The real business of the war is all theatre/theater

[Otto]

> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.G._Farben_Industrie
> > > >
> > > > It says in the first sentence that the example for IG Farben has
been
> > > > the American Trust-system, namely Standard Oil.
> > >
> > >
> > > This would be the general view of English-language encyclopaedias as
> > > well--that the IG was patterned after the American Trusts.
> > >
> >
> > I just mean, if it's correct that" From its birth IG Farben had been at
war
> > with the rest of the world, with the United States as a main target"
> > (Sasuly. Chapter 11, verse on, lines 1-2.) and if the IG was patterned
after
> > the American Trusts may I then conclude that Standard Oil was at war
with
> > the rest of the world too?
>
> The American Trusts in the full sense of the phrase were of an earlier
> era in America. Standard oil had long since become one two three many
> standard oils and no one of them would have wanted to be caught dead
> scheming with the others in pursuit of a war against the rest of the
> world--the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts and all that, you know.
>

Yes, Enron and all, you know!

>
> > Could it be possible that trusts generally are at
> > war with the rest of the world, that it maybe is a structural element of
big
> > capitalist structures turning into T-Rexes biting dead reflexively
> > everything around that moves? I mean, this would explain a lot.
>
> You are assuming Bush win will the election I guess.

Wasn't thinking of the Bushes at all.

> But even with Bush
> for the second term I don't think American corporations are going to
> become the whole show in the near future. There will still be a fairly
> strong federal govenment in the U.S. though not as strong vis a vis the
> corporations as European governments tend to be.

We have a globalized economy. Those differences between Europe and the US
are largely irrelevant in global economical terms.

> Your post in response
> to malignd in which you asked if the knowledge was widespread in '73
> that it was the corporations and not central governments that ruled the
> world drew a very inappropriate binary opposition between the two
> entities I think.

Are you quoting Rob (on Dugdale) here?

The trouble is that there's really no opposition (but should be according to
our constitutions) between the two entities. That the government should
control the economy and not vice versa. The economy says "Outsorcing" and
the politicians shout in response "Tax cuts, reduced wages, lower ecological
standard."

> But as to how much knowledge there is about how the
> world of transnational business worked in the period surrounding WW II
> and after I think Sasauly's book would have enlightened any interested
> party on how national govenments have limited power or limited interest
> in controlling national boundary crossing of business entities, of how
> the Allied nations might well have wished to only  temporarily suppress
> the Axis side of the arrangements to the extent  such was necessary to
> the pursuit of a war it was horrendously vital to win regardless of
> whether or not it was good for General Electric or General Motors even
> though as everyone knows what's good for General Motors is good for
> America. (last part a joke)
>
> Anyway . . .
>

But that jokes's a good one. Because it makes clear what the problem is.

Otto