the private owned MTA’s constant increasing of fare for public transportation to name a few.  Mayor Bloomberg sought to extend his tenure as mayor by seeking a third term, which by the way was approved by the city council without public input or consideration.  With an endless well of capital at his disposal as a multi billionaire which cannot be matched by any prospective mayoral candidate, New Yorkers will most likely see Michael Bloomberg as mayor for a third term.  When politicians manipulate term limits, buy elections with massive capital and influence the outcome of elections despite poor performance this goes far in proving the fallacy correct.  Paris Commune, we need you back!

Announcement

Due to the presence of outside responsibilities and an exceedingly heavy workload, I’ve decided to limit myself to one article per week.  Right now, it is just an impossibility to continue writing at the rate I was writing previously.  I think it fair to write less with more time to focus on producing quality articles than producing articles of lesser quality because proper attention and time were not given.  I cannot shortchange the reader and myself by creating less than quality articles and again, I do not have the time right now to invest in producing several quality articles a week.  Look for my new articles to be published every Saturday of the week.  And please, do not be shy, leave comments and feedback.  I love to hear from the mind of the reader.  Feedback helps me in more ways than you know. 

Thank you

Dissertation on Guevara

Indeed, Che Guevara, while alive, was a rare find among men – a man with deep conviction, who impelled by this conviction, sought to change the material world around him.  I dare say the view we of the modern age have of Che is of the ragged, bearded, soldier with rifle in hand in the wilds of Bolivia or of the charismatic Comandante commanding rebel soldiers in Cuba.  In other words, we look at Che through the military perspective.  After all, he did describe himself as a “soldier of fortune of the twentieth century.”  But there was another side to the man that is often overlooked, the side of theorist.  If we can see past the OD Green military uniform and beret we will discover that Che was an intensely intelligent man, full of intellectual life.  As Fidel Castro summed up, “But when we remember Che, we do not think fundamentally of his military virtues. No… He stood out as an unsurpassed person of action, but Che was not only that – he was also a person of visionary intelligence and broad culture, a profound thinker… If we looked through the windows of his offices, he had the lights on all hours of the night, studying, or rather, working or studying.  For he was a student of all problems; he was a tireless reader.  His thirst for learning was practically insatiable and the hours he stole from sleep he devoted to study.”  Che was indeed a man of ideas and idealism.  These ideas, no doubt influenced by his experiences in the Cuban Revolutionary War, were later formulated into a theory, what is known today as foco theory.  In its simplest forms, foco is the theory of the small cadre of men picking up arms against the state, thus seeing themselves as the vanguard, while its influence ripples through the rest of society, urging others to do likewise.  Of course, there are other complexities involved but this is the foundation.  Che, in his desire to prove his theory that his theory was not just an aberration, was killed in Bolivia by state forces.  In his quest to repeat the Cuban Revolutionary experience, he foolishly threw himself into a battle that could not be won; there was no other recourse but defeat, for himself and for those unfortunate enough to follow.  Due to his misinterpretations of Marxism, or rather reinvention of Marxism, the world was robbed of such brilliance, such exuberance that the world could have benefited from, far exceeding his short 39 years.  Below I will outline some fundamental flaws of the foco theory.

1) Focalism in theory does not depend on nor make the Proletariat the main driving impulse of revolution.  Instead it substitutes the Proletariat with the Guerrilla and Peasant.

2) Pre-conditions, such as self-awareness and consciousness of the Proletariat, for example, are not necessary as the Guerrilla, who makes himself the main actor in this theory, can manufacture them by his own actions.  The Guerrilla is to attack first, all conditions will naturally follow. 

3) The Cuban Revolutionary model, the main basis of foco theory, failed to take into account distinct conditions in each specific country, thus failing miserably to export or replicate itself elsewhere.

4) Guerrilla wars have taken the lives of otherwise good comrades who could have contributed so much more to the Communist cause.  Their lives and ideas were eradicated in various efforts to impart this faulty Marxism.

5) Few foco wars have been fully successful in history; indeed there have been more failures in comparison to its minute successes.  Foco wars have led to more misery for the Proletariat than good, usually unleashing the wrath of the state and repression against friend and foe alike.  A good example is the Dirty War of Argentina which claimed thousands of lives and coincidentally, was triggered by focalism.

6) Not being based on the Proletariat, foco theory, when successful, has always resulted in one party, military or one man dictatorships.

