November 23, 2010 - No. 200

Discussion on Nation-Building

The Necessity to Restrict Monopoly Right
to Control and Manipulate Prices
Proposal for a Modern Formula to Determine Prices of Production

- Workers' Centre of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist- Leninist) -

Discussion on Nation-Building
• The Necessity to Restrict Monopoly Right to Control and Manipulate Prices - Workers' Centre of CPC(M-L)

Canada in Afghanistan
• Harper Government's Attempt to Escape the Verdict of History

NATO Summit in Lisbon
• Plans for Indefinite Occupation of Afghanistan
• "War Without Borders": NATO Proclaims Itself Global Military Force - Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO

Discussion on Nation-Building

The Necessity to Restrict Monopoly Right
to Control and Manipulate Prices
Proposal for a Modern Formula to Determine Prices of Production

- Workers' Centre of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist- Leninist) -

Part One

The spontaneous setting of prices of production is continuously disrupted by owners of monopoly capital attempting to reverse the law of a falling rate of profit and for other self-serving reasons. The disruption of the spontaneous process involving prices and other attempts to overcome the law of a falling rate of profit are factors causing more severe and longer-lasting crises.

Steelworkers have direct experience with the manipulation of industrial prices causing crises within the steel and related industries. Extremely low prices below the price of production at various times during the last twenty years have become an excuse for anti-worker restructuring, especially in the United States. Much of the manipulation of prices emanates from the centres of global capitalism in the U.S., Europe and Japan. The Canadian economy has no defence against this price manipulation as the country is annexed into the imperialist system of states dominated by the U.S., and Canadian governments routinely refuse to uphold their social responsibilities to defend Canadians and their socialized economy.

At Stelco, a dramatic fall in steel prices in 2003 became part of the argument for the company's liquidity crisis and eventual application for bankruptcy protection in January 2004, and its demand for anti-worker concessions, particularly a gutting of the defined-benefit pension plans. Before the commercial court granted Stelco bankruptcy protection, steel prices began to climb reaching such heights in 2004 that it became a record year for Stelco profits even while under bankruptcy protection!

Statistics Canada tables and reports on "Industrial product and raw materials price indexes" show wide swings in steel prices, iron ore, oil and other basic commodities. Monopoly manipulation of prices exacerbates the business cycle of periodic economic crises and prolongs their negative effects such as unemployment and wrecking of manufacturing.

As prices are manipulated in one sector of the economy such as oil, they disrupt and cause trouble in other sectors because all aspects of the modern socialized economy are interrelated. The Workers' Centre of CPC(M-L) is discussing the necessity for the Workers' Opposition to intervene with a modern formula of setting prices of production that is consistent with the law of value and the law of a falling rate of profit. Such a formula when introduced would militate against economic crises, would guarantee that more value is put back into the economy than taken out, and would introduce social consciousness and the public good into the process of setting prices of production rather than leaving the issue to spontaneity or monopoly right.

Monopoly Control Disrupts the Spontaneous Setting of Prices of Production

During the period of nascent capitalism of the nineteenth century, competition and its effect in creating a general rate of profit was the determining factor in setting prices of production. Capital flowed into and was withdrawn from those enterprises and sectors according to their rate of profit, forcing up low rates of profit and dragging down high rates. This occurred spontaneously without conscious direction except for the desire of owners of capital to find the highest possible rate of profit.

The general or average rate of profit was itself a result of competition, as a higher than average rate of profit would automatically attract capital causing the rate to fall and a lower rate of profit would cause capital to withdraw causing a spontaneous lift to the lower rate. This ebb and flow of capital and the existence of a general rate of profit meant that prices of production would rise or fall across industrial sectors according to their level of productivity, which is the ratio between the amount of capital within a sector and the number of workers necessary for production and distribution to take place. This meant that prices of production within heavy industry with more capital per worker would tend to rise above their actual value. With prices of production above the value of production, the rate of profit in heavy industry could stabilize at the general average even though the ratio of capital to workers is much higher than in other industries and sectors.

Today under conditions of monopoly capitalism, this spontaneous phenomenon determining prices of production based on a general rate of profit no longer occurs to the same extent. The degree of control over global markets by a handful of monopolies can determine market prices within a sector such as iron ore, real estate etc., during which time fabulous profits are made with high prices until the bubble bursts. Conversely, with deliberately low prices, monopolies can wipe out smaller competitors and expand their global empires even further.

