Hello there. My prompt is this:
Carefully read the central argument of Perkins and then choose a theory seen in Goldstein's chapter three. (my textbook) Find a theoretical critique of Perkins and explain why this theory would have a problem with the EHM argument. Your response essay should be at least 500 words long.
I chose Marxism. (just for kicks, Im not a marxist)
In his novel, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the author, John Perkins, paints a dark and disturbing picture of US foreign relations. It is a world where a coalition between big business and government work just as the mafia would to economically and politically beat all global opposition into submission. It is the idea of hegemonic stability that drives US corporations to drive poorer nations deep into debt so that they can be called upon later for non-monetary payments. (I.e. U.N. votes, access to oil reserves, and other such "national interests".) Perkins claims to have lived the life of an "economic hit man" by travelling to developing countries around the world under the "technical" employ of a multinational corporation. Once there, EHMs proceed as the agents of their real employers, the US corporatocracy, to help them in their quest for economic imperialism and domination. Such a quest is pursued under an offensive realist perspective through the extortion, manipulation and exploitation of smaller and less wealthy countries no matter the cost. From a Marxist perspective the actions and realist justifications of John Perkins are hugely flawed on a fundamental level. What the realist logic that Perkins uses to justify the further impoverishment and exploitation of 3rd world countries fails to take into account is the dynamics of the ruling class/lower class relationship. This is because as destabilization occurs throughout the world, the malcontent of lower class nations rises. This malcontent breeds inevitable class warfare which creates the risk of revolution, war, and the destruction of our foreign assets.
The hegemonic ideal that Perkins' realism strives for only promotes stability in the short term. In the long term it breeds resentful enemies and decadent states that later lead to global problems. The anarchy that states following an offensive realist pattern take advantage of is the very thing that causes the instability that will be the downfall of Perkin's argument. Marxists would argue that this anarchy creates a division of wealth between those nations who have the power to take such wealth and those who do not. The solution to such a situation would be a completely multilateral revolution in economic systems. Other nations would need to be completely self sufficient, stable and independently wealthy to assure the security of the assets and trades that we have with them. Hegemonic domination is simply a global tyranny with the most powerful nations being the ruling class who exploit the lower classes and spread dangerous dissatisfaction. As the corporatocratic alliance of government and big business takes over the world, smaller nations will lose their citizens' basic necessities such as food and education. This creates populations full of angry and uneducated people who will be easily manipulated and highly motivated for action. Needless to say, without education this action will most likely be violent and destructive to US interests.
Offensive realism is not only the wrong way to help the United States but it is also the wrong way to help the rest of the world as well. Perkins' argument is simply immoral from the Marxist perspective as it seeks to undermine anyone it the way of self preservation. As the historical documents of the United States profess the equality of man like no other nation its government would logically be expected to attempt the promotion of the well beings of all people equally around the world. This is an impossibility with the logic that Perkin's operates under as an EHM. Dominating and controlling other nations through military and economic bullying from this standpoint is obviously un-American and furthermore anti-Christian. (Seeing as how the United States was originally formed as a Christian nation the extent to which Jesus would be disgusted with the offensive realist strategy that the US government now pursues is definitely worth noting.) If it can be claimed that Perkins has betrayed his realist government by revealing its true nature in his book, one could just as easily claim that through realism, the conspirators comprising the current corporatocracy (for which the US government must be held accountable) have betrayed the founding fathers.
The US government should, theoretically, be working to spread American ideals. Offensive realism is not only un-Marxian but also un-American. So what is it? What ideals is this corporatocracy trying to spread? It is the old and ruthless idea of imperialism through crippling control and brutal power politics. If we were to set aside all of the amoral activities that are detailed in Perkin's novel offensive realism is still a very dangerous way to "work for US interests." Hegemony only births instability in the long run which can potentially destroy the local populations that the corporatocracy manipulates as well as the very assets that they gain from such hegemony. Everyone loses in such a system.
"simply immoral from the Marxist perspective " Actually, I don't think Marx said much about morality at all. Remember, he didn't call for a communist revolution or overthrow of the capitalist classes -- he merely predicted it. Likewise, he didn't view capitalism as evil, but merely as an inevitable economic stage that followed feudalism and preceded communism. He pretty much saw the world as being shaped by historical forces, which tends to eliminate moral concerns altogether.
Your essay gets off track towards the end. What does Perkins' arguments being un-American or un-Christian have to do with your thesis at all?
Otherwise, your essay is really well-written. Keep up the good work.
Ok this might actually turn out to be more interesting. Marx never directly stated that capitalism was evil but he did predict a certain progression that societies would transition through. You could argue that this progression would be evidence of social "progress" which implies that things are getting better. He does not state this directly but it could be induced.
