As Thomas L. Knapp observes in a recent column (Election 2012: “Oil’s Well That End’s Welfarish,” October 17), Mitt Romney — famous for complaining about the 47% who expect to be taken care of — “whined that the Obama administration has been insufficiently charitable with ‘public’ land (and taxpayer money) toward the oil companies.”
He notes that “for every dollar a timber company paid in leasing fees, the US government spent $1.27 on road-building and other projects to enable the exploitation of those timber leases.” The same applies to oil drilling in places like the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve: “the next time a natural resources extraction company offers to cover the entire cost of its own operations on ‘public’ land, let alone deliver a net profit to the US government on the deal, will be the first time.”
Extractive industries are among the biggest welfare queens in human history. Much — probably most — of the oil and mineral wealth of the planet is still in the hands of transnational corporate beneficiaries of centuries of colonial looting. Oil and mineral companies routinely use their pet states to politically guarantee access to mineral resources. Just look at the overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran — then read the Wikipedia article on BP. The politics of oil is the central factor in the slaughter of millions in the Congo, Zaire, and Angola since WWII. The same goes for the Suharto coup in Indonesia and the democide in East Timor. I think Shell actually has a Vice President for supervising death squad activity.
Most production of cash crops for corporate agribusiness, under the neoliberal “export-oriented development model” the Washington Consensus forces on the Third World, takes place on land from which peasants were either outright evicted, or reduced to at-will tenancy and then evicted, under colonialism or post-colonialism. The fastest way for a left-leaning regime to bring those “Washington Bullets” down on itself is to try putting that land back in the hands of its rightful owners — the peasants who originally cultivated it. Just ask Jacobo Arbenz.
It’s hilarious that self-described defenders of “free enterprise” like Mittens, who come down hardest on boondoggles like Solyndra, are also the biggest advocates of nuclear power and projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.
Nuclear power is the most extreme example of the phenomenon Tom Knapp described. Every step in the production chain, from the government building roads to the uranium mines on federal land to the disposal of nuclear waste at government expense — and the government indemnification against liability for meltdowns in between — is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
As for Keystone, it’s just another example — although much smaller in scale and bloodshed — of the kind of corporate looting the fossil fuels industry carries out around the world. Never mind the fact that the extraction itself couldn’t take place in Alberta if government approval didn’t constitute a de facto indemnity, essentially preempting any potential tort action in the courts for harm from pollution.
The pipeline is being built on stolen land. From Montana to Oklahoma and Texas, TransCanada is using eminent domain to steal land — often falling afoul of treaty guarantees with Indian nations — and using local police and sheriffs as mercenaries in pitched battles against activists. Even when it crosses federal land, it amounts to a subsidy to the project. “Vacant” land — actually occupied by human beings with the legal liability of having brown skin — was originally preempted by the Spanish crown, passed into the hands of the Mexican Republic, and thence into the hands of the U.S. government via the Guadalupe-Hidalgo cession. The American state held all this land out of use, in blocs of tens and hundreds of millions of acres, so that it could eventually be handed over to favored timber, mining, oil and pipeline companies without the need to buy it up piecemeal from individual homesteaders, small forestry cooperatives and the like.
So now when you hear Mittens talk about “free enterprise,” you know what he means by it.
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, The Romney Lexicon: “Free Enterprise” = Corporate Welfare, Infoshop News, 10/27/12
- Kevin Carson, The Romney Lexicon, Counterpunch, 10/22/12
I've been reading much of your stuff lately and so far I've really enjoyed it. It's a real shame that there aren't very many people putting up substantive arguments in favor of mutualism yet many in the academic fields continue to waste their time with 'anarcho'-capitalism and other apologies for big business and hierarchy.
Well, you explained it yourself when you said that "anarcho"-capitalists are in the "academic fields".
I've been to dozens and dozens of protests/demonstrations/marches. I have seen liberals, conservatives, progressives, Marxists, anarchists (anarcho-communists, etc), pacifists and other groups, but one group I have never seen out in the streets for any cause is the "anarcho"-capitalists. Hell, I very often see fascists, racial supremacists, bigots and neo-nazis marching out for their beliefs, but "anarcho"-capitalists? Not once.
The only place where "anarcho"-capitalists exists is, as you said, in "academic fields". It's either that, or they are in obscure conference rooms talking about their kooky theories. Or, they are in Internet message boards.
I guess it's not surprising, really, because it doesn't seem like these folks care at all about the real world. I guess the problem is that the real world gives them a painful reality check.
nice to see an article that explains the difference between free markets (ie: what anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists & market anarchists support) & what the politically connected such as obama or romney tend to call free markets falsely (state controlled capitalism/corporatism) shame the comments above show some people are clueless.
I do not think they are clueless. I think they are quite right.
Free markets and capitalism aren't the same thing. This isn't a semantic debate.
Speaking as someone who passed through it on my way to individualist anarchism, I do not disagree. This is speaking as someone who still maintains some affection for those guys.
This is evidenced by their treating the capitalism/free market terminological thing as mere semantics. Now, I know how the word is used. It is simply ahistorical.
And it is a shame. I actually find some of their ideas to not be so kooky. It's just that free markets =/= capitalism.
It's fine to disagree over the definition of "capitalism" but realize anarcho-capitalists define capitalism to be free markets. Yeah, yeah, historically the word "capitalism" may have meant something different but why care?
I've run into that capitalism = free market semantic quite often. Historically speaking, that has no basis in reality whatsoever. The only consistent characteristic of every capitalist model ever conceived ranging from Soviet or Chinese State-Capitalism to Western welfare Capitalism has been the extraction of value from the labor of workers by privileged private owners. In short, that capital stays in the hands an absolute few and labor does not receive its full reward.
It's important to point out that capitalism historically has not meant free markets because it brings us to the more important topic of whether or not bosses and private owners have a right to extract value from the labor of their subordinates (i.e. if capital deserves a reward.)
Because the definition of words ought to, where possible, correspond precisely with historical usage. Here it is quite possible.
Also, because this system has been screwed up since day one.
Plus, I am a prick about using words correctly.
This gets to the heart of the matter. It's not about what goes on at the point of consumption, but at the point of production.
I don't think it's being a prick at all. These issues become impossible to discuss if words have lost meaning.
thanks again for this new article..
i was a bit suspicious about this web site in the beginning, thinking this was another "vulgar" libertarian forum..
I was wrong.. Kevin is doing excellet work dismantelling liberal ideas in a true anarchist approach.. If wasn't folks like him, vulgar libertarians would have been successfull recovering our 19century individualists..
by the way, a couple years ago i've read is an interesting text from Bob Black about this vulgar libertarians:
"The Libertarian as Conservative" http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/libertar…