Adam Smith, the 18th century thinker and creator of “The Wealth Of Nations” is credited with being the father of capitalism. His work is a staple part of Economic Theory and guides the idealistic reasoning of students studying economics. Like Locke, who founded Classical Liberalism, or Kant who refined Classical Liberalism and called for international accords through transnational governance based institutions, Smith’s theories have been distorted over the years. Locke’s notion of Liberalism has been distorted to act as the bedrock to both Capitalism as well as even Marxist thought, whilst Kant’s notion of international governance has been translated in such a way which distorts the possibility of actual governance, which is usurped by governance heavily influenced by transnational corporate interests, tied often to the state nonetheless. Smith’s work in the Wealth of Nations compliments both Locke’s idea of liberal rights, and Kant’s notion of international accord and confederation of states, by imploring that states work together, for the good of one another, and within which state, in its pre-Marxist reasoning, that wealth should be re-distributed among the workers by the existent aristocratic class at the time.
The idea of Laissez Faire markets in which corporate interests can exploit the interests of the poor, whilst also in a transnational sense exploiting the resources of poorer nations through imperialistic plundering, partly based on earlier imperialism but also more direct modern day imperialism, was not in all actuality part of Smith’s thinking and was highly contended with earlier examples of this being highly criticised. Examples of this can be seen more prominently today with recent wars in North Africa and the Middle East, such as Syria and Libya, alongside Yemen. It is also to a much lesser extent widely known that pre-existent colonialism in Africa has led to neo colonial states, indebted not just to IMF loans but also to ex colonial taxes, and quasi colonial vulnerability, in not being able to trade or utilise their own resources without drastic economic and miltary consequences, or defend their state as a sovereign nation with democratic governance.
This can be seen in Francophone Africa in particular, where specific trade restrictions are in place, and displacing elected leaders with sponsored military coups are common. It is also the case that other countries, such as not just the US, but also Canada, through its own under the radar imperialistic advances, will exploit southern nations, who are unable to defend their sovereignty from Western trans-nationals, linked specifically to countries like Canada and the US. Similarly the same can be said for Britain. It is the fact that Britain and many northern countries will turn a blind eye to these under the radar exploitation – with imperialist exploitation always being politically linked to right-wing governments in the US, and less so more ‘left-wing’ governments.
Obama and Trudeau for example oversaw far more war-based imperialism and exploitation of resources on top of silencing and oppression of criticism of those exposing these events than Trump’s regime has. And whilst Macron in France has fully opened up to the atrocities committed by France – perhaps similarly to how Trump has exposed the dirty games of previous US administrations, previous Left-Wing and Conservative governments in France alike have been complicit in these crimes, and denying them. Macron as a Liberal internationalist could almost be considered to be a true Liberal in the classical sense that Locke and Kant espoused. And Trump, similarly, a true Republican with Liberal mindedness as the Founders of Americas constitution espoused. Except for the fact that especially for Macron, he still operates within the framework of a very corrupt international system, as does Trump, and is only partly genuine in his confrontations of these hypocrisies and atrocities of imperialism. Trump despite pandering to some fringes who are no friends to any vulnerable seeking justice, may have greater capacity to turn the nature of politics and imperialism around, but nonetheless the issue is massive and influenced heavily by a bought and owned press.
How does the press get away with espousing the interests of its owners, who seek to continue the colonial, imperialist oppression of the 3rd world, facilitate military coups, keep large portions of the globe under tyranny, without adequate human rights and democratic protections? By fixating on issues which are emotional and unable to be tangibly fixed, but which garner attention from easily conned people, into thinking that the issues presented to them by the press, and their social media counterparts are real threats, issues, existent injustices and worth thinking of. This consists of promoting the idea that racism still exists culturally in western countries, by whites to non whites, instead of perceiving that there has been a history of socio-economic oppression of many non white groups over more than a century, or at the least decades. Which has filtered into institutions which reinforce as part of market interests, specific repeated disenfranchisement of the already vulnerable, such as those from pre-existent vulnerable backgrounds where cultural racism was still existent. It plays a role in creating further narratives of division in itself.
Or addressing how latent racism exists specifically more so in a class based context, as well as an imperialist one, in which the previously oppressed still faced latent bigotry by some, but certainly not all, in the inability to empathise with coming from a more disadvantaged or vulnerable socio-economic background. This is despite the fact that the actual hardships faced by previous generations aren’t actually existent in the same way today. But perhaps more pertinently in relation to genuine refugees, and those still facing exploitation in poorer countries, by privileged, self righteous westerners who don’t understand that bombing countries into the stone age and deliberately undermining autonomous democratic governments has a tendency to breed violence and create the circumstances in which refugees try to flee from. Blaming racist responses to the onslaught of refugees in many cases misses the point of who was responsible for the crisis to begin with.
It is the media games themselves which try to facilitate the undermining of clear understandings and create doubt. As Framing theory in Communications study exposes all one has to do is look at the ways in which division is constantly stoked by the press whenever anything becomes too content, regarding things such as race and gender, where no actual threats exist to gender or in terms of race in the western world in terms of any oppression other than by certain fringes, where it becomes clear that any nonsensical hysteria by some journalists, giving attention to any fringe political ideologies, usually which are reactive and based in Identity Politics, are nothing more than a ruse to distract people from real issues, as enabled by thee owners of the press – from issues that can be fixed and must be fixed. These issues lie at the centre of economics and economic exploitation of ordinary people which inherently serves the purpose of undermining what capitalism stood for. And what the west was founded upon, even if we are to look at our Greek-Roman roots of civilisation and the philosophies which led to our socio-political climate of the western world.
Its not to suggest that the whole press does this, just like not entirely all academia is bought or part of special interests, but large parts of so-called serious, even progressive or left-wing newspapers, (which are ultimately at odds with genuine progressive views which dominate modern narratives) even since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, certainly simultaneously espouses this pandering to imperialist, war-mongering based interest garbage. Even with its Marxist Neo Liberal Identity Politics stoking, and division provoking front, it sponsors extremist fringe groups, oversees disenfranchisement, and it is utilised purely as a distraction and to keep people fearful. Focused on deliberately created divisions and distortion of fact, and not whats important and needed. If anything is needed to be focused on which is important, and not just our daily lives, you can place your bets this focus will be discouraged and petty identity politics, fear and division will be the focuses encouraged instead, for good reason for the corporate masters, who see a happy and contented populace as a serious threat to their exploitative ventures.