Price manipulation to serve the narrow interests of this or that powerful monopoly or group of monopolies disrupts the economy and is a factor making economic crises more intense, widespread and longer lasting. This criticism of monopoly right to manipulate prices is not meant to romanticize the former spontaneous setting of prices, as that was accomplished through violent regular upheavals and crises in the economy. The point is to discuss the introduction of social consciousness into the economy and acts of conscious direction in the process of setting prices of production rather than leaving it to spontaneity or monopoly right. The concentration of production into monopolies, such as the three integrated steel mills in Canada plus the expertise in gathering economic data acquired by Statistics Canada and Revenue Canada, allow the introduction of conscious control and a modern formula for prices of production. A missing element at the moment is to create a national Workers' Opposition and the political will, unity and determination that can effectively challenge monopoly right. To build such Workers' Opposition is the challenge the working class and its allies have accepted and are taking up!

(Part Two: Prices of Production and the Law of the Falling Rate of Profit)

Canada in Afghanistan

Harper Government's Attempt to Escape
the Verdict of History

The announcement by the Harper government that 950 Canadian troops will be staying in Afghanistan past 2011 for three years to train Afghan forces would be funny if it did not have such dire implications for the Afghan people and foreign foot soldiers. It would be funny because at last count, without any outside "training" from military "experts," the Afghans, down through the centuries, have already defeated the following invaders: Alexander the Great, the Arabs, the Mongols, the Persians, the British, and the Russians, besides others. Also, the Afghan resistance is currently doing an excellent job opposing the U.S. imperialists and their NATO allies, who are waging an aggressive and criminal war in their country under the flimsy pretext of humanitarianism.

Alexander the Great, who knew a lot more about military strategy than Stephen Harper, would no doubt laugh uproariously at Harper's contention that the Afghans need Canada to provide them with military training. Paying tribute to the fierce resistance of the Afghan people during his brief occupation from 330-327 BC, Alexander stated: "I am involved in the land of a 'Leonine' [lion-like] and brave people, where every foot of the ground is like a wall of steel, confronting my soldiers. This is the land of the Afghans [in] which children are fighting valiantly against my steel forces. You have brought only one son into the world, but Everyone in this land can be called an Alexander."

One can only conclude that the real aim of extending the Canadian mission is not to try to train the Afghans how to fight, but to try to train them how NOT to fight. In other words, to try to train them to become obedient followers of the imperialists. But this underhandeded scheme is doomed to failure. The Afghan people will never submit. They will continue to fight to the death against their aggressors and in the end will be victorious once again.

Lisbon NATO Summit Concludes

Plans for Indefinite Occupation of Afghanistan

At the NATO Summit in Lisbon, plans were made for the NATO occupation of Afghanistan to continue indefinitely. Despite statements that combat by the occupying forces will end by 2014, the aggressive alliance made it clear that it will extend the occupation, including combat operations, indefinitely based on its self-serving considerations.

During the Summit, NATO and its puppet Hamid Karzai government of Afghanistan agreed to the goal of a "phased transfer of security responsibility" from NATO to the Afghan government by the end of 2014. However, NATO officials stated that allied forces would remain in Afghanistan well beyond that date.

The agreement comes despite the fact that in recent weeks, Karzai has repeatedly raised concerns about NATO's nighttime raids which are a main aspect of the occupying forces' offensive and which are killing many civilians. For this he has been sharply criticized by the top U.S. and NATO Commander General David Petraeus, U.S. President Barack Obama and others. Asked about this matter during the NATO Summit, President Obama as much as said that Karzai should keep his station and mind his manners. "If we're ponying up billions of dollars to ensure that President Karzai can continue to build and develop his country, then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns as well," Obama remarked.

General Petraeus responded indirectly to Karzai's criticisms in a similar dismissive manner. The Times reports that in a closed-door meeting during the Summit, he set out his strategy for the transition. He confirmed the aggressive offensive, including drone missile strikes and nighttime raids which are particularly notorious for their high rate of civilian deaths, would continue.

