|
||||||||||
|
|
Is A Major War A Possibility In 2009? The Historical
Antecedents By Dr. Frederic F.
Clairmont
Global Research, February 27, 2009 In these lectures I shall venture to answer some of the queries made regarding the prospects of a major war . The notes to these lectures were scribbled over time in the corner of the living room. There are two large standing lamps that illuminate the copy
book that I am using to scribble these lines. The thin light black pen is
gliding effortlessly over the paper. It is one of my inseparable companions. It
is Made in One of my Associates raised the question the other night: is
there any manufactured products that American capitalism can produce that This is not fanciful speculation. It therefore follows
whether American capitalism in its current state of indebtedness, mass
impoverishment and financial disintegration will be able to compete internationally.
Or put it another way: how and by what means will it pay for its imports, for
what it consumes? Will it be able – on present evidence it is not – to shave
and ultimately to eliminate its trade deficit by exporting more than it
imports? Further, can the dollar be an acceptable medium of payment and
exchange given the battering to which it has been unrelentingly subjected for
many years? The observation by In subsequent lectures we shall explore the ramifications of these issues. Suffice it to say that it is a matter of life and death that takes us into the deepest reaches of the conflictual contradictions within world capitalism and the imperialist lethal that I have will give you more than an idea of what is meant when we say that China has become the industrial hub of our planet; as well as an idea of what we mean when we speak of financial imbalances. Of that more later. The Ramifications Some of you have evoked the possibility of a world conflict
in the course of 2009.. I shan’t say that this prediction is far-fetched; or
remote. Doubtless, many of you do not mean a regional conflict as in Ossetia
and Such a possibility cannot be ignored. How does one approach the subject? What is the most appropriate method? I am aware that itemizing the potential flashpoints gives us individual dots but the dots are not connected. They remain separate and cannot provide an insight of the detonator. I am sympathetic to your speculation. The historian must select his facts This is a matter of personal choice. But how and to what purpose he selects his facts stems from his principle of selectivity that is a part of a process of abstraction. His selection and his interpretation of events are thereby conditioned by his ideological and philosophical predilections. His class affiliations. His personal experience. One may itemize a list but itemizing single events does not give us a handle to comprehend these complex phenomena.. The assassination of Kronprinz Franz Josef by a young Serb nationalist was certainly the detonator but it tells us very little without disentangling the complex of nationalist convulsions and economic and dynastic rivalries that shredded the vitals of the world economy. Nor can we ignore the military naval buildup of the German empire that challenged the centuries old supremacy of the Royal Navy. As David Lloyd George - the shrewdest of imperial artisans and a paramount Hatchet man the Great War noted : “if 1914 had not come when it did it would have inevitably come later”. The key words are ‘come later’. What Lloyd George had in mind was that the power politics of finance capitalism and imperialism, and the carnage it irrepressibly incubated, was inherent in the evolution of world capitalism given its ceaseless lunge for territorial and financial spheres of aggrandizement. And its wars were confirmatory. The Arms Race. Many of you have emphasized the fact that the USCO is likely
to boost expenditures to offset the fall in demand in the private sector
thereby raising the level of employment. It is not a new recipe but the thesis
has a defect in the present context of international relations. The U S CO is
already spending more than twice or three times what the rest of the world is
spending on arms. SIPRI in The USCO and its military lackeys has been at war since 1945
non- stop. And that includes its role in the Chinese Civil War that ended in
1949, in Indochina since 1945, in At the latest count, it has 250 military bases outside the This was certainly the case of Hitler’s Third Reich in which arms outlays provided a booster that eliminated the ranks of the jobless. And of course the jobless could always find jobs in the Wehrmacht subsequently transformed into cannon fodder. This was true of the U K from 1937 onwards. As you recognize the changes wrought by FDR’s New Deal , admirable but illusory in several ways, did not curtail the Great Depression. What did the job was massive public sector war expenditures bankrolled by debt. Let me repeat that what ended that satanic slump triggered
in 29 was the advent of World War 2. Can it therefore be suggested that war and
preparations for war offers a ‘final solution’ for achieving full employment?
