Archive for Meán Fómhair, 2008

Wildest in memory

Meán Fómhair 28, 2008

Interesting reports coming re: US bailout, from an email I received quoting a report on Casey Research); not simply because of the backroom drama, but also because of apparent rewrites and spins…

And in the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up Department” comes this story regarding the big White House meeting on Thursday night about the $700 billion bailout. However, since I read that story in the wee hours of Friday morning, the story was ‘updated’ late on Friday evening. Here’s a direct quote out of the original story as it was published in the King Report….“the meeting was described as among the wildest in memory. A beleaguered President Bush had to struggle to maintain order and reassert himself. And when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulson pursued them, begging that they not ‘blow up’ the legislation. The former Goldman Sachs CEO even went down on one knee as if genuflecting, to which Speaker Nancy Pelosi is said to have joked, ‘I didn’t know you were Catholic’. “ I know that part was in there, because I read the whole story…knowing that I would use it here. The part quoted above has been removed in its entirety. The “Updated” version, now entitled “Frank: Deal can be reached by Sunday” (Originally titled: “Wild Day, no deal”) is linked here. The ‘thought police’ are working overtime.

Here is the story as relayed via sharpynews.com:

From the September 25 ABCNews.com article:

Paulson feared thedeal was falling apart, sources toldABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.

As metin the White House’s Roosevelt Roomafter the meeting with[President] Bush, Paulson told them, “Please don’t blow thisup,” according to sources.

Sources sayFrank was livid, saying, “Don’t saythat to us after all we’ve been through!”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,D-Calif., reportedly said, “We’re notthe ones trying to blow this up.It’s the House Republicans.”

Paulson replied, “I know, I know; it’s bothsides,” according to a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

From the September 26 Politico article:

Talks were to resume atthe Capitol on Treasury’s $700 billion rescue plan, but a high-profileWhite House meeting ended Thursday on a sour, contentious note after animatedexchanges among lawmakers laced with presidential politics just weeks beforethe November elections.

The political breakdowncame as the collapse of Washington Mutual Inc. — the largest bank failure in UShistory — marked another low point in the financial crisis. And angryDemocrats warned that Treasury’s whole initiative could collapse unlessPresident Bush gets House Republicans to come to the table.

“Unless this fourthleg shows up at some point, this could fall off very quickly,” saidSenate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.).

At the White House, infact, House Minority Leader John Boehner had bluntly warned about the lack ofRepublican support for the massive government intervention: “Ican’t invent votes,” Boehner said. But House Financial ServicesCommittee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) angrily accused the minority oftrying to undercut Paulson by crafting a late-breaking alternative proposal –with the tacit support, Frank said, of Republican presidential candidate John.

Both and hisDemocratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, would leave the White House withoutcomment, and the meeting was described as among the wildest in memory. Abeleaguered President Bush had to struggle to maintain order and reasserthimself. And when left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulsonpursued them, begging that they not “blow up” the legislation.

The former Goldman SachsCEO even went down on one knee as if genuflecting, to which Speaker NancyPelosi (D-Cal.) is said to have joked, “I didn’t know you wereCatholic.”

It was who had urgedBush to call the White House meeting but made sure Obama had aprominent part. And much as they complained later of being blindsided, thewhole event turned out to be something of an ambush on their part — aimed at and House Republicans.

And from the Washington Post:

Yesterday’s Leadership Debacle

Michael Kranish writes in the Boston Globe: “A high-stakes White House meeting that was supposed to seal an agreement on a $700 billion plan to avert financial disaster on Wall Street unexpectedly dissolved into a heated argument over an alternate proposal by conservative Republicans, leading congressional leaders to clash over a deal that had suddenly turned sour.

“This is deteriorating,” President Bush declared as the meeting grew more heated, according to one of the participants.”

David Rogers writes for Politico that “the meeting was described as among the wildest in memory. A beleaguered President Bush had to struggle to maintain order and reassert himself. . . .

“[T]he whole sequence of events confirmed Treasury’s fears about the decision by Bush, at the urging of McCain, to allow presidential politics into what were already difficult negotiations.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: “It was an implosion that spilled out from behind closed doors into public view in a way rarely seen in Washington. . . .