Or you could say that a Marxist would suggest that capitalism and imperialism, specifically in the form of offensive realism, are immoral from the perspective of the American ideal (which has been influenced by christianity) because exploitation occurs which promotes a form of slavery and economic class separation. This does not promote the freedom and equality that Americans hold so dear to their hearts and makes the American dream impossible for the majority of the population. A Marxist might not view that as immoral but he/she would point out that a patriotic American would be contradicting themselves if they did not.
Talking about Perkins' realist arguments being un-American or un-Christian would then be more relevant as a Marxist would take those two forms of thought and show how they are contradictory to the philosophy of an offensive realist by using the logic of Marx himself. Perhaps that would be a truer Marxist critique?
Your reasoning on Marx is pretty much the same as many mainstream academics, so what you are saying is not foolish. I'd tend to disagree, though, because he viewed the progress you mention as inevitable. Morality requires a choice. That is, I have to choose to do good to be morally good. If I am forced to do it by circumstance, I can't claim credit for it. So, Marx probably would have viewed offensive realism as an inevitable historical development, something that the later stages of capitalism were always going to give rise to as capitalists attempted to maintain their social and economic advantages. "This creates populations full of angry and uneducated people who will be easily manipulated and highly motivated for action. Needless to say, without education this action will most likely be violent and destructive to US interests." Exactly, so leading, again inevitably, to the proletarian revolution.
"you could say that a Marxist would suggest that capitalism and imperialism, specifically in the form of offensive realism, are immoral from the perspective of the American ideal (which has been influenced by christianity) because exploitation occurs which promotes a form of slavery and economic class separation." Actually, I'm pretty sure a Marxist would suggest that the American ideal has always been an ideological tool meant to make the exploited accept their exploitation. That is, the belief in the American dream itself serves to promote and uphold a form of slavery and economic class separation, even within America, by convincing members of the proletariat to accept wealth inequality. Hence, offensive realism is perfectly in keeping with that ideal, in that it serves the same goals, albeit more honestly.
Offensive realism is not anti-Christian, specifically, though it may well be un-Christian. Certainly, the Catholic Church never attempted "dominating and controlling other nations through military and economic bullying . . ." Oh, wait, nevermind.
Also, I notice that the assignment calls for you to discuss a "central argument of Perkins." What is his argument, precisely? If he argues that America dominates and exploits other countries through corporate capitalism, then Marxists would probably agree with him. If he argues that this should not happen (and I assume he does, or why expose it?), the same is true. Or does Perkins argue that companies should act the way his employers acted? Sorry for the confusion, but I haven't yet read his book, though I have heard of it before, and probably should.
Hope some of this was helpful.
Cool, the rest of us are lucky to be able to learn so much from this discussion.
On an unrelated note, I think you should start with an introductory paragraph that is shorter. That is my personal opinion and strategy, and not any stylistic rule. You write very well, obviously, so I have to nitpick. Try dedicating an intro paragraph to giving a sucinct, interesting, introduction. It's not that your current intro paragraph is like, ill-structured or anything like that -- just that it's complex enough to need an intro of its own!
The rest of the essay is excellent! Very thoughtful and cool.
For the opening line... it's a little unweildy. How about:
John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man paints a dark...
Or:
John Perkins paints a dark and disturbing picture of US foreign relations in his novel, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
I always thought of the American ideal as that you reap what you sow and if you work hard enough you can become wealthy. With exploitation this is not the way the system works.(except in a limited number of cases.)
And, yes, my wording was off. Offensive realism wouldn't really be "anti-Christian" but as you said it would be certainly "un-Christian". When I think of what is "Christian" I just wonder what Jesus himself would say. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't really fit in with alot of what Jesus originally preached so I don't use them as my example for being Christian or un-Christian. I personally like to think that if Jesus were alive today he might endorse communism or socialism rather than capitalism. (Think how funny it was that during the Cold-War it was the non-religious group (soviet union) who attempted* to live Jesus's message closer than the United States (being founded with Christian morals) would ever would!) I feel like I'm going to get into trouble for that little comment but when I hear about books like The Gospel of Wealth I just can't help myself.
*of course it did not work and some of Stalin's activities would be obviously quite un-Christian.
Yes, but the fact that people believe it does work means that they accept levels of income inequality that they would otherwise reject. Thus, the meme of the American Dream is one promulgated by capitalists to blind the proletariat to their own exploitation.
I seem to remember Christ suggesting that people should give away their goods to the poor. I don't recollect his ever suggesting that they should take away other people's goods and give them to the poor. Those who support the notion of a more capitalistic society tend to give more to private charities than those who support the idea of a more socialistic one. There are a host of theories as to why this is, but I believe that once you have decided the government should eliminate social inequalities, you are likely to feel free to abdicate any personal responsibility for the issue.
That said, Jesus was clearly a socialist hippie agitator, and if he ever shows up again, should be promptly forbidden entry into the States as a likely commie spy. I mean, he is by his own admission an agent for the Kingdom of Heaven. That hardly sounds in keeping with the spirit of individualism and democracy.