7) Che’s naïve dependence on the peasant and neglect of the Proletariat proved to be his undoing along with foco theory.

8) The minority cannot win the battle for the majority.

9) Focalism tends to turn the Proletariat against the guerrilla’s cause.  The very people Che chose to liberate turned against him and his guerrillas by coordinating with the Bolivian Army and even going as far as to form armed detachments to hunt down Che and his people.

10) In this age of industrialization and capitalist super powers, the foco cannot go toe to toe and bullet by bullet against well trained, superbly armed and massive armies of the state.  In this sense, the foco is easily crushed, as proven by prior examples.

11) Che, the idealized revolutionary and image of romantic adventurer for many, has left us, apart from his image, an all too human legacy by showing us, through his foco theory, the dangers of straying far from the original blueprint originated by Marx and Engels.  Let us look past the romance and heed the material lessons.

The Role of the Communist

Recently, I read an article online about the subject of “Marxism.”  This particular article had made mention of something, almost in passing, of which I found incredibly interesting.  It stated that the so called “Communist States,” which supposedly were founded on Marxist principles, are much more authoritarian in state and society when compared to the Western Democratic states.  What I found compelling was not only the flawed interpretation of Marxist theory these states adhered to and passed off as communism, thus making them anathema, but also the abuse of authority and oppressive nature of these regimes.  The Communist Bloc had produced far more harm than goodwill for the communism of Marx and Engels.  Communism is liberation for the proletariat and eventual of classes but more often than not has resulted in the exact opposite – the oppression of the proletariat and reinforcement of class divide. 

This leads into my main point – the grand fallacy of the so called “communist states,” parties and communists in general is the belief that it is up to them to create revolution; it is them that will be the cause and effect of revolution.  To these self appointed leaders of the proletarian class, it is their direct action that their revolution will be contingent on.  Whether the party is of Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Guevaraism, Stalinism, Titoism or Hoxhaism persuasion, they all have this in common – it is their forceful conviction that it is their interpretation and version of communism that will lead the way, illuminate the path if you will and be the basis for revolution.  They lay hold a monopoly on the theories of Marxism and each act, each thought is filtered through their respective, distorted lenses.  They are convinced they possess absolute, objective truth within their grasp.  Their restrictive program is the program for all.  Their agendas and referendums are equal to the agendas and referendums of the proletariat.  As naïve and misguided sects of Christianity believe one must pass through their channels to taste salvation, these sects of Marxism behave in much the same manner with the proletariat.  It is only through their gates that paradise will be attained.  How misguided!

Again, as the ignorant Christian believes it is his God given will to forge salvation for the uninitiated, these Marxists of differing branches believe themselves to be the constructor of revolution in society.  But the main ingredient these parties neglect is the most important ingredient – the proletarian.  To ignore this ingredient is akin to baking the bread without the yeast – it defeats the purpose.  In the material history of state communism, the class of proletarians have been abused, ignored, misused, repressed and made cannon fodder for the grandiose plans of parties and dictators.  This perverted Marxism has reduced the proletarians into a class of sacrificing sheep.  Communists over the years have failed to realize that the vanguard is not the various parties that claim communism but that the true vanguard is the proletarian class itself.  The communist party cannot make revolution; only the proletarians can – revolution is the role of this class.  The tendency, whether subliminally or consciously, to reverse this formula has contributed to the failure of many a communist party, whether Leninist, Maoist, Trotskyist, etc…  The common formula has been to make revolution the job and responsibility of the party as the proletarian is to serve only in the role of support.  This heretical inverse is the epitome of selfishness.  We have to understand that it is not about us, the party, which leader is superior or which theory is more orthodox; it is about the proletariat and its liberation from its chains of exploitation.

So we come to the perennial question:  What is the role of the communist?  First, to answer this, we have to ask regarding the role of the communist party.  In the view of Marx, the communist party is a separate entity altogether from the proletarian class, whose main purpose is to aid, abet, support and guide the proletarian in their main goal of attaining power and ridding society of the bourgeois class along with its influence in all affairs.  Of course Marx stated that this is accomplished in degrees.  The communist party is not designed to take and hold state power, thus becoming a class in itself (symptomatic in state communism).  Its task is to supply the tools, resources and education to the organic proletarian movement on its march of righteousness. If you recall, Marx spoke about the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” not the “Dictatorship of the Communist Party.”  And in the case of a party or individual entering the arena of a political system, it should be for the sake and benefit of the proletarian class to progress towards revolution.  A political system is not a means to an end.  This is quite different form the various programs of parties and dogma espoused by state communism. 