The Times reported that "General Petraeus, in his presentation, said that 'we are beginning to see a return on our investment' and that 'we have broken the Taliban's momentum.'" The newspaper also noted the doubt of many Summit participants in Petraeus' confidence in the success of the NATO mission. It cited a senior European official in the room during Petraeus' speech who said, "Is it true or not? I'm not so sure. To many of us, it begins to have the ring of Vietnam."

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he and Karzai had agreed to "a long-term partnership between NATO and Afghanistan that will endure beyond our combat mission." However, the aim of ending the "combat mission" by 2014 was left conspicously open. "I don't foresee [NATO] troops in a combat role beyond 2014, provided of course that the security situation allows us to move into a more supportive role," he said.

This was echoed by Mark Sedwill, NATO's top civilian representative in Kabul, who said on Saturday, "2014 is a goal, not a guarantee." These remarks are in addition to his comments last week that "poor security" in some areas could delay the pullout date.

The Obama administration, like the Harper government and others, is presenting the issue of extending the Afghan mission as a matter of foreign troops carrying out training versus combat. This covers up that both are aspects of an illegal foreign occupation which the U.S. intends to continue indefinitely with its forces having a central role.

Speaking of the ongoing U.S. presence beyond 2014 Obama said, "Certainly, our footprint will have been significantly reduced. But beyond that, you know, it's hard to anticipate exactly what is going to be necessary." He added, "it is a goal to make sure that we are not still engaged in combat operations of the sort that we're involved with now."

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who was in Chile on Saturday, said allied forces in Afghanistan would be likely to remain past 2014, to "train" and "advise," the Times reported.

The Times quotes a senior American official who warns: "No one should read out of Lisbon that the fighting is over. There is a lot of hard fighting that lies ahead."

(Politico.com, New York Times)

NATO Proclaims Itself Global Military Force

- Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, November 22, 2010 -

Demonstration against the NATO Summit, Lisbon, Portugal, November 20, 2010. (PAGAN)

The recently concluded North Atlantic Treaty Organization Treaty summit in Portugal gave Washington everything it demanded from its 27 NATO allies, at least 20 NATO partners providing troops for the war in Afghanistan, the European Union and Russia.

The U.S.-controlled North Atlantic Alliance endorsed without reservations and even without deliberations American plans to include all of Europe in the Pentagon's and its Missile Defense Agency's worldwide interceptor missile system. The summit's declaration states: "NATO will maintain an appropriate mix of conventional, nuclear, and missile defence forces. Missile defence will become an integral part of our overall defence posture."[1]

In adopting its new Strategic Concept it also authorized an analogous continent-wide cyber warfare operation to work in conjunction with -- and for all practical purposes under the direction of -- the Pentagon's new U.S. Cyber Command.

It reaffirmed the bloc's Article 5 commitment to render collective military assistance to any member state under supposed attack and stretched the concept of attack to include non-military categories like computer, energy and terrorist threats. The Strategic Concept "reconfirms the bond between our nations to defend one another against attack, including against new threats to the safety of our citizens."[2]

"NATO members will always assist each other against attack, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. That commitment remains firm and binding. NATO will deter and defend against any threat of aggression, and against emerging security challenges where they threaten the fundamental security of individual Allies or the Alliance as a whole."

While there are no conventional military threats -- and no nuclear ones as well -- which is to say no military dangers at all confronting NATO's North American and European members, other -- contrived -- concerns will serve as the basis for the activation of Article 5. They include attacks on or threats to computer networks:

"Cyber attacks...can reach a threshold that threatens national and Euro-Atlantic prosperity, security and stability," NATO claims, so its members are obligated to "develop further [the]ability to prevent, detect, defend against and recover from cyber-attacks, including by using the NATO planning process to enhance and coordinate national cyber-defence capabilities, bringing all NATO bodies under centralized cyber protection...."

European "dependence" on Russian oil and natural gas and control of strategic sea routes and shipping lanes:

"Some NATO countries will become more dependent on foreign energy suppliers and in some cases, on foreign energy supply and distribution networks for their energy needs. As a larger share of world consumption is transported across the globe, energy supplies are increasingly exposed to disruption."

And several other issues not even remotely related to military matters[3]:

"Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to significantly affect NATO planning and operations."

NATO also reiterated its commitment to maintaining American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, with the Strategic Concept stating, "as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance."

