by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof
April 20, 2011
from
GlobalResearch Website
Is there an alternative to
plundering the earth?
Is there an alternative to making war?
Is there an alternative to destroying the planet?
No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no
one can escape them either. Until the onslaught of the global
economic crisis, the motto of so-called "neoliberalism" was
TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"
No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?
No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?
What Is "Neoliberal
Globalization"?
Let us first clarify what
globalization and
neoliberalism are, where they
come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why
their effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless
cling to them.
Then, let us look at the responses of those who
are not - or will not - be able to live with the consequences they cause.
This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have
been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and
that, in fact, no such alternative is needed either.
Over and over again, we have been confronted
with the TINA-concept:
"There Is No Alternative!"
The "iron lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of
those who reiterated this belief without end.
The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there
is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called
globalization because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is
happening or not does not matter, it is happening anyway.
There is no point
in trying to understand. Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!
Some go as far as suggesting that globalization - meaning, an economic
system which developed under specific social and historical conditions - is
nothing less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly
reflected by the character of the system’s economic subjects:
-
egotistical
-
ruthless
-
greedy
-
cold
This, we are told, works towards everyone’s
benefit.
The question remains: why has Adam Smith’s "invisible hand" become a
"visible fist"?
While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today’s neoliberalism (none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of
the earth’s population suffers hardship to the extent that their very
survival is at stake. The damage done seems irreversible.
All over the world media outlets - especially television stations - avoid
addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1]
The true reason is, of course, the media’s
corporate control.
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973.
Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized
coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the
installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic
torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called
"Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman - a student of
Friedrich von Hayek - into reality.
The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the
18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade".
Goethe’s assessment
at the time was:
"Free trade, piracy,
war - an inseparable three!"[2]
At the center of both old and new economic
liberalism lies:
-
self-interest and individualism
-
segregation of ethical principles and
economic affairs, in other words: a process of ‘de-bedding’ economy
from society
-
economic rationality as a mere
cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization
-
competition as the essential driving
force for growth and progress
-
specialization and the replacement of a
subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade (‘comparative
cost advantage’)
-
the proscription of public (state)
interference with market forces [3]
Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the
old is in its global claim.
Today’s economic liberalism functions as a model
for each and everyone: all parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of
life/nature itself. As a consequence, the once "de-bedded" economy now
claims to "im-bed" everything, including political power.
Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics"
(and with it a certain idea of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything
from so-called do-gooders to altruism to selfless help to care for others to
a notion of responsibility.[4]
This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the
uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of
transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy
- which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations - hence
consists of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.
The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible
time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value".
It must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests
outweigh not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic
considerations since corporations today see themselves beyond both community
and nation.[5]
A "level playing field" is created that offers
the global players the best possible conditions. This playing field knows of
no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national "barriers".[6]
As a result, economic competition plays out on a
market that is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist
influences - unless they serve the interests of the big players (the
corporations), of course. The corporations’ interests - their maximal growth
and progress - take on complete priority. This is rationalized by alleging
that their well-being means the well-being of small enterprises and
workshops as well.
The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first be
articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series of
ruptures and challenges - caused by the "competing economic system", the
crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare
state tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called
Fordism), and the
objective of full employment in the North.
The liberal economic goals of the past are now
not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized".
The main reason is indeed that the competition
between alternative economic systems is gone. However, to conclude that this
confirms the victory of capitalism and the "golden West" over "dark
socialism" is only one possible interpretation.
Another - opposing - interpretation is to see
the "modern world system" (which contains both capitalism and socialism) as
having hit a general crisis which causes total and merciless competition
over global resources while leveling the way for investment opportunities,
i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]
The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation
is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new
economic liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in
qualitative ones too.
What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena:
instead of a democratic "complete competition" between many small
enterprises enjoying the freedom of the market, only the big corporations
win.
In turn, they create new market oligopolies and monopolies of
previously unknown dimensions.
The market hence only remains free for them,
while it is rendered unfree for all others who are condemned to an existence
of dependency (as enforced producers, workers and consumers) or excluded
from the market altogether (if they have neither anything to sell or buy).