In the case of the One may contend that it raises the revenues of the arms producers. In what sectors is this true? In what individual enterprises does this hold? If you take pains to examine the share prices of all of the big arms producers i.e. Lockheed at the Standard & Poor's and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) you’ll find that their revenues and profits have tumbled as have their share prices . Given the capital intensity of modern arms output the labour inputs required i.e. employment is sharply reduced. Productivity, (ratio of inputs to outputs) has risen sharply resulting in a cutback in labour requirements with collateral falls in wages. I believe you’ll find that for the most part their balance sheets have been battered although perhaps not as bad as the financial sector .The conclusion appears obvious: stimulus plans, or pumping the prime as it was earlier called, will obviously not do the trick. I return again to the estimates of Stiglitz. In I suspect that some are correct to surmise that His speech in Davos, like that of Olmert , is more than the
howlings of a politico bent on the destruction of Arabs, and what his fascist
cronies call Hamastan. His utterances, like that of Lieberman, could be
translated into reality. Netanyahu/ Lieberman could demolish the entire We know who the Netanyahu/Lieberman duo is . There is
nothing nebulous in their blueprint. “My highest priority” Netanyahu thunders
“is The goal of Can It appeared in The New York Times. They were turned down by
the Bush cabal not because of humanitarian reasons but because they understood
for once the far-reaching consequences. You will also recall H. Clinton current
mistress of State Department had the gall to proclaim that she would obliterate
Before I proceed, however, to examine whether mounting trade and payment tensions could lead to a deadly military confrontation we should remind ourselves of the nature of the trade rivalries and weapons deployed in those economic wars in the thirties. The speech of the Chinese president lambasting the United in Davos , as did Putin, is indicative of the drift of economic war. Davos is the pivot of globalization. It is the cockpit of corporate power, of world leaders and aspiring leaders. Davos underlined the penurious fragility of financial institutions once regarded as the bedrock of the system. Words as stability and confidence have been wiped out from
their slate. The debacle of U B S and of The City and the ongoing tremours in
Wall Street , matched by such spectacular swindlers as Madoff and Stanford The
anger can no longer be dissimulated nor more than it can be concealed in the
mass labour demonstrations in No where was the nature of these conflicts more clearly delineated than by Sir Percy Bates, chairman of the Cunard Steamship Company (April 1935) at a moment when the Great Depression raged. Its relevance to our times is all too obvious: “We are going through a war…The arms that are being employed are not battleships, armies, aircraft, but tariffs, quotas and currencies. No international monetary standard is recognized, and every time that a tariff, quota or a currency varies, one is confronted with a manoeuvre, a hostile manoeuvre, a war manoeuvre. The worst of all is the reluctance to admit officially the existence of a state of war.” Capitalism as the present crisis lumbers on is no longer
able clamber out of its defstag pit. A predicament that worsens by the hour.
The war for world markets and market shares continues at an undiminished tempo.
This is mirrored in the relative economic performance of the 8. What the numbers say: These comparative figures are
indicative. Recall that These numbers highlight their mounting economic disparities.
I must confess at this point that I am not sure that in the near future the
abyss will ever be bridged Let us focus simply on the foreign trade sector. U
S. imports are growing faster than its exports. The That gap is unbridgeable.. Hence the USCO must borrow to
finance its imports. Borrowing is debt. And debt must be repaid at compound
interest rates or defaulted.. American capitalism has been the world’;/s biggest debtor
for more than two decades. Its biggest lender is Of this sum about $1,700bn is invested in dollar assets,
making But what we can say is that the dollar’s status as the
world’s reserve currency which has conferred extravagant power ( that was the
designation of de Gaulle on It is deliberate policy choice that reveals its class and
ideological alignments. They have already paid a terrible price for such a
policy choice of being the savior and supreme benefactor of American
capitalism. . With capitalism’s crisis now howling in its agony and the
dollar’s continued slide the costs to the Chinese workers and peasants that the
Chinese elite have long ceased to represent the losses to The battle over exchange rates is fought on the killing fields of foreign exchange markets. The Big Mac Index To understand, in my view why there can be no amicable resolution of the Sino-American trade war and rivalry it is well that we should say a few words on the nature of foreign exchange markets. That is where money is bought and sold and is the object of ferocious speculation on international markets. Money we must not forget is the commodity of commodities . It is the King of commodities. The market on which these money transactions are carried out is the Forex market. In a very illuminating but non-technical language we
