ECONOMIC DRIVERS OF CONFLICT

It is not true, of course, that human beings are motivated in what they do exclusively by material interest. I don’t believe that at all, though critics of my writing often assume that I do. Because I tend to write about economically driven conflicts, many people presume that I subscribe to Marxist thinking and the explanation that the sum total of human affairs and interactions are based on material self-interest. That explanation is demonstrably untrue even in each of our own individual lives in innumerable ways.

It is even demonstrable in our own interactions with the marketplace when we, for instance, buy goods we do not need, or which will go to waste, and the purchase of which actually depletes our wealth with no perceptible benefit to ourselves. We do not make those purchases with our material self-interest in mind at all; we may do it for any number of reasons, but we certainly do not do it seeking to profit from squandering our money.

So no, if we are not driven, even in a large portion of our financial transactions, by the motive of material self-interest, it can hardly be stated that this is the motive behind everything else we do in life.

I think the confusion about this arises from the fact that I discuss corporate power and its influence on politics, on international affairs, and government policy. But this is something entirely different from discussing the motives of private individuals. Corporations are profit-driven, exclusively so, and they are legally obligated to be this way. Material self-interest is their raison d’etre, full stop. That is not a theory; it is a fact in their articles of incorporation. If corporations are to be regarded as human beings, then, yes, they are the Marxist archetype of the pathologically mercenary individual.

Corporations are also tremendously powerful. It can be argued that their extremely narrow purpose has helped them become so. With a single prime objective of accumulating profit, and very few restriction in place on how they pursue this aim, corporations have been able to grow into massive entities controlling a huge proportion of the global economy. This economic power inevitably includes political power; whether by means of direct funding of politicians and legislative lobbying, or by the sheer magnitude of their impact on “market forces” that can create de facto compulsion on governments to respond to circumstances that have been imposed by companies or coalitions of companies in any given society.

So no, people are not driven exclusively by economic concerns, but corporations are, and corporations wield unparalleled influence over state policy, and over the overall conditions under which entire populations live; which means that yes, most major conflicts, both domestically and internationally, are indeed driven by economics. Again, this is not a theory, it is straightforward deduction from observable reality. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. There is no mystery.

The operational nature of corporations is transparent; they are dedicated to the perpetual increase in profits for their shareholders and not for anyone else; this is their function. When they mobilize their power to serve this function, there is no surprise in that, nor is there any secrecy about it. Though they may claim to be concerned about the environment or about social responsibility and so on, everyone should understand that even these claims are motivated by the drive for profit, because that is the real, legal, and sole purpose of corporations, and that is unapologetically and openly acknowledged.

When these powerful entities interact with weaker entities, for instance, with the governments of developing countries whose total GDP is often less than the revenues of multinational corporations; those who control these weaker entities must find ways to collaborate with these enormous institutions of private power which will enable them to survive and remain with some degree of authority still intact. This usually means that such governments are forced, rather than defend their domestic interests, to instead manage the process of capitulation with corporate power to deliver their countries’ resources (including human resources) to the much more powerful entities looming across from them at the negotiating table.

I do not claim that corporations directly dictate to these governments precisely how they should do this; though that certainly does happen to some extent, particularly in terms of instituting economic reforms that are advantageous to foreign business; and we have seen instances of direct corporate involvement in military coups, armed conflicts, and political repression from Latin America to the Niger Delta to Aceh, Indonesia. By and large, I believe that it is left to the governments themselves to decide how best to pursue their new function in service to corporate profitability.

This usually does not require much imagination in the developing world, since these governments are often already highly corrupt and exploitative in service to a small class of domestic elites. It can be a fairly seamless transition to merely include an extra tier of authority over what is an already existing system of exploitation and control. This is why military dictatorships are frequently preferred by corporate power for integration into the global economy; they have all the necessary mechanisms of coercion already in place and operating, and need very little instruction. All they usually need is the creation of a democratic veneer; though even this is not a necessary requirement.

Identifying the economic motives behind conflicts is logical, not ideological, given the real existing power dynamics in the world today. It has nothing to do with theories about what drives human beings, and everything to do with what drives corporations.