#2
A
recovery of unity, from which streams commodity, merges aspects
detached from reality as images. The view of this world of unity
regroups reality looking back on itself fragmentedly. Images that
autonomize worlds, through this fragmentation process, evolve these
worlds of images through the specialization of their appendages. The
movement of autonomy is inverted concretely to produce the totality
of the spectacle of mediation.
“The
capitalist economy represents a union of the material-technological
process and its social forms, i.e. the totality of production
relations among people.”
Does
Charles Levinson, writing from the same era as Victor Riesel, an era
in which Citizen Smith fondly remembers by the apparel of the
bellbottom trouser, make a socialist or conservative move when he
states that “authoritarian regimes” become more abundant “through
the influence of big western companies and groups” by leaving it
open to doubt?
Citizen Levinson reiterates what has become an adage of the
contemporary age in the sentiments that “a few people at the top”
subjugate the populations beneath them, pursuing greed through
commercial empire-building and they do this because of their
materialist background, one that has been ideologically reinforced by
capital, capital being institutional; Kapital, the institutional
being!
International
trade was the one thing that state communism had to forego: the
output of its internal production was unsustainable to its internal
consumption. Neoliberal economies by their very abundance stifle the
abundance of developing economies by flooding them with an inflated
exchange value which alters the exchange rate of global capital
thereby making commerce unsustainable.
Citizen
Levinson tells us of how “{i}n the United States, the Dartmouth
Group {had} been studying for a long time how to overcome the
obstacles in the way of exploiting the gold mine represented by
Eastern Europe.”
When capital becomes institutional it becomes more-and-more
effective at exploiting people. Now Kapital even owns the Ruble even
though there is no official symbol!
Citizen
Levinson explains how in the mid-1960's the International Basic
Economy Corporation took care of the interests of Standard Oil by
colonizing, a process to which Citizen Levinson goes referring to as
the white man civilizing, by colonizing communist states with the
apparatuses of Kapital so that Kapital could extract capital for the
lowest price of labour possible. According to Citizen Levinson,
Europe was a breeding ground for subsidiary activity by firms that
needed to hide the volume of their transactions, all in the name of
higher profits, and all this at a time when the war in Vietnam needed
an anti-communist line. A suitable distraction. War in one
direction, in the other, extraction. Not backed by the collateral of
treasury, viz-a-vie, gold, remunerations to the communist countries
could be made at the lowest price.
Guises
were crucial to advisors. By 1970, 900 special partnerships existed
that fused “anti-communist capitalist enterprise {with}
anti-capitalist state organization”
- amazing how overseas trade can oversee the affairs of states
abroad. Yet, according to Citizen Levinson, the doublethink of this
ideology in the undertaking of business relations led to richer
profits, in the economies of motors, chemicals, and rubber. The
communist hypothesis cannot call its dialectical materialism
ideological doublethink by its very opposition.
Citizen
Levinson describes Kapital's machinery perfectly:
“{T}he
western firm produces knowledge, capital and technology, and the
eastern partner the work force, premises, energy and primary
materials. In order to recover its investments and secure a profit,
the western firm takes on the worldwide marketing of the part set
aside for export, and makes its profit on what is sold abroad.”
Citizen
Levinson tells us that the need for a strengthening of commercial
ties between Russia and America led to an end for the Vietnam
conflict. The irony is, that the firm General Dynamics, the main
armament supplier for the Vietnam war, in the 1970's “signed a
technical agreement with the Russians which may be expressed in the
terms of manufacture of its products in the Soviet Union and their
subsequent export.”
Same old story: manufacture cheap labour. Whether the Soviet Union
would then arm a state that was antagonistic towards The United
States is a question of Kapital's ultimate competition.
Corporations
such as General Motors and certain Texas oil companies ended The Cold
War with their contracts long before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
That's the neoliberal rubric for international trade: keep import
tariffs low and export tariffs high. Soviet leaders, Citizen
Levinson aptly tells us, considered it important for their economy to
acquire Kapital's technology; it didn't have to come with the
appendage of a doctrinal ideology. This was left as a trade secret –
perhaps communism blinded by the ideology of the proletariat it so
wanted to abolish – within the cabal that is the very Kapital.
Authoritarian
regimes become more abundant, “under which the rights of
individuals or the community as a whole are not of paramount
consideration{.}” It's not that the Eastern European countries of
the Bloc were ever liberated from communism before this event took
place within history but that they were already owned by the
multinationals by 1970. The multinationals' participation in the
economy subtracts from democracy, forms a democracy that is
exclusionary, and reduces the abundance of any developing economy.
If, as Citizen Levinson says, that “{r}unning a business
efficiently and at a profit is not an activity which concerns itself
with all the complications involved in the question of civil and
human rights,”
then, the state legislatory body should become separated from the
economy.