perceive that the index of The Economist is based on the idea of purchasing
power parity (PPP). This says that currencies should trade at a the rate that
makes the price of goods the same in all countries. The Big Mac that costs
$3.54 cents in the In The problem of Dynamics of Overproduction . One of the traits of the current defstag, and I don’t exaggerate when I use that word, means that there are too many goods chasing too few buyers, too much money chasing too few profitable investment outlays, too many workers chasing too few jobs; too many banks chasing too few impoverished savers and depositors. etc. This is true not only of capitalism’s current cyclical slump but applies to all facets of the crisis. The essence of the crisis of capitalism is overproduction. Or over-accumulation. What is overproduction? What are its properties? At what stage in the cycle of capital-accumulation does it emerge? What is its cyclical duration? What is its role in capitalism’s business cycle? Milton Friedman , one of the major propagandists of free market fundamentalism and a vulgar apologist of capitalism , put this succinctly when he shoved aside the nostrum of social responsibility on the part of the capitalist: “ a company’s only responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders”. Capitalism defines the relationship between a possessing / exploiting class whose incomes are profits, dividends and rents, and an exploited propertyless class whose income is wages. It defines the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed. Hence capitalism’s overriding objective, its alpha and omega, and the masters of capital is not the provision of goods and services to the workers it exploits. That is a surface phenomenon. That is a fetishism. The goal of capital accumulation is to expand and ensure an ever rising mass of profits for a class of propertied owners. The overriding goal is profit and profit maximization. Overproduction is thus not an aberration of the system but inherent in its operation. And this goes back to the beginnings of capitalism’s first Great Depression of 1873, as noted by the Royal Commissioners in their final report. in words that are superbly relevant to the crash of 1929 and our present slump.: “We think that…over-production has been one of the most prominent features of the course of trade during recent years; and that the depression under which we are now suffering may be partially explained by this fact....The remarkable feature of the present situation, and that which in our opinion distinguishes it from all previous periods of depression, is the length of time during which this over-production has continued …We are satisfied that in recent years, and more particularly in the years during which the depression of trade has prevailed , the production of commodities generally, and the accumulation of capital in this country, have been proceeding at a rate more rapid than the increase of population.” The insight of these findings underscore not merely the nature , genesis and rationale of the business cycle that we shall explore in subsequent lectures , but its relevance and kinship to other great depressions that have devastated world capitalism such as the Great Depression of 1929 and the current economic depression we are now traversing. What it is important to recall are the consequences of that great depression that lasted , with its rises and falls, until the start of the 1890s. The Emergence of Monopoly and Its Implications Capitalism and its class rule is a system driven by competition. This is true at all phases of its growth. The period from 1873 to 1914 that ushered in the great carnage saw the structural changes in capitalism from its competitive to monopolistic phase. Competition kills competition. Or , as Marx would have said, one capitalist kills another capitalist. The Great Depression gave a spur to the concentration and centralization of capital that Marx had analyzed with such trenchancy. It saw the rise of the Trust and the Cartels. The names of Rockefeller, Buchanan – the tobacco king, Krupp, Vanderbilt , Morgan, Carnegie epitomized the face of capital. These were not simply what President Theodore Roosevelt called ‘the malefactors of Great Wealth’. This was the new phase of monopolistic capitalism stemming from accelerated competition within and between nation states , and the falling rate of profit. More and more competition led to excess capacity and its corollary cut-throat prices, a drop in wholesale and retail prices descriptive of the deflationary stage. This opened the belligerent quest for privileged spheres of investment and foreign trade. Monopolistic capitalism fuelled the drive to imperialism. The period opened the floodgates to what George Bernard Shaw
called ,at the time of the Boer War, the age of The Merchants of Death. You
will recall what President Eisenhower in his Farewell address called the
Military/Industrial Complex. and what generated an enormous body of literature.
