Writing Feedback / Karl Marx vs. The Economic Hitman [7]

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.