“Interesting times”

McCain Goes to Washington (Eventually)…

Meán Fómhair 25, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-late-night-politics-pg,0,1153674.photogallery?index=1
Late night politics: A crazy week in review:
Stephen Colbert, on ‘The Colbert Report’
“I, for one, cannot think of anything more presidential than suspending your presidential campaign! Being president demands suspending all kinds of things! Habeas corpus. Gitmo prisoners.”

1. Letterman (Night 1) —

2. Letterman (Night 1: Top 10 Questions for the McCain Campaign) —

3. Craig Ferguson (Night 1) —

4. Letterman (Night 2) —

5. Jon Stewart, The Daily Show (Day 3) —
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186055&title=mccain-returns-to-washington

The Chickenhawk song

Meán Fómhair 24, 2008

The Original Tories – An Sean Tóraidhe

Meán Fómhair 20, 2008

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B3raidhe#Wood_kerne_and_Tories):

There was a long tradition of guerrilla warfare in Ireland before the 1690s… In the Irish Confederate Wars of the 1640s and 50s, irregular fighters on the Irish Confederate side were known as “tories”, from the Irish word tóraidhe (modern tóraí) meaning “pursued man”. The tories were usually Confederate soldiers whose units had broken up and who regrouped in small bands in rugged country such as the Wicklow Mountains or the Bog of Allen. From 1650-53, during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, the tories caused the occupying English Parliamentarian forces a great deal of trouble, attacking vulnerable garrisons, tax-collectors and supply columns and then melting away when faced with detachments of English troops.

So why do conservative Brits monopolise the word “Tory” now?

Because, in the contemporary super-power politics of way back then, the Gaelic Irish and Old English settlers of Ireland (in the form of the provisional national parliament of Confederation of Kilkenny), found it instrumental – in bargaining for their liberties – to make a realpolitik tactical alliance with the Royalists against Cromwell the Butcher (a prototype of later ideological mass-murderers such as Hitler and Stalin).

And because of that Royalist tangent, later British royalists and then conservatives would be disparaged by their opponents, by being referred to as Irish Guerillas.

I suggest that we take back this epithet, this alientated word of power and symbol of our proud history, and wear it instead as a badge of honour – as the true successors to the original and genuine old tories – na Sean Tóraidhe.

Market latest: Canned food and shotguns

Meán Fómhair 19, 2008
We're advising our clients to buy canned food and shotguns...

We're advising our clients to buy canned food and shotguns...

From “Gremlins II”:

Gremlin #1: [repeated phrase while on telephone in stock exchange] “BUY! BUY! BUY!”

Gremlin #2: [repeated phrase while on telephone in stock exchange] “SELL! SELL! SELL!”

Brain Gremlin: [on telephone] “Well, it’s rather brutal here. Right now we are advising all our clients to put everything they’ve got into canned food and shotguns.”

The Neocons vs. Israel: the Algerian Ultras of the Western World?

Meán Fómhair 17, 2008

…because the balance of power can only turn against them – they need the might of France, that is to say the French Army. So these separatists are also hyper-patriots. Republicans in France – insofar as our institutions allow them to constitute a political force at home – they are, in Algeria, fascists who hate the Republic but who passionately love the Republican army.

Jean-Paul Sartre: Colonialism is a System

The projected “National Home for the Jews” endorsed by Britain in 1917 was never intended to become a nation. It was to be part of the British Empire, not ruling itself but governed benignly from London, a permanent way station on the proposed land-route to India and a glacis protecting the Suez Canal from any power that threatened it from the north. The British Empire accepted the Zionist scheme because it provided Britain with an excuse to straddle one of the most important pieces of strategic property in the world.

“Zionism: A Defense” Peter Hitchens, The American Conservative October 6, 2003

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/oct/06/00017/

The notion that the U.S. and Israel are allied together in the cause of spreading democracy in the Middle East and worldwide would be scoffed at by Israeli pundits. After all, their government has been strengthening its military ties with China despite U.S. opposition. Israelis are not “pro-American” because of their commitment to Jeffersonian values—the Jewish state has yet to adopt a constitution—but because they concluded that their interests and those of the U.S. are compatible now. But they see this “special relationship” not as marriage but as an affair. And like any affair, it could end.