The formulas was novel but its substance was not.. The reality of this
phenomenon was vigorously present in its concentrated form in the decades
leading up to the Great War. Arms manufacturers as Krupp and Siemens and
Mercedes Benz in Drive to Colonial Expansion I have explored this process in much greater detail in my
work on The Rise and Fall of Economic Liberalism. During the 1870s and 1880s
and after five million square miles of African territory, with populations
exceeding 60 millions were grabbed and subjected to European imperial rule. In
Asia ,during the same decade, the U K annexed “If we had remained passive …the largest part of the African continent would have remained occupied by our commercial rivals…Through our colonial policy as soon as we acquire and develop a territory, we develop it as the agents of civilization, for the growth of world trade”. Note the terminology. The rape and pillage of What we witnessed at the end of the 19th century was the
expansion and clash of national capitalisms. This is how it was propounded by
Cecil Rhodes, one of the leading architects of British imperialism in “I was in the East End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread’, ‘bread’, and on my way home I pondered over the scene and became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism…My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem ,i.e., in order to save the 40 million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands for settling the surplus population, to provide new market for the goods produced in the factories and the mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.” By ‘ solution’ of the civil war he meant the class war between capitalists and workers, the exploiters and the exploited spawning socialist revolutions. Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) incarnated the racist and expansionist thrusts of imperil conquest as well as the inter-dependence of the State and British capitalism. By its very essence imperialism was the quintessence of racialism. “ We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the slave(sic) labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. I contend that we are the first race in the world , and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race… If there be a God, I think that what he would like me to do is paint as much of the map of Africa British Red as possible.” Let me add as a
footnote that the statement was made in 1896 , the same year that the Durand
Line was drawn by the British Raj that demarcated the 2,300 kms frontier of
British India [ now Success depended on ‘law and order’ and on ‘slave labour, ’
as he called it, that marched hand in hand with the mass expropriation of African
land A process that had the legal backing of the Glen Grey Act of which
understandably he was one of the drafters. Indeed, in the imperial order of
things the borderline between slave labour and free labour was always fuzzy,
point that Historical processes cannot be abstracted from the role of the individual in history and its major actors. It’s for this reason that I have singled merely the British Empire and three of its major statesmen: Cecil Rhodes, Joseph Chamberlain (1836-1914) and Lloyd George (1862-1945) in the shaping of British imperialism, one of the most obnoxious and criminal constructs of all times, that incubated, with its other imperial accomplices, the Holocaust that was the Great War. Suffice it to say that imperialism and all of its projects,
designs and expansionists blueprints were inseparable from racial oppression.
And indeed many of you will recall the Nazi-like branding of the Chinese people
by Lord Curzon (1912) as “a moribund and decadent race”. That coming from a
country that imposed the Opium trade on the quasi-colonial Chinese empire.
Imperialism was the Godfather of imperialism and you have not forgotten
Hitler’s great admiration for British rule in The trio exhibited par excellence the meshing of business, politics and the imperial drive for conquests. Chamberlain’s family was the founder of one of the largest machine tool factories in the U K producing around 75% of the country’s metallic screws. As the master of the Colonial Office, which opened up for him the mightiest of personal El Dorado’s, he used his portfolio to push British business interests into every corner of the planet and that of course embraced his firm’s products. This was the perfect example of the case of State power being dovetailed to interests of individual capitalists. Chamberlain was an intimate friend and business associate of
“I believe that the British race” Chamberlain boasted, “is
the greatest of the governing races that the world has ever seen…It is not
enough to occupy great spaces unless you can make the best of them. It is the
duty of the landlord to develop his estate.” The inference was all too
apparent: since the His fanatic pursuit to intensify the exploitation of Africa