As for the role and task of the individual communist, it correlates with similar tasks of the communist party.  Marx stated “The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”. The individual communist is to guide and direct the proletariat to self awareness, thus self-consciousness, to gain this self-consciousness.  In this sense, the role of the communist party is the same plus two fold; not only help the proletarian class in its quest for revolution, but to raise it to self-consciousness beforehand as well.  We realize the work of the communist will be arduous, laborious, difficult and full of struggle as individual members of the proletarian class will make their personal decision to come to self awareness in their time.  In this, there is no illusion or fantasy.  This decision of the proletariat is a decision that cannot be made by the communist for the proletariat – this is not within the realm of responsibility for the communist and the communist party.  Material wise, these are our limitations as no man or woman can formulate conviction within another person; conviction arises in the individual from the individual.  Self-consciousness cannot be forced, it is discovered.  And if the individual proletariat does make a deliberate decision to not become self aware; it is their decision albeit to their detriment.  All we can do is guide the proletariat down this road of self discovery using material resources available at our disposal and utilizing these resources creatively.  This self awareness; this self consciousness is a necessary pre – condition for the proletarian revolution.  Let us remember these words of wisdom from Marx, “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself.”  And we communists are the helpers.

Poem – The Beast

I have been penning a lot of poetry as of late.  I am not to sure as to why now.  Maybe I am trying to recapture the time I used to write poetry, years ago.  I look at poetry as a short burst of creative energy. Small in size but very powerful, able to convey messages deep from the soul. My main forte will be and always is the political article, but when the feeling for poetry comes, who am I to deny it?

The anger, The pain, The hurt, The stain,
A cancerous tumor from within,
Or a demonic spirit that possesses,
Do I need surgery or an exorcism?
It throbs from within,
You feel the heat protrude,
Your heart beats in rhythms,
Skins tightens and crawls,
You cannot talk,
Do I need surgery or an exorcism?
I must endure pain to release this beast,
So I can taste freedom forever,
Who gave me this gift,
Society and my parents.

Poem – The Boss

He tells me what to do,
He tells me how to live,
He tells me how to act,
He tells me how to look,
He tells me how to speak.

He always watches,
He waits for my mistakes,
He loves to correct,
He holds the power of life and death.

He is too serious,
He cannot get close,
He chastises,
He orders others,

He is the parent,
He is over his children,
He maintains production,
He maintains control,

He makes his word the word of God,

He is my boss.

Obama and Socialism

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the accusations from those on the “right” against President Barack Obama regarding him being a Marxist are utterly ridiculous.  Searches on the internet will likely yield results concerning this association.  But the hysteria over Obama being a Marxist is completely unfounded.  If those on the “right” really did their homework rather than spouting recycled McCarthy text, they would discover that Obama falls very short of the definition of Marxist.  I believe a Marxist is one who is one who abides by the theories of Marx and desires to see these theories implemented in society.  In addition, we should remember the Presidential campaign of 08’ when Obama and his team disassociated themselves with anything remotely Marxist or Socialist in nature.  So America, you do not have your first Marxist President, so a sigh of relief can be breathed.  The “right” does not have to worry about Obama turning America into a “socialist paradise.”  Obama is not a Marxist.

But I do believe Obama has displayed some socialist tendencies, more specifically in his policy of taxing the wealthy in favor of the working class, easing the tax burden on the working class, his ideas for health care and education to name a few.  Why I do mention this?  Because it places Obama squarely in what Marx called “Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism” Communist Manifesto, Essentially, Marx stated this strain of socialism is a socialism that does not realize a means to an end – the overthrow of the bourgeois class by revolutionary means.  Rather, this type of socialism wants to poise itself as benefiting the proletarian but within the constraints of bourgeois society.  It wants some reformation but not at the expense of the overall system; the established status quo should remain firmly in place.  As a matter of fact, this socialism believes the principles of the bourgeois class as a benefit to the proletariat.  Basically, it wants some of the advantages of revolutionary socialism without the revolution; it wants change but with the bourgeois unchanged.  It wants some reforms to the bourgeois while allowing the proletarian to remain the exploited class, albeit with less burden.  Does this not describe President Obama to a tee? 