Indeed, there was a time when Israelis were pro-Soviet and pro-French. In 1948, Stalin’s Soviet Union was the most enthusiastic supporter of establishing Israel, which it hoped would be a leading anti-imperialist post in the Middle East, while Secretary of State George Marshall pressed Harry Truman not to recognize the new state, warning that it could harm America’s position in the region. Hence Moscow recognized Israel immediately after the state was proclaimed and provided it with arms, while it took the Americans more than a year to grant de jure recognition to Israel, on which they imposed an arms embargo. At the height of the In-Russia-With-Love mood in Israel, the expectation was that the new state would remain neutral in the evolving Cold War.

Then Israel had its French kiss. It was France that served as Israel’s main source of arms in the 1950s and early 1960s and helped it develop its nuclear arsenal. Israel was embracing then a European orientation and forming close ties with an emerging Franco-German bloc to help resist U.S. pressure to end its nuclear program. The Israeli alliance with France reached a peak in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez campaign during which the two conspired (with Britain and against U.S. wishes) to oust Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Their interests were seen to be compatible as the French tried to suppress the Nasser-backed struggle for independence in Algeria. But after Charles de Gaulle’s decision to grant independence to Algeria, the relationship between Israel and France cooled; they soured after Israel rejected the aging French leader’s advice not to attack Egypt in 1967…

It was only after Israel’s 1967 victory over Egypt, a Soviet ally, that the intellectual predecessors of today’s neoconservatives started popularizing the idea of Israel as an American “strategic asset” in the Middle East. Similarly, neoconservatives in the Reagan administration argued that Israel should become America’s leading ally in the region during the renewed Cold War tensions, while depicting the Palestine Liberation Organization as a Soviet stooge. But even as Israel and the U.S. were strengthening their ties, there was recognition in both governments of the strategic constraints on their relationship. America could not maintain its position in the Middle East without establishing a presence in the Arab world, while Israel’s friendship with America could not substitute for the acceptance of Israel by its Arab neighbors. Washington’s efforts to bring about Middle East peace were part of a strategy to advance U.S. and Israeli interests…

Bush and his advisers see America’s battle with Iraq and Israel’s battle with the Palestinians as part of the same war, according to Ha’aretz chief political analyst, Akiva Eldar. “They have actually suggested that Israel will help the United States to take over the Middle East,” Eldar said. “They were sitting in think tanks that believed that you don’t even try to appease or satisfy the Arabs, you reach peace by force which means you impose it [and] you don’t make concessions to people you don’t trust, and that puts them and Sharon in the same party.”

Consider the results of U.S. policies—the coming to power of radical Shi’ites in Baghdad and the strengthening influence of Iran and its allies; the radicalization of the Palestinians, the election of Hamas, and an environment less conducive for Arab-Israel peace; the growing isolation of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East, in Europe, and around the world. Is it surprising that Israelis are asking: if we have a pro-Israeli administration in Washington, how would a anti-Israeli one look..?

…Israel, as Ha’aretz columnist Doron Rosenblum put it, “was not established in order to be a spearhead against global Islam, or in order to serve as an alert squad for the Western world.” But that is exactly the role that the neocons have assigned to Israel, which has led Daniel Levy, a former aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, to propose that “disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon ‘creative destruction’ in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers.” An America that seeks to reshape the region “through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel,” Levy wrote.

Moreover, the neoconservative paradigm is bound make Israel a modern-day crusader state, an outlet of a global power whose political, economic, and military headquarters are on the other side of the world.