About fifty percent of the world’s population fall into this group today,
and the percentage is rising.[8]
Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations set
the norms. It is the corporations - not "the market" as an anonymous
mechanism or "invisible hand" - that determine today’s rules of trade, for
example prices and legal regulations. This happens outside any political
control. Speculation with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out
honest producers who become "unprofitable".[9]
Money becomes too precious for comparatively
non-profitable, long-term projects,
or projects that only - how audacious! - serve a good life. Money instead
"travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more
what the markets are and do.[10]
By delinking the dollar from the
price of gold, money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to
production".[11] Moreover, these days most of us are - exactly
like all governments - in debt. It is financial capital that has all the
money - we have none.[12]
Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market,
forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their
performances are below average in comparison to speculation - rather:
spookulation - wins. The public sector, which has historically been defined
as a sector of not-for-profit economy and administration, is "slimmed" and
its "profitable" parts ("gems") handed to corporations (privatized).
As a consequence, social services that are
necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses -
which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided
normal working conditions - are affected by these developments as well.
The alleged correlation between economic growth
and secure employment is false. When economic growth is accompanied by the
mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]
If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only
available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make
a living.[14]
This means that the working conditions in the
North become akin to those in the South, and the working conditions of men
akin to those of women - a trend diametrically opposed to what we have
always been told.
Corporations now leave for the South (or East) to use
cheap - and particularly female - labor without union affiliation. This has
already been happening since the 1970s in the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs,
"world market factories" or "maquilladoras"), where most of the world’s
computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods are produced.[15]
The EPZs lie in areas where century-old
colonial-capitalist and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the
availability of cheap labor.[16] The recent shift of business
opportunities from consumer goods to armaments is a particularly troubling
development.[17]
It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the
EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called
Third Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and
communication technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to
computerization, also in administrative fields.[18]
The combination of the principles of "high tech"
and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts)
guarantees a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will
eventually lead to "Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western
consumers is not seen as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether
consumers are European, Chinese or Indian.
The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands,
especially since finance capital - rendered precarious itself - controls
asset values ever more aggressively. New forms of private property are
created, not least through the "clearance" of public property and the
transformation of formerly public and small-scale private services and
industries to a corporate business sector.
This concerns primarily fields that have long
been (at least partly) excluded from the logic of profit - e.g. education,
health, energy or water supply/disposal.
New forms of so-called enclosures
emerge from today’s total commercialization of formerly small-scale private
or public industries and services, of the "commons", and of natural
resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity or
geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19]
As far as the new virtual spaces and
communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic efforts to bring these
under private control as well.[20]
All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more or
less) predatory forms of appropriation.
In this sense, they are a
continuation of the history of so-called original accumulation which has
expanded globally, in accordance with to the motto:
"Growth through expropriation!"[21]
Most people have less and less access to the
means of production, and so the dependence on scarce and underpaid work
increases.
The destruction of the welfare state also
destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community to provide
for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private, i.e.
expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less
reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes
the public.)
What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly
only known by the colonial South. The old claim that the South will
eventually develop into the North is proven wrong. It is the North that
increasingly develops into the South. We are witnessing the latest form of
"development", namely, a world system of underdevelopment.[22]
Development and underdevelopment go hand in
hand.[23] This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.
It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment
through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result,
the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions:
they do
unpaid work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24]
Yet, commercialization does not stop in front of the home’s doors either.
Even housework becomes commercially co-opted
("new maid question"), with hardly any financial benefits for the women who
do the work.[25]
Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution,
one of today’s biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates
two things: a) how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to
"equal terms" with men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply
increased "freedom" in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a
long time.[27]
If the latter were the case, then neoliberalism
would mean the voluntary end of capitalism once it reaches its furthest
extension. This, however, does not appear likely.
Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist in
the "world system."[28]
The authoritarian model of the "Export
Processing Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The
redistribution of wealth runs ever more - and with ever accelerated speed -
from the bottom to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never
been wider. The middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are
facing.