Now that we have established Obama as a conservative/bourgeois socialist, let us briefly look at the travesty known as AIG.  As recently reported, the executives of AIG received an excess of $165 million dollars in “retention” bonuses after receiving billions of taxpayer capital to keep it from folding.  AIG, before the government bailout, was suffering due to the very actions and mismanagement of these executives, who are now being rewarded for their incompetence.  The boiling anger of the proletarians has reached fever pitch as they are victimized daily by the wayward economy and bourgeoisie, who in turn prosper.  Not only does the proletariat sell themselves and their labor to the bourgeois but their little capital is taken to rescue this class of exploiters, while the exploiters, instead of facing punishment are unjustly compensated.  Even the dullest mind can comprehend that there is something deeply troubling here.  And Obama, already causing doubt among his supporters, enemies and public alike, has laid down and played dead.  He has feigned helplessness, as he and his administration state they are absolutely powerless to stop this injustice, because the capital bonuses are part of the contracts of the executives.  The best he can offer the proletariat is his empathy and outrage.  The President of the United States cannot intercede on behalf of the proletarian.  Despite Washington’s damage control, the tidal wave of anger is reaching Obama because he promised a difference in politics, policy, economics and society.  Well, the proletariat has not seen this difference; rather they experience the same politics of old. 

This situation is not surprising in the least.  President Obama’s role as executor of the state is to maintain the affairs of the bourgeois class and uphold their interests.  Promises, rhetoric, agenda and eloquent speeches stand empty in the face of the overwhelming capital power of the bourgeoisie class, which incidentally runs Washington.  Conservative/bourgeois socialism will not lift up the proletariat from the depths of exploitation and abuses from the hands of the bourgeois class.  Only a revoltion from the proletarians themselves will suffice, as this President and his administration shows they are not willing to go this far.  It has been only a matter of months into his presidency, but Obama is proving that the “dream,” at least for the proletariat, never was.

Poem – Who Am I?

Who am I?
What am I?
These questions I cannot answer,
I do not even know myself,
I am lost within,
Alienated in my own mind,
Alienated from time,
An outcast of reality,
So much I do,
Yet I am no closer to the solution,
Does what I do define me?
Yet I find myself hating what I do,
Thus I am hatred itself,
I am just an instrument,
I am an instrument of labor and burden.

Poem – Addiction

Why, my actions, do I repeat my friend?
The cycle of over and over and over again,
Control is what I no longer have,
My spirit, – the hands of darkness grab.

Addiction drains my very soul,
And leaves in my heart a gaping, – empty, – hole,
After I act I am drained,
The doubt, – the guilt, – the glaring pain.

It consumes me in its roaring fire,
It transforms me into an unrecognizable liar,
Without choices, – I am nothing more than a slave,
My body has become my only grave.

War: What is it Good For?

“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products
chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It
must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections
everywhere.” Karl Marx,  The Communist Manifesto

“By the conquest of new markets….”  Karl Marx,  The Communist Manifesto

War: what is it good for?  Nearly everyone recognizes this line from the famous song, “War,” by Edwin Starr.  Here, in this article, I will attempt to explain what war is really “good for.”  Now, in this time of immense crisis for capitalism and the class of bourgeoisie, Marx’s words on the subject of war ring truer than ever.  Also, it will be wise for us to take heed, especially as more bodies are returned, draped in the American flag, from our countries’ “War on Terror.” 

War is a reality for our present generation.  It is of no great coincidence that as capitalism is threatened, war, as a natural consequence, begins and as the threat on domestic capitalism increases so does the intensity of war.  Economics and war are closely related as two brothers.  This relationship is also based on mutual interdependence.  This interdependence can be productive or non productive.  On the one hand, when a national economy is flagging or requires a jump start, the best option for a bourgeoisie government is to declare war on a foreign country.  This is akin to the economy receiving a direct, high dosage shot of adrenalin to get the body to function at an accelerated rate.  In this scenario, when war is declared, the armies of industry in society mobilize en masse.  Every sector of society works together as a fluid engine, with one goal in mind: production.  The economy is stimulated as jobs are created, armament is produced, factories and infrastructure is built.  An excellent example of this scenario is the United States during World War 2.  And what were the immediate post war results – a prosperous, bountiful, national economy.  