“Special Relationship: A one-sided U.S. policy toward Israel endangers both countries’ interests.” Leon Hadar, The American Conservative, November 20, 2006
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/nov/20/00024/

[Analysis] 1791 Declaration of the United Irishmen

Meán Fómhair 7, 2008

My comments and quotes of other material are in italics; Declaration of the United Irishmen is indented; bolded emphasis is mine. I am not aware of anyone else who has tried to analyse the intellectual parallels between the US Declaration of Independence and the United Irishmen Declaration – If you are aware of any such material, please let me know:

In the present great era of reform, when unjust Governments are falling in every quarter of Europe;

This was during what is now referred to as the “Age of Revolution“: from the last decades of the 18th Century, to the first decades of the 19th, revolts, revolutions and national independence movements occurred in the Americas and in Europe – often prompted by Enlightenment ideas – and challenging monarchical, aristocratic, and imperial states and institutions – including slavery, and state-enforced religious discrimination.

when religious persecution is compelled to abjure her tyranny over conscience;

when the rights of man are ascertained in theory, and that theory substantiated by practice;

The “Rights of Man” was a treatise written in 1791 by American founding father and patriot, Thomas Paine, in response to Edmund Burke‘s attack on the French Revolution of 1789 – “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (it was also in the later 1793 title of a 1775 pamphlet – “The Real Rights of Man” – by British radical, Thomas Spense).

Paine was the Paris roommate of (Declaration author) Wolfe Tone‘s fellow patriot and confidante, “Citizen” Lord Edward Fitzgerald (himself a veteran of the British Army in North America); Paine was also declared an honorary United Irishman as a result of his influence and esteem – consider also the parallel between “United States of America” (a phrase coined by Paine) and the “Society of United Irishmen“;

Paine was – as were other prominent US Founding Fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin – a Deist, who promoted freedom of conscience and religious tolerance in his other great work: “The Age of Reason”.

when antiquity can no longer defend absurd and oppressive forms against the common sense and common interests of mankind;

Common Sense” was one the titles of a series of pamphlets written by Paine, that George Washington acknowledged as helping inspire many Americans into open revolution. “Common interest” may also be a synonym for the latin “res publica“, which can be translated or read as “the public thing”, “the public matter”, and is further developed as “the public interest”, common good”, “commonwealth”, or as a form of government: “republic”;

when all Government is acknowledged to originate from the people, and to be so far only obligatory as it protects their rights and promotes their welfare;

Consider the parallel with the US version:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

“Government by the people, for the people, and of the people” is the famous American dictum; the American Declaration of Independence bases its moral and philosophical force on what might be regarded as the breach of social-contract (a theory of political legitimacy propounded by John Locke, and which influenced American Founding Fathers) by the British Crown.

The United States’ Declaration was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, who would later (while the second President under the US Constitution) make very important and influential allies of Irish radicals who had escaped after the 1798 and 1803 rebellions, in a major political realignment known as “the Second American Revolution” of the 1800 election (see “United Irishmen, United States: Immigrant Radicals in the Early Republic” by Donald A. Wilson, Cornell University Press (May 1998), ISBN-10: 0801431751, ISBN-13: 978-0801431753);

we think it our duty, as Irishmen, to come forward, and state what we feel to be our heavy grievance, and what we know to be its effectual remedy.

This parallels the American Declaration, which also laid out a schedule of grievances (as justification for total popular revocation of unjust rule – whereas the Irish at the time were not yet declaring complete independence, but rather a schedule of necessary remedies); Consider:

…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…

…Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…

We have no national Government— we are ruled by Englishmen, and the servants of Englishmen whose object is the interest of another country, whose instrument is corruption, and whose strength is the weakness of Ireland; and these men have the whole of the power and patronage of the country as means to seduce and subdue the honesty and spirit of her representatives in the legislature.

Such an extreme power, acting with uniform force, in a direction too frequently opposite to the true line of our obvious interests, can be resisted with effect solely by unanimity, decision and spirit in the people — qualities which may be exerted most legally, constitutionally, and efficaciously by that great measure essential to the prosperity, and freedom of Ireland — an equal representation of all the people in Parliament. We do not here mention as grievances the rejection of a place-bill, of a pension bill, of a responsibility-bill, the sale of peerages in one house, the corruption publicly avowed in the other, nor the notorious infamy of borough traffic between both, not that we are insensible to their enormity, but that we consider them as but symptoms of that mortal disease which corrodes the vitals of our constitution, and leaves to the people in their own government but the shadow of a name.

