No blood for bananas

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Tue Apr 13 00:43:54 PDT 1999


In message <s71221e3.033 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes
>It is a clear case of denial that some of the economists around these lists
>(present company excluded) have trouble finding economic motives for the current
>war. The below is direct evidence of gains for the military industrial complex.
>Doug posted a while ago on the profitting that will eventually likely result
>from replacing what is being blown up in Serbia by NATO. I'm still waiting for
>some left economists to investigate the Schumpeterian "creative destruction "
>profits. But then bourgeois apologist economists wouldn't want to prove that
>capitalism and war go together like a horse and carriage.

I wouldn't rush to find a direct economic motive for the war.

The hunt for oil in Kosovo would be a long and fruitless one. Nor is this war an attempt to contain the EU/US trade war over the banana.

The motivations of the Balkan conflicts has been principally an attempt to _re-moralise_ western governments, by giving them a sense of purpose. With the Balkan wars, Blair and Clinton have cast themselves in the role of Good Knight taking on the Dragon. That might seem an ephemeral motive to those schooled in the 'follow the money' school of vulgar Marxism, but it is worth more than diamonds to our current generation of political leaders.

Andrew Marr, one-time 'Socialist Organiser' member and former editor of the Independent newspaper, writing in this weekend's Observer explained what was at stake: "If the alternative is humiliation and failure, tearing the guts out of half a dozen Western governments, then the war agaisnt Serbia will go ahead."

Marr, realising that this is all about reputation goes on to say what must happen. The prize is 'The defeat of Serbian nationalism' 'From inside or outside, by hook or crook, fair means or foul,' Serbian nationalism 'will now have to be toppled and humiliated.'

Then going on to say that the 'region has rarely been stable without an outside force of some kind' Marr argues that 'we [and who is this 'we' he's speaking for, exactly?] should not shrink from the notion of a colony'. But then he checks himself and says 'though since traditional colonies were created to be exploited, rather than to be subsidised and helped, the term anti-colony would be more accurate'.

Finally adding that the "anti"-colonisation of the Balkans ought to come with EU membership, Marr concludes:

'This - and only this - would be an act of generosity and vision big enough to redeem Europe for what has been a shameful and blundering decade.'

Marr's talk of 'anti-colony' provoked my cynicism. However, in one important sense I think he is right. The motivations are not financial gain. Rather, the goal is as he says 'redemption' for Western governments, a sense of a higher mission and purpose that they have lacked since the End of the Cold War. This is first and foremost an ideological war, undertaken for moralistic reasons.

And of course, that is what makes it so dangerous. You can reason with someone who is just in it for the money. But the sight of Prime Minister Blair, face flushed with moral indignation and, let's be honest, excitement, tells you there is no reasoning with this man. The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Rather like those Soviet statues of workers, "Humanity" the abstract noun with the upper case, is elevated way above mere people, who must be slaughtered in their own cause. -- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list