It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but,
to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of
the world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world
system" in the "long 16th century", when the conquering of the
Americas, their exploitation and colonial transformation allowed for the
rise and "development" of Europe.[30]
The so-called "children’s diseases" of modernity
keep on haunting it, even in old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of
modernity’s latest stage. They are expanding instead of disappearing.
Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery,
there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no - in any case no
"Western" - civilization.[31]
Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a
corporate colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does
not keep it from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]
Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned
and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we
still have - natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools - have turned
into objects of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion
is the consequence. If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by
planting them, then there is no reason not to cut them.[33]
Neither the public nor the state interferes,
despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few
remaining rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth’s climate - not
to mention the many other negative effects of such actions.[34]
Climate, animal, plants, human and general
ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests of the
corporations - no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource
and that the entire earth’s ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the
rationalism with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent
anthropological trait, we would have never even reached this day.
The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked
that "the center of Africa was burning".
She meant the Congo, in which the last great
rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more
rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in
order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo’s natural resources
that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all,
one needs diamonds and
coltan for mobile phones.
Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything
becomes an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means
liquidation, the transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal
stage it is not enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive
and preferably "wageless" commodity production.
The objective is to
transform everyone and everything into commodities, including life itself.[35]
We are racing blindly towards the violent and
absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely total
capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]
We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market - we are
witnessing what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe
in the market as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing
could ever happen without it. Total global maximized accumulation of
money/capital as abstract wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic
activity.
A "free" world market for everything has to be
established - a world market that functions according to the interests of
the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of such a market
proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities where they
have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.
One thing remains generally overlooked:
the abstract wealth created for
accumulation implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth.
The
result is a "hole in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used
commodities, outdated machinery and money without value.[37]
However, once all concrete wealth (which today
consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract wealth
will disappear as well. It will, in Marx’s words, "evaporate". The fact that
abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the
answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really
created.
In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth
(and even this mainly exists virtually or on accounts) that constitutes a
monoculture controlled by a tiny minority. Diversity is suffocated and
millions of people are left wondering how to survive.
And really:
how do you
survive with neither resources nor means of production nor money?
The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be
transformed into money - and then it will disappear.
After all, money cannot be eaten. What no one
seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform
commodities, money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It
seems that underlying all "economic development" is the assumption that
"resources", the "sources of wealth",[38] are renewable and
everlasting - just like the "growth" they create.[39]
The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by
neoliberalism and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]
The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all
parties have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics.
Where corporate interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic
convention or community control. Public space disappears. The res publica
turns into a res privata, or - as we could say today - a res
privata transnationale (in its original Latin meaning, privare
means "to deprive").
Only those in power still have rights. They give
themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to the
"license to kill".[41]
Those who get in their way or challenge their
"rights" are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as
"terrorists" or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" - a
label that usually implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can
see in the cases of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and
Iran in the near future.
U.S. President
Bush had even spoken of the
possibility of "preemptive" nuclear strikes should the U.S. feel endangered
by weapons of mass destruction.[42] The European Union did not
object.[43]
Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free
trade, piracy and war are still "an inseparable three" - today maybe more so
than ever. War is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving
force and can be understood as the "continuation of economy with other
means".[45] War and economy have become almost indistinguishable.[46]
Wars about resources - especially oil and water
- have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious
examples. Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital
accumulation" - potentially everywhere and enduringly.[48]
Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people,
communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of
the people as a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have
witnessed a coup of sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation
state as guarantees for and expression of the international division of
labor in the modern world system are increasingly dissolving.[50]
Nation states are developing into "periphery
states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New
World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it
"hinders business".[52]
The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer
distinguish between North and South, East and West - today, everywhere is
South. An according International Law is established which effectively
functions from top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and
regional communal rights. And not only that: many such rights are rendered
invalid both retroactively and for the future.[53]
The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is
that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of
production, all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong
to the corporations only.
To paraphrase Richard Sennett:
"Everything to the Corporations!"[54]
One might add: "Now!"
The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get.
Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them
to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at
risk since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know.
