War as Applied Neoliberalism
Last week, I mentioned how The Economist is working hard to beat up the “Russian Threat” so that European governments will spend more on weapons which, entirely coincidentally, is good for that newspaper’s shareholders. This week, to maintain balance, one of their reporters has been flown around the other side of the planet by the US taxpayer to knock up a story showing how there is an even greater danger in the Pacific region. This time, it’s those crafty and inscrutable Chinese who are up to no good and have to be shoved back in their rice paddies (I’m never sure why Asians are seen as ‘inscrutable,’ I find them very scrutable: they want a quiet life with a comfortable job and a clean and safe home near schools for the sprogs and hospitals and parks, and so on).
Titled America’s new plan to fight a war with China: Readying for a rumble in the jungle (Aug 14th, paywall), the lengthy article provides lots of pictures and maps showing how the old island airstrips from World War II are being renovated to take heavy bombers again. Also entirely coincidentally, the last heavy bomber to use the airfield they inspected was the Enola Gay just 80 years ago. In general, scribblers knocking up this sort of article have two jobs to do. First, they have to show how fantastic our side is and how we’re going to knock those cheeky foreigners’ teeth in, and second is to reassure nervous readers that really, there’s nothing to worry about, it’s just a bit of a rumble in the jungle, ho ho. This the scribbler did very well. The only thing missing is a reason why all this vast expense and destruction of fragile islands is necessary. Reflect for a moment on America’s achievements in its 80 years as the greatest military power in world history:
Korea: stalemate.
Vietnam: defeated.
Cambodia: defeated
Laos: defeated.
Iraq I: Pyrrhic victory.
Iraq II: defeated.
Afghanistan: defeated.
Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria: withdrew in chaos
Plus a hundred other invasions, coups and insurrections which haven’t helped anybody.
As far as records go, it’s not encouraging: twenty million civilians killed in their own countries and only rubble to show for it. Given this dismal record, can anybody explain why it is imperative for the US and its vassals to prepare for war against the world’s largest economy? The article doesn’t attempt to explain this. Instead, readers are left with the impression that the reason for yet more warfare is Chinese aggression and expansionism, even though China doesn’t have quite the same history of aggression and expansionism as the US. Nonetheless, it is widely-held as self-evident that we nice people need to prepare for aggression because there are bad people around, and unprovoked aggression just is their nature. However, as Orwell said: “We have now sunk to a depth where the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” I will therefore restate the obvious: No, it is neither necessary nor desirable for the US to position itself to attack China. It is not necessary as other options are available, and it’s certainly not desirable as it would most likely lead to a major war which could easily bring about the end of the world as we know it. Bearing in mind that these clowns are talking of war within four years, yet’s look at these points through the lens of the biocognitive model of mind.
Is the US compelled to attack China? Definitely not although, quite obviously, the drive, the wish is there and it’s very powerful (when they say China is aggressive, they’re projecting). This wish is nothing other than our old friend, the biological drive to dominate, as mediated by the male hormone, testosterone (T). Humans like to dominate each other, that much is genetically programmed into us,. Competition plays a large part in our daily activities and creates its own reward as being on top stimulates the release of the powerfully anabolic T. Conversely, being pushed to the bottom of the pile inhibits T, producing feelings of gloom and misery, as well as the many unpleasant physical effects of low T. Now it’s the case that the populations of the US and of Australia are very similar, almost identical from the social and genetic points of view. We Antipodeans certainly don’t feel any need, urge or wish to attack China so it’s definitely not genetic. Why do they? The answer is culture. From infancy, it’s drummed into them: “We’re Number One in the world and everybody has to bow down to us or we’ll throw a tantrum.” That’s it. World history since 1945 in one sentence.
Clearly, there is no rational reason for the US to attack China. Their survival is not at stake and the reasons why they should refrain are very, very strong. However, after a lifetime of indoctrination, their urge to remain on top is running the show and they see no reason to fight it. The urge to be dominant has absolutely no basis in rational thought whatsoever. The average Australian, for example, has a better (and longer) life than the average American yet we do this entirely without being Number One (hmm, does striving to be top dog lead to a shorter life span?). We barely scrape into the top 20, and that’s fine, it doesn’t affect us. If we can cope without needing to give our largest trading partner a poke in the eye, so too can the entire population of the US. In fact, about 95% of them would wholeheartedly agree. If they were asked (which they won’t be): “Which would you prefer, another major foreign war or a proper national health service?” we know what they would say, which is why they won’t be asked. It’s actually only the remaining 5% who think another war is just what the economy, sorry, the country needs. The first thing the 95% will know is when the war the other 5% have been working on for years is about to start.
Why do they bother? In order to answer that, we have to stand back to take a distant look at Homo sapiens, then the answer becomes clear: that’s what humans do when they get the smell of power in their noses. They love it, it’s exciting and they want more but, crucially, they don’t know when to stop. Even a slight rise in the hierarchy switches on a testosterone thrill so people want more and mor, but the hormone is only turned off by defeat and humiliation. Which, of course, is why Americans never admit they’ve been defeated. So this is not a very good situation for the 96% of the world’s population who don’t live in Godzone, or for the 95% of the US population who won’t be asked before they’re ordered to enlist and get ready to be blown up. How then does this utterly bizarre scenario come about where 0.2% at most of the world’s population can make existential decisions for the other 99.8%? The short answer is: That’s what oligarchy is, that’s what oligarchy does. But this week marks the 80th anniversary of the Japanese surrender and the end of World War II. That was called “the war to make the world safe for democracy,” yet here we are again. It probably follows a tradition: World War I was called “the war to end all wars,” but it didn’t, and “the war to make the world safe for democracy” hasn’t. What’s going on?