Impressed with these sentiments, we have agreed to form an association to be called “The Society of United Irishmen,” and we do pledge ourselves to our country, and mutually to each other, that we will steadily support and endeavour, by all due means, to carry into effect the following resolutions:

FIRST RESOLVED: That the weight of English influence on the Government of this country is so great as to require a cordial union among all the people of Ireland to maintain that balance which is essential to the preservation of our liberties and the extension of our commerce.

SECOND: That the sole constitutional mode by which this influence can be opposed is by a complete and radical reform of the representation of the people in Parliament.

THIRD: That no reform is practicable, efficacious, or just, which shall not include Irishmen of every religious persuasion. Satisfied, as we are, that the intestine divisions among Irishmen have too often given encouragement and impunity to profligate, audacious and corrupt administrations, in measure which, but for these divisions, they durst not have attempted, we submit our resolutions to the nation as the basis of our political faith. We have gone to what we conceive to be the root of the evil. We have stated what we conceive to be the remedy. With a Parliament thus reformed, everything is easy; without it, nothing can be done. And we do call on, and most earnestly exhort, our countrymen in general to follow our example, and to form similar societies in every quarter of the kingdom for the promotion of constitutional knowledge, the abolition of bigotry in religion and politics, and the equal distribution of the rights of men through all sects and denominations of Irishmen. The people, when thus collected, will feel their own weight, and secure that power which theory has already admitted to be their portion, and to which, if they be not aroused by their present provocation to vindicate it, they deserve to forfeit their pretensions for ever.

[Comparison] Colonialism is a system

Meán Fómhair 1, 2008

Below are extracts from from two free-market/propertarian economists, another from a famous sociologist, one from a 19th century Irish Bishop, and an essay by Jean Paul Sartre. All concern colonialism as a system (the title of Sartre’s work) and an institutional legacy. It’s interesting both how these ideals parallel each other, and also how these parallels are ignored by both the left and right (for reasons of prejudice?);

Government sale of “its” unused land to speculators, therefore, restricts the use of new land, distorts the allocation of resources, and keeps land out of use that would be employed were it not for the “tax” penalty of paying a purchase price or rent to the speculator. Keeping land out of use raises the marginal value product and the rents of remaining land and lowers the marginal value product of labor, thereby lowering wage rates.
The affinity of rent and taxation is even closer in the case of “feudal” land grants. Let us postulate a typical case of feudal beginnings: a conquering tribe invades a territory of peasants and sets up a State to rule them. It could levy taxes and support its retinue out of the proceeds. But it could also do something else, and it is important to see that there is no essential difference between the two. It could parcel out all of the land as individual grants of “ownership” to each member of the conquering band. Then, instead of or in addition to one central taxing agency, there would be a series of regional rent collecting agencies. But the consequences would be exactly the same. This is clearly seen in Middle Eastern countries, where rulers have been considered to own their territories personally and have therefore collected taxes in the form of “rent” charged for that ownership.

… the feudal lord passes the land on to his heirs. The true owners now have to pay rent where they did not have to pay before. This rent-tax continues indefinitely. Because of the generally vast extent of the grant, as well as various prohibitory laws, it is most unusual for the feudal lord to be bought out by his tenant-subjects.

Murray Rothbard, “Man, Economy and State, with Power & Market”
Chapter 4—Binary Intervention: Taxation (continued)
6. The Incidence and Effects of Taxation
Part IV: The “Single Tax” on Ground Rent;

Nowhere and at no time has the large-scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. It is the result of military and political effort. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and by that alone. As soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of market transactions they begin to crumble, until at last they disappear completely. Neither at their formation nor in their maintenance have economic causes operated. The great landed fortunes did not arise through the economic superiority of large-scale ownership, but through violent annexation outside the area of trade. . . . The non-economic origin of landed fortunes is clearly revealed by the fact that, as a rule, the expropriation by which they have been created in no way alters the manner of production. The old owner remains on the soil under a different legal title and continues to carry on production.

Ludwig von Mises, Socialism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951), p. 375.