The alternate side of this situation is when war transforms into a parasite on the national economy.  When this occurs, it drains the blood and resources from the economy, in increments.  A case study on this situation would be the “War on Terror,” the ground war the United States is waging against countries of the Middle East, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.  For instance, there exists a national economy, already overburdened and stretched to its limits, all the while there are a plethora of problems on the domestic front.  Here you have the “War on Terror,” which siphons billions upon billions of dollars on an annual basis, for a total amount, astonishingly, in the trillions bracket!  Quite the economic parasite.  This parasite, in addition, has far reaching ramifications for the American proletariat.  Currently, the United States maintains a military budget of over seven hundred billion dollars allotted annually for the upkeep and preservation of the worlds second largest and possibly the world’s strongest military force.  This excess capital is a valuable source of sustenance for the “War on Terror.”  In the meantime, the proletariat suffers sub standard education, despite being free and “public,” is still extremely poor, social services and programs that the proletariat desperately needs are constantly closed or under funded, proletarians are exhorted to work longer  and harder as the standard of living rises while wages do not rise at the same rate, many proletarians die each year due to lack of medical coverage or rejection of vital medical care and the cost for the proletariat of maintaining decent health coverage climbs higher and higher.  This is where the great contradiction lies. 

As war becomes a parasite, the economy places emphasis on bullets rather than people.  Aside from the parasitic qualities of war, it becomes a two fold benefit for the economy in question.  Is it much of a surprise that as the nation’s economy is on the verge of implosion, the government is waging the “War on Terror” with increased intensity and renewed vigor?  The uncultivated, barren lands of Afghanistan and the rural, “uncivilized, natives present a tantalizing, bountiful opportunity for capitalism.  In the case “democracy” succeeds, the land could be cultivated, natives civilized, new trade created, access to raw resources and new goods and services produced.  This one fiercely independent nation is now “westernized,” thus dependant on the Western world.  In this scenario, the war has established new fields of profit.  This is the same metamorphosis Japan underwent after losing the War in the Pacific to the United States – from subjugation to trade.  Japan is now one of the largest and most loyal of traders to the United States.  Regarding the Pacific War, World War 2, the deadliest conflict in human history, was primarily centered on the acquisition of new property, labor forces, resources, materials and industries.  Hitler himself was very blatant in this regard with his policy of “Lebensraum,” the whole annexation of the U.S.S.R for the sake of plundering he land of its natural resources, such as oil and agriculture, its massive industry, to keep his war machine well oiled, property for the resettlement of the Germanic peoples and access to an almost inexhaustible pool of labor from the native population.  Capitalism in crisis utilizes the same principle – expand, conquer and establish new markets – for its very survival.  In this view, war is the weapon of capitalism; war is the force to open the door ajar to allow capitalism and along with capitalism, the bourgeoisie, to simply walk in. 

War is also an investment – investment in the new market it is conquering.  What are the tools of this massive investment?  Lives, capital, bombs, guns, artillery, tanks and aircraft.  It is as if the capitalist government is taking out a huge financial loan which may or may not pay off.  In very unpopular conflicts such as the “War on Terror,” the government has made a loan without collateral.  But to the bourgeoisie, this risky endeavor is worth  the effort, time, lives and capital.  Imagine if the war is victorious and new markets established; the benefits to an already waning economy is enormous!  The payoff in the long term will be incredible, far outweighs the initial cost of risk.  A million plus civilian lives destroyed and a nation’s infrastructure destroyed be damned!  Again, it is the proletariat who suffers, not only economically but suffers by being placed in the front lines and trenches in the war of capitalist expansion.  The proletariat is reduced to a tool of the bourgeoisie to kill and be killed, all for the goal of gain the the proletariat will never fully experience.  The poor proletariat is like the trusting sheep to the slaughter.  As their bodies are removed from the battlefields and as some return intact in body but not in mind or spirit, the bourgeoisie, in its safe havens, makes diplomatic ties with the new, “friendly” government and soon the machine of free trade starts.  The real victory of war is at this point – the victory is not militarily, decided during battle campaigns, no, the true victory is economical, negotiated behind the closed doors of commerce.  So, by this standard of the bourgeoisie, the Iraq War was a resounding success, ready for the withdrawal of the majority of troops – a new, subservient government has been created, aligned to the U.S, ready to surrender its virgin fields to the mercy of the global market. 

To return to the original question posed in the beginning of this article, “War: what is it good for?”  As we see the answer is simple – it is good for the economy, capitalism, the bourgeoisie, world trade and ultimately, profit.