You Don’t Need Conspiracy Theory to See This

I admit that I find conspiracy theories quite interesting. I spend time watching videos that represent some of them. Some are quite well-weaved, entertaining, and can even be tempting to believe at least partly (speaking for myself only, of course)--Well, because some of them are partly based on actual, historical, well-documented stories. Plus, who wouldn't be tempted by an alternative story about reality that explains every important thing, and confirms your long-time suspicion that all this nonsense you see and hear every day, called ‘reality’, must really be some sort of big candid camera show, because it’s too outrageous and ridiculous to be real? Right?

But… underneath the entertainment provided by the diverse and colourful conspiracy theories out there, there is an almost unified truth: That this world is a sad one; full with oppression, misery, injustice, disasters, cruelty, and disappointments. In addition to the seriously unfavourable conditions of existence offered to us by the universe, we humans are also doing a very good job making our lives even more difficult.  The world is troubled, we know that, and there must be reasons for that.

Below I’m offering a narrative that I hope will bring together both the fans of conspiracy theory and critical theory. The latter group is also represented by a wide variety of perspectives that also agree that this world is a troubled place and we have something to do with it. Some might say that the latter group is prone to using logic, objective and historical analyses, and verified data more in reaching and presenting their conclusions. That could be true, but if you don’t care anyway I cannot force you to. However we can perhaps find a common ground. Maybe we can discuss some issues using critical theory tools that will eventually lead to agreeable conclusions by both groups. Let’s try that.

Let us discuss the ways in which politics and power could be seen as relevant to international trade, finance and money, and the degree to which this revolves around the actions of states and international bodies. In other words, let us talk some global political economy (GPE).

I will discuss this issue in terms of how trade and finance international policies directly affect the allowable trends and modes of international trade and development. The argument’s summary is that these policies are made by the political powers of our age (not by international consensus), and they, in turn, reflect these powers’ interest in maintaining and advancing this current global power structure that gives them clear economic advantages over other human groups. I will try to demonstrate this through 2 major aspects: international production and the WTO (World Trade Organization), and the politics of DFI (Direct Foreign Investment) and development.

Production and the WTO:

The connection between production and trade is consumption. Consumption is the incentive for production, and trade is the medium between producers and consumers, in general terms. The regulation of trade is the regulation of the relations between producers and consumers, but on the international level, the regulation of trade can actually influence both, production and consumption, thus influencing, even controlling, the general economic relations. An international set of laws of trade can, and does, restrict opportunities of production of certain commodities in one region of the world, while opening them wider in another region at the same time. By doing this, this set of laws creates distinct modes of consumption in each region, due to the availability, price and quality of commodities in each region.

If we agree that the cycle of production/consumption directly and highly dictates the economic level of any society, then we would sure have a close interest in looking at the international laws of trade, and what means and goals they represent, in order to understand how the political process of creating and enforcing these laws directly affects the global economy, which is what GPE tries to achieve.

               

The laws of the organizations and agreements supported by global powers, such as the WTO (and its predecessor GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) represent the interests of the global political powers-that-be in favouring the economic ideology that gives advantage to the established economic centers of the world: the liberal market economy. This happens by practically forcing almost all countries and their industries into a game of competition played by rules that give advantage to the countries that already have the upper hand in terms of capital and technology (because of a historical story that shall be discussed later on). In this way, these laws make sure that the status quo can only change towards more economic privileges for the global powers-that-be, at the cost of the others, but almost never towards the opposite direction.

               

The liberal market economy is the ideology adopted by the WTO, which makes the organization promote it to be embraced by all member-countries by means that seem to be non-compulsory, but the consequences of not ratifying to it are so severe that weak countries cannot afford not to ratify. This can be an answer to why Less Developed Countries (LDCs) practically have little choice but to conform to the laws of the WTO. It is because the WTO provides a medium of negotiation between them – LDCs – and the global powers; a medium they cannot find outside of it. LDCs hope that they can use the room of negotiation they have inside the WTO to make the global powers give them through diplomacy what they cannot take through self-determination in a world of globalization. It happened before that LDCs tried to challenge such international trade laws, and they did not succeed, because the global powers stood firmly with the laws.

The laws of intellectual property rights are another set of laws adopted by the WTO that assures the maintenance of the technological superiority of the global powers, because these laws disregard the fact that any technology is inherently a social product and only a result of a long line of historically-accumulated technologies that built upon each other and were developed by a long line of international exchange of knowledge. There is no reason to assign these technologies to specific individuals or companies now if it wasn’t for the sake of monopolizing the social benefit of the technology in the name of fair competition, which is logically not fair.

DFI and Development:

Many points could be raised about Direct Foreign Investment and development, but the two I want to briefly address here relate more directly to finance and trade. The first point is about how the global system of trade and finance allows DFI to take risks by investing in LDCs, but does not hold investors responsible when these risks come to undesirable results. This happens because of the great level of capital mobility across national borders that the international system allows – i.e. the ability of foreign investors to pull-out their money they invested in projects overseas fast when they want to.  Such capital mobility makes it easier for DFI to divert its capital from any country as soon as it feels a threat, causing behind a great economic imbalance in the country it leaves. The 1997 Asian financial crisis is a good demonstration of this point  (google it).

Many DFIs and WTO regulations put much power of development in the hands of transnational corporations and authoritarian states, which contribute to long-term series of labour exploitation, heavy debt, and great dependence on foreign markets and industries. Local industries in the poor regions of the world cannot compete with sophisticated foreign ones that can be cheaper than them because of the technology of production they have. Many industries in LDCs have the potential to grow technologically (leading to lower prices) if given the time and investment, but DFI and open international competition does not allow that. Development must be understood as an evolutionary process in a self-reliant socioeconomic structure, something which the current international system does not recognize, and therefore does not support.

These political limits and latitudes set by the laws of the global system of trade and finance are directly correlated to the global economy, which makes the problems of development in LDCs, where the majority of the world population lives, not merely an issue of societies’ cultures and social institutions, etc. etc.

Now, do you need conspiracy theory to see how wrong this picture is?

Probably not, especially if what attracts you to conspiracy theory in the first place is your concern with the injustices you see in our world today, and the injustices you heard about from history. The difference between the above and conspiracy theory, however, is:

1. The above is quite boring, compared to the more interesting storylines of conspiracy theories. I have to say that watching a one-hour conspiracy theory video is much more fun for me than writing the stuff above.
2. The above provides information and reasoning that people can discuss actions around, to change the status quo. It demystifies how the ruling classes exercise and maintain their powers that further their interests. There is no magic involved; just clever manipulation of institutions, using political and economic power for pressure (and of course, when necessary, military power can be summoned, but that’s another story for another day). 

In my opinion, critical theory can explain things better for those who are interested in coming together – to galvanize, mobilize, and organize – to do something and participate in ‘active hoping’ for a better world. That is just my opinion. 

Gussai Sheikheldin