The times of social contracts are gone.[55]
In fact, pointing out the crisis alone has
become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and
persecuted as such.[56]
IMF Economic Medicine
Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of
the
World Bank and
the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism.
These programs are levied against the countries
of the South which can be extorted due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous
military interventions and wars help to take possession of the assets that
still remain, secure resources, install neoliberalism as the global economic
politics, crush resistance movements (which are cynically labeled as "IMF
uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business of reconstruction.[57]
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism
in Anglo-America.
In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was
formulated. It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic
growth through "deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has
become the credo and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the
promise has come true for the corporations only - not for anybody else.
In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war
between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s,
announced the permanent U.S. presence in the world’s most contested oil
region.
In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia
caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and
the IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by
a civil war over its last remaining resources.[58]
Since
the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans are
fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59]
The region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport
from the Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that
is supposed to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the
Balkans by 2011.[60]
The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively
in the hands of Western corporations.
All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There
is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its
history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the
world.
Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection
to
the new militarism.
NOTES
[1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg),
Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI.
Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft - und was wir dagegen tun können,
Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.
[2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford
University Press, 1999.
[3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt,
Köln, PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.
[4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der
Gleichgültigkeit, München, 1997, dtv.
[5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000,
Stuttgart-München, DVA.
[6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das
Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der
Konzernherrschaft - und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003
(1998), p. 24.
[7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des
kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische
Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre
Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp; Immanuel Wallerstein
(Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/ London;
Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
[8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der
Globalisierung im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum),
Salzburg, 2001.
[9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen,
Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.
[10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung.
Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster,
Westfälisches Dampfboot, 1996.
[11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit
Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer
0497.html; Margrit Kennedy, Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg,
Permakultur, 1990.
[12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien
Marktwirtschaft, Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.
[13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das
Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der
Konzernherrschaft - und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003
(1998), p. 7.
[14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der
Dienstleistungsgesellschaft, München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue
internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den
Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer,
Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof,
Women, The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind
September 11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.
[18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue
internationale Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den
Industrieländern und die Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer,
Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist
Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man.,
Brock Univ., Sociology Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden - von alten und von
neuen, übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of
Pennsylvania; 28./29.4, 2005.
[21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun?
Frauen und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof,
MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.
[22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders.
u.a., Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach,
1969.
[23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt,
Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof,
Women, the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge
2002-2004, Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich,
Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.
[26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An
Eco-Feminist View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34;
Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on
Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ.,
Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des
kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische
Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre
Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt,
Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des
kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische
Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre
Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979; Andre Gunder Frank,
Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich der Mitte,
Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World
Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books,
1986.
[31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.),
Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2,
Bangalore, Streelekha, 2007, p. 214-268
[32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur
peripheren EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger,
Zurück in die Zukunft des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen,
Frankfurt - New York, Peter Lang Verlag, 2006.
[33] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit
Sarah van Gelder, 2006, www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer
0497.html.
[34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps
und globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.
[35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des
kapitalistischen Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische
Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre
Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien,
Promedia, 1993.
[38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.
[39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist
Patriarchy as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.),
There is an Alternative, 2001, p. 15-40.
[40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das
Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der
Konzernherrschaft - und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003
(1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der
Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[42] Michel Chossudovsky, America’s "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research,
Center for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.
[44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg,
Sand im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der
ATTAC - Bewegung, Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am
15.2., 2003; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der
Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global
Economic Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.
[46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die
Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.
[47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global
Conflict, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
[48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.
[49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten,
in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.
[50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?,
Stuttgart-München, DVA, 2000.
[51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ.
Press, 2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der
globalen –Vormachtstellung der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.
[52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p.
284-292
[53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements
in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das
Multilaterale Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der
Konzernherrschaft - und was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.
[54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen,"
21.11.2005: Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.
[55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof,
2003, p. 148-192.
[56] Michel Chossudovsky, America’s "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg
ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005;
Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof 2001.
[58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.
[59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die
Wahrheit über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer
Buchverlag, 2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo
(Hg), Die deutsche Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien,
Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag, 2000.
[60] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview with
Sarah van Gelder, 2006,
www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer0497.html.