And the Alliance went along with the White House and Pentagon shift from an earlier pledge to "draw down" U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan next year to what Washington has of late referred to as "provisional" and "aspirational" plans for a "transitional" strategy that could see Western military forces still in theater in the Asian nation 15 or more years after they first arrived. The Lisbon Summit Declaration states: "Transition will be conditions-based, not calendar-driven, and will not equate to withdrawal of ISAF-troops."

There is no nation or group of nations offering NATO any serious challenge, none posing a threat to the world's only military bloc, and hardly any even standing in the way of its global expansion. "However, no one should doubt NATO's resolve if the security of any of its members were to be threatened....Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy....As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance."

"The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies."

Formalizing the international deployments of the past eleven years -- in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Arabian Sea -- NATO's new Strategic Concept compels all member states and scores of partners to "develop and maintain robust, mobile and deployable conventional forces to carry out both our Article 5 responsibilities and the Alliance's expeditionary operations, including with the NATO Response Force," and "ensure the broadest possible participation of Allies in collective defence planning on nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces."

Invoking the little-noted catch phrase that since 1989 has been employed in anticipation and later fulfilment of plans to subordinate all of Europe under NATO's military command,[4] Alliance heads of state in Lisbon last week also endorsed the completion of expansion plans affecting the Balkans and the former Soviet Union:

"Our goal of a Europe whole and free, and sharing common values, would be best served by the eventual integration of all European countries that so desire into Euro-Atlantic structures.

"The door to NATO membership remains fully open to all European democracies which share the values of our Alliance, which are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, and whose inclusion can contribute to common security and stability."

In particular, NATO will "continue and develop the partnerships with Ukraine and Georgia within the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia Commissions, based on the NATO decision at the Bucharest summit [in]2008" and "facilitate the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans." Specific mention was made of Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.

The NATO-Georgia Commission was established in September of 2008, the month after the five-day war between Georgia and Russia, which itself was launched by the Mikheil Saakashvili government in Tbilisi a week after 1,000 U.S. troops completed the Immediate Response 2008 NATO Partnership for Peace war games and while American troops and equipment were still in Georgia.

The Bucharest summit decision on Georgia and Ukraine's eventual full membership in NATO and the creation of the NATO-Georgia Commission gave rise to an Annual National Program to expedite Georgia's NATO integration. The traditional route to accession, a Membership Action Plan (MAP), was not presented to Georgia in 2008 because of two NATO provisions: That member states cannot be involved in lingering territorial disputes (which is why, for example, Cyprus would not be given a MAP if it were to join the Partnership for Peace) and there cannot be foreign -- which is to say non-NATO -- military forces on a prospective member's soil.

The Georgian government claims the now independent nations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as its own and two years ago there were small contingents of Russian peacekeepers in both countries. The NATO-Georgia Commission and NATO's Annual National Program -- a unique vehicle to integrate Georgia (and Ukraine) into NATO through bypassing the above-mentioned constraints of a Membership Action Plan -- is complemented by the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership which was announced shortly after the 2008 war and signed on January 9, 2009. (The comparable United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership was signed between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko on December 19, 2008.)

It is the contention of several observers, including the present one, that the Georgian attack on South Ossetia on August 7, 2008 was, if successful, to be immediately followed by one on Abkhazia, thereby eliminating both the aforementioned obstacles to NATO's full expansion into the South Caucasus.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly autumn session in Poland on November 12-16 passed a resolution calling Abkhazia and South Ossetia "occupied territories," which led the Abkhazian Foreign Ministry to respond:

"NATO is an organization that has been contributing to the intensive militarization of Georgia for many years, stirring up the revanchist mindset of the Georgian leadership, which led to the August 2008 bloodshed in South Ossetia."[5]

Obama held a one-on-one meeting with Georgia's Saakashvili on the sidelines of the Lisbon summit on November 19,

NATO's plans for a further drive east and south of what most people understand to be Europe are not limited to the Caucasus.

The Lisbon summit, in approving the bloc's new doctrine, also for the first time bluntly stated that NATO's reach is as broad as the world itself:

"The promotion of Euro-Atlantic security is best assured through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organisations around the globe."

President Obama and the other 27 NATO heads of state endorsed the new Strategic Concept which also states:

"We are firmly committed to the development of friendly and cooperative relations with all countries of the Mediterranean, and we intend to further develop the Mediterranean Dialogue in the coming years. We attach great importance to peace and stability in the Gulf region, and we