The peasant surrenders a portion of the product of his labor, without any equivalent service in return. “In the beginning was the ground rent.”
The forms under which the ground rent is collected or consumed vary. In some cases, the lords, as a closed union or community, are settled in some fortified camp and consume as communists the tribute of their peasantry. . . . In some cases, each individual warrior-noble has a definite strip of land assigned to him: but generally the produce of this is still, as in Sparta, consumed in the “syssitia,” by class associates and companions in arms. In some cases, the landed nobility scatters over the entire territory, each man housed with his following in his fortified castle, and consuming, each for himself, the produce of his dominion or lands. As yet, these nobles have not become landlords, in the sense that they administer their property. Each of them receives tribute from the labor of his dependents, whom he neither guides nor supervises. This is the type of medieval dominion in the lands of the Germanic nobility. Finally, the knight becomes the owner and administrator of the knight’s fee.

Franz Oppenheimer, The State, pp. 83–84.

Every man (and woman, too) has a natural right to the free exercise of his mental and corporal faculties; and whatever useful thing anyone has produced by his toil and his labour, of that he is the rightful owner—in that he has in strict justice a right of property. Any useful thing that satisfies any of our necessities, relieves any of our wants, ministers to our comforts or enjoyments, or increases our material happiness or contentment, may be an object of property, and the person whose toil and labour has produced that thing possesses in it a strict right of property…

Now, the land of every country is to the people of that country or nation what the earth is to the whole human race—that is to say, the land of every country is the gift of its Creator to the people of that country; it is the patrimony and inheritance bequeathed to them by their Common Father, out of which they can by continuous labour and toil provide themselves with everything they require for their maintenance and support, and for their material comfort and enjoyment…

The arguments, therefore, which prove that, in strict justice, as well as in the interests of the nation at large, a landholder who is constantly improving and increasing the productiveness of his farm has a right to the continued occupation of it, prove, too, that a non-improving landholder has no right to be left in the possession of it at all…

When, therefore, a privileged class arrogantly claims a right of private property in the land of a country, that claim is simply unintelligible, except in the broad principle that the land of a country is not a free gift at all, but solely a family inheritance; that it is not a free gift which God has bestowed on His creatures, but an inheritance which he has left to His children; that they, therefore, being God’s eldest sons, inherit this property by right of succession; that the rest of the world have no share or claim to it, on the ground that origin is tainted with the stain of illegitimacy. The world, however, will hardly submit to this shameful imputation of its own degradation, especially when it is not sustained by even a shadow of reason.

Letter To the Clergy and Laity of Diocese of Meath: Most Rev. Dr. Thomas Nulty (Bishop of Meath).

First of all overcome resistance, smash the framework, subdue, terrorize.
Only then will the economic system be put in place.

And what does this consist of? The creation of industries in the conquered country? Not at all; the capital with which France ‘is awash’ will not be invested in underdeveloped countries; the returns would be uncertain, the products would be too long in coming; everything would have to be built, equipped. And, even if that could be done, what would be the point in creating competition for production in France? Ferry is very clear: capital will not leave France, it will simply be invested in new industries which will sell their manufactured products to the colonized country. The immediate result was the establishment of the Customs Union (1884). This Union still exists: it ensures that France’s industry, handicapped in the international market by prices that are too high, has a monopoly over the Algerian market.

But to whom then did this new industry expect to sell its products? The Algerians? Impossible: where would they have got the money from to pay? The concomitant of this colonial imperialism is that spending power has to be created in the colonies. And, of course, it is the colonists who will benefit from all the advantages and who will be turned into potential buyers. The colonist is above all an artificial consumer, created overseas from nothing by a capitalism which is seeking new markets.

As early as 1900, Peyerimhoff stressed this new feature of ‘official’ colonization: ‘Directly or not, the property of the colonist has come to him gratis from the State or he has seen concessions granted around him on a daily basis. Before his eyes the government has made sacrifices for individual interests considerably greater than those it would consent to in older fully developed countries.’

Here the second side of the colonial diptych appears clearly: in order to be a buyer, the colonist must be a seller. To whom will he sell? To the people of mainland France. And what can he sell without an industry? Food products and raw materials. This time, under the aegis of Minister Ferry and the theoretician Leroy-Beaulieu, colonial status is established.