(and To be sure, the mega-profits gouged from subsistence labour power was ‘mouth-watering’ as many apparatchiks of the Colonial Office boasted, but few were the crumbs that drifted into the bellies of the British workers. Writing in his War Memoirs (Vol.1 1933), at the apex of another great economic collapse, Lloyd George found no need for persiflage glimpsed in his depiction of the phony ‘social peace’ of the Edwardian epoch. “It was becoming evident to discerning eyes that the Party and the Parliamentary system were unequal to the task of coping with grave issues rapidly becoming graver…The shadow of unemployment was rising ominously above the horizon. Our international rivals were forging ahead at a great rate and jeopardizing our hold on the markets of the world. There was an arrest of that expansion of our trade of an earlier epoch…our working population, crushed into dingy and mean streets with no assurance that they would not be deprived of their daily bread by ill-health or trade fluctuations, were becoming sullen with discontent.” What is this last sentence other than the unacknowledged lingo of the class war.? Lloyd George was never a radical. Despite his anodyne welfare state reforms( based on the Bismarck Ian model) that even earned him the plaudits of the Kaiser he was wedded, like the vicious anti-labour repressionists of the German ruling class, to the perpetuation of the existing social property order, the arms race and imperialist expansion abroad. He became one of the most virulent proponents of empire matched by his no less vociferous support for the Great War. Lloyd George, a tireless war monger, not only fanned the flames of war, but was one of the most unbendable advocates (like his close crony Winston Churchill) of military intervention (1918-21) of the Russian revolution. Which true to form he caricatured as ‘the greatest scourge that has ever afflicted humanity’. We are not concerned to examine the sheer stupidity of that utterance but merely to remark that it came from a paramount politico that was one of the leading criminal instigators that engineered the grimmest mass slaughter that humanity had ever witnessed. A remark emanating from a criminal who according to the diary of his wife “who insisted on reserving the right, as David puts it, to bomb niggers.”[1] In large measure a war against an emergent state that unique among members of the Second International (1889-1916) that opposed the war and whose rallying cry was : Bread and Peace. A ruthless war of intervention (a term coined by the British Foreign Office) that cost millions of lives (in addition to that of Great War) with famines and its horrendous political sequels. The British government, and recall that he was Prime Minister, bankrolled 70% of the cost of this intervention. His blood gurgling cry: “kill them, ill them now” was symptomatic not merely of the man and his class but of the direction of imperialism.” “I shall always remain an implacable enemy of the Bolsheviks up to the end of my life” A promise kept but which , not surprisingly, finds no mention in his War Memoirs. The wars for conquest of world markets and their repercussions were stated with terrible clarity by The Saturday Review (1897) premonitory of things to come,. tantamount to a declaration of war. It took economic and political analysis one giant step forward in contrast to the hollowed out constructs of Marshalian economics and the waffling of Fabian thinking: “Is there a mine to exploit, a railway to build, a native to
be converted from breadfruit to tinned meat the German and the Englishman are
struggling to be first. A million petty disputes build-up the greater cause of
war the world has ever seen. If Prophetic it was and indeed just 17 years, and 40 million
butchered, were needed to test the validity of this blood-drenched belligerent
utterance. Within the The Encroaching Net The headlong drive that pushed the European powers to
imperialist conquests was no less true for the Together with the military (the gumbatsu) they became the
spearhead of colonial expansion with the occupation of A mightier but still embryonic imperial force had now staked its claims to the cornucopia of empire. “This is our Manifest Destiny”, boasted Theodore Roosevelt. “We are now a world power and the glory of our race and nation have not reached the end of our road, and we must push on”. The effete and inglorious Spanish Empire , that had endured for 500 years ,was busted in 1898 – a venture completed in a couple of weeks - with the grabbing of its colonies, notably its crown jewels Cuba and the Philippines. This marked a further phase in the re-division of the world market that brought the approaching Armageddon one step closer. The The end of the Great War was not the “war to end all wars”
as Woodrow Wilson fatuously declared. The yearnings of a return to an imagined
normality by laisser faire nostalgics were dashed. It signaled not the end of
imperialism but its escalation to yet higher and more destructive phases with
Fascism its most racialist and politico-economic format. After A revolutionary Thorstein Veblen and John Maynard Keynes . Lloyd George may not have said that “we shall squeeze the
German lemon until the pips squeak” but what he did say was similar to what
‘Tiger’ Clemenceau was thinking: “We must have the uttermost farthing, and we
shall search their pockets for it.” The question of reparations to be gouged
from I shall deal at this point with one of the most effective counterblasts to J M Ks pamphlet that came from an American academic whose very short book review appeared in an obscure American publication in 1920. In but three pages Thorstein Veblen ( (1857-1929) hammered home the point that J M K (who participated at the Paris Conference as a member of the British delegation) had sedulously avoided the central issue of the Treaty. Before I proceed, however, let me add that Veblen was an