I proposed last week that the wealthy have used their wealth and the influence it buys to build the modern neoliberal politico-economic system that favours them at the expense of the great bulk of the population. In the past, the process has been fairly subtle, to the extent that a lot of ordinarily sensible people have no real idea of what’s going on but now, thanks to Herr Drumpf, it’s right out in the open. People say of him that he’s a “very transactional” president, meaning everything is done with one eye firmly fixed on what he can get out of it for himself but that’s actually normal, that’s what powerful people and countries do. They use their power and status to gain more power and status just because it’s inherently exciting, not because it makes any kind of sense. When did a politician or millionaire ever say: “Well, that’s enough, we’ve got everything we need so let’s just settle down and help somebody else.” Doesn’t happen. When did a football team say “We won last year’s final so we’ll sit this one out, give somebody else a chance”? Never, because that’s not how humans think. If you suggested it, they would just shake their heads in disbelief and move away in case they caught your disease. The idea of not being competitive is alien to most humans.
Now while it’s true that the great bulk of humans aren’t breaking their necks to become rich or powerful, enough of them are to make it dangerous for the rest of us. It’s also true that when people who seem to be satisfied with their lot get a bit of power or money, it goes to their heads and they suddenly want more and more. They then use their power to make it increasingly difficult for anybody to challenge them. The thrill of power is self-reinforcing in that it makes people more determined than ever to hang on, to resist being pushed out of power. There’s a good example here of a person who, having tasted the exquisite delights of money and power, just can’t let go, she has to have more and more, but she’s just one of millions.
The entire history of the human race shows that the moment people get a bit of power, they build grandiose monuments to themselves, castles, cathedrals, temples, pyramids, all utterly useless, even though the workers live in hovels and eat nettle soup. Once installed in their new castles, the rich decorate themselves with furs, silks, gold and jewels while ordinary people struggle along with holes in their pants. Most tellingly, people at the top surround themselves with guards and spies to make sure nobody can threaten their status. This is universal. It has nothing to do with whose side God is on, or history’s procession or race or culture, it has to do with the innate urge to dominate our surroundings just because it feels so damned good: “Oh boy, oh joy, power, I love it, gimme more, gimme more.”
This is the only reason the US is now preparing airbases aimed at China able to carry nuclear-armed bombers. Their need to be Number One, their need to dominate the entire world (“full spectrum dominance,” they call it), is now built into their national self-esteem. Short of national collapse, they cannot, will not let it go. For too many of the American elite, the thought of sharing top spot on the podium, or even being Number Two, is physically abhorrent. In this respect, Trump is not an aberration, he is the logical outcome of two hundreds years of always wanting more. Two wise quotes from a hundred years ago warned of the path the country was on:
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron (Henry Mencken, 1920).
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross (Sinclair Lewis, Main Street, 1920).
True. Trump is indeed a downright moron, and he, who doesn’t have a religious bone in his body, was borne into power by the Christian nationalist, i.e. protofascist, vote. It’s not just that the power elite in the US always wanted more, it’s that they were able to convince themselves that they were worth more, that they were justified in every sense. This is classic colonialist mentality, known to the Romans and so many others: Video, volo, capio. Dei mihi sunt. I see, I want, I take. The gods are on my side.
Does that mean we’re doomed, we’re stuck on an accelerating escalator which drags us faster and higher until it blows up? It’s definitely not encouraging. The climate is approaching a number of critical tipping points, such as deforestation in the Amazon, breakdown of the Antarctic iceshelves, Greenland icecap and Himalayan glaciers melting, collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline currents and so on, yet all our politicians can do is wage war or prepare for more war, all the while enriching themselves and their mates. Power corrupts, as Lord Acton said, but the real issue is and always has been that power attracts the corruptible, it attracts people who can always justify taking more for themselves. At the same time, people who have other, genuine interests or concerns are generally repelled by the sordid atmosphere of raw politics, and move away, leaving the field to scavengers and parasites. This process is self-selecting for the worst sorts of people, not the best. Kakistocracy, it's called, government by the worst or least suitable, à la today’s White House.
The neoliberal politico-economic system constructed over the past fifty years was designed and built by people who are enthralled by power and wealth. It is a system designed to concentrate wealth for the benefit of a tiny minority at the expense of the great majority, so that wealth can then be translated into political power. It was never a system intended to provide fairly for all, or to limit consumption to sensible or sustainable levels, that was never on the table. Neoliberalism is social Darwinism simpliciter, where the virtuous winners deserve their reward and the rest can go to hell. It is a system that can have only one conceivable end. It is therefore the duty of those who aren’t turned on by power to keep tight control over those who are. Of course, they hate it and will turn the full power of the state on anybody who challenges them, as is happening across the Western world today, but that’s the reason to keep pushing them.
Apropos the Economist’s article on American nuclear bases in the Pacific, since the beginning of the year, the newspaper has carried regular articles under the heading: Archive 1945. The end of the second world war. How The Economist reported on the war, week by week (note that the war doesn’t get capitals). This week’s article starts with the classic photos of the Japanese signing their surrender. Last week’s showed the atomic cloud over Hiroshima and pictures of survivors with their skin hanging off. The irony of the two articles, one saying how bad war is and the other saying “Whoopee, let’s get ready for the next one,” seems to have evaded their editors.