And what are the ‘sacrifices’ that the State makes to the colonist, to this man, the darling of gods and exporters? The answer is simple: it sacrifices the property of the Muslims to him.

Because it so happens that, in fact, the natural produce of the colonized country grows on the land and that this land belongs to the ‘indigenous’ population. In certain thinly populated regions, with large uncultivated areas, the theft of land is less apparent: what you see is military occupation, forced labour. But in Algeria, when the French troops arrived, all the good land was cultivated. The so-called development thus relied upon a plundering of the inhabitants that continued for a century. The story of Algeria is the progressive concentration of European land ownership at the expense of Algerian ownership.

And any method was acceptable…

The revolt of 1871 was very useful; hundreds of thousands of hectares were taken from the vanquished.

But there was a chance that would not be enough. So we decided to give a handsome present to the Muslims; we gave them our civil code.

And why all this generosity? Because tribal property was usually collective and we wanted to fragment it to allow land speculators to buy it back bit by bit.

In 1873, investigating commissioners were given the task of turning the large common estates into a jigsaw puzzle of individual properties. With each inheritance they made shareswhich were given to everyone concerned. Some of these shares were fictitious. In the douarof Harrar, the investigating commissioner found 55 beneficiaries for 8 hectares.

It sufficed to corrupt one of these beneficiaries and he would demand a share-out. The long and confusing French procedure ruined all the co-owners;

Here, with premedita-tion, with cynicism, they imposed a foreign code on the Muslims because they knew that this code could not apply to them and that it could have no other effect than to destroy the internal structures of Algerian society. If the operation has continued in the twentieth century with the blind necessity of a law of economics, it is because the French State had brutally and artificially created the conditions of capitalist liberalism in an agricultural and feudal country. That has not stopped speakers in the National Assembly, quite recently, from vaunting the forced adoption of our legal code by Algeria as ‘one of the benefits of French civilization’.

The colonial system is in place: the French State gives Arab land to the colonists in order to create for them a purchasing power which allows French industrialists to sell them their products; the colonists sell the fruits of this stolen land in the markets of France.

From that point on, the system feeds itself; it runs smoothly; we shall follow all its consequences and see it become more and more rigorous.

First, in Frenchifying and dividing up the property, the structure of the old tribal society was broken without putting anything in its place. This destruction of the framework was systematically encouraged: first because it suppressed the forces of resistance and replaced collective strength with a handful of individuals; next because it created labour (at least as long as farming was not mechanized). This labour force alone offsets the transport costs, it alone maintains the profit margins of the colonial companies in the face of economies in France where production costs keep going down. Thus colonization has turned the Algerian population into an immense agricultural proletariat. It has been said of the Algerians that they are the same men as in 1830 and work the same land; only instead of owning it, they are the slaves of those who own it.

…if, at least, the initial theft was not of the colonial type, it could perhaps be hoped that mechanized agricultural production would allow the Algerians themselves to buy the produce of their land more cheaply. But the Algerians are not, nor can they be, the colonists’ customers. The colonist must export to pay for his imports: he produces for the French market. The logic of the system makes him sacrifice the needs of the native population to those of the French in France.

… the only reason for this increasing pauperization is that the wonderful colonial agriculture has settled like a canker at the very heart of the country and eats away at everything.

… concentration of land ownership leads to the mechanization of agriculture. Mainland France is delighted to sell its tractors to the colonists. While the productivity of the Muslims, restricted to the poor land, has fallen by a fifth, that of the colonists increases day by day for their profit alone…

Sartre, Jean-Paul; Interventions: The International Journal of Postcolonial Studies;
Mar2001, Vol. 3 Issue 1, p127-140, 14p, ISS; Also –

http://books.google.ie/books?id=ZqOlbtQNToEC&pg=RA1-PA9&lpg=RA1-PA9&dq=%22colonialism+is+a+system%22&source=web&ots=yIjHcb6jjy&sig=kk99q4ifNe_A-UOuMOGFnIKrCzw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result