acute theorist and observer of American capitalism during the Gilded Age of the
Robber Barons ( (1890-1914). At no point however was he an active adversary of
the. system. He never believed that an alternative project in class and
property relations was feasible. In that sense, he was never a radical. Nor did
he condemn the rapacities of the American empire notably those committed by
such colonial-predator politicos as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in
the Nor for that matter did he publicly manifest any sympathies for the American socialist movement under the leadership of Eugene Debs. He was a rebel to be sure. What I have said is not to demean his stature as a thinker and his contribution to American letters and economics. The Great War, as with many others,pushed him into a sharper and more questioning mode of thought, and the same was true of Keynes. It was a catalyst that occurred in the autumn of his life. In that review published in The Political Science Quarterly (1920), a year after the publication of J M Ks pamphlet, he luminously saw what was the reality that the Treaty had concealed that Keynes had ignored. It was an inspired piece of criticism drafted at a moment when the corrupt and war enriched USCO had plunged into the apoplexy of anti-progressive and anti-Bolshevik hysteria. In his impressionistic overview The Treaty (which he always capitalized) was the antithesis of democracy and nothing more than a screen of ‘diplomatic verbiage’ It brings to mind Jacques Attali’s description of the Davos World Economic Forum as ‘le bavardage’. Behind the ‘verbiage’ however was the unseen butcher’s knife of the imperialist victors. It was the screen alright in what Veblen called sarcastically ‘the Elder Statesmen of the Great Powers’ who, in his view, continued “their pursuit of political chicanery and imperialist aggrandizement”. In so doing, Veblen brought imperialism’s reality into the epicenter of international relations. The onus of Keynes’s criticism was The Treaty’s adverse
contractionary impact on Veblen made the incisive point that revealed the cutting-edge of his reasoning. “But for all their vulpine secrecy, the temper and purpose of that hidden conclave of political hucksters were already becoming evident to outsiders a year ago…The Treaty is therefore designed to indicate that the most binding provision of The Treaty ( and of The League) is an unrecorded clause by the governments of the great powers that are banded together for the suppression of Soviet Russia…” Note his stylistic mutation. No longer are they referred to deferentially as The Elder Statesmen but as a bunch of hucksters. Such a forthright analysis required a great deal of moral fortitude at a time when more than nine-tenths of American academics were quivering in their cloisters , hunkered down under the whip lash of a brutal police state in everything but name. Veblen was one of the very rare voices, another was Lincoln Steffens, who saw the onslaughts against the emergent socialist country as one of the greatest mistakes and injustices of all times. Central to his critique was that Keynes was blinkered in failing to perceive that the Conclave’s goal was the destruction of Bolshevism that shaped the design of The Treaty. Anti-Bolshevism and the preservation of the status quo ante was the cementing force that united Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Orlando, the Italian, had been shunted off to the sidelines with Lloyd George derisively depicting him as “as a morsel of mouldy spaghetti.”. In demolishing the constructs of Keynes , a life long
anti-Soviet and anti-communist, Veblen did not fail to draw the inference that
the Bolshevik/ imperialist confrontation had now become a war to the death. It
therefore followed, then, “that Bolshevism is a menace to absentee ownership.
At the same time, the present economic and social order rests on absentee
ownership.” Absentee ownership was nothing more than a euphemism to describe
the capitalist mode of production, distribution and exchange. He also saw that
Keynes had deliberately omitted the central role assigned to a resurgent Veblen was of course wrong in stating that ‘the hucksters’
were waging a surreptitious war against a resurgent Veblen was surely not oblivious that Rosa Luxembourg (1871-1919) and Karl Liebknecht (1871-1919), the two legendary German social democrats were hostile to the war for which they paid the ultimate price. They were arrested and murdered by right wing militarists of the Reichswehr. As was the German social democratic leader Leo Jogiches (1867-1919). The year 1919 is a pivotal year in the history of social democracy, The Treaty and imperialism. It was the end of an ignoble chapter in the history of social
democracy battered in a sea of social chauvinism and opportunism. And the
opening chapter of Fascism as the savior of Big Capital and the established
order. Soviet In Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, what Veblen’s
‘hucksters’ of Frederic F. Clairmont is a prominent Canadian academic and
researcher who for many years was a permanent senior economics affairs officer
at the United Nations Economics Commission for He taught at the University of Kings College and --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright Frederic F. Clairmont, Global Research, 2009 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12471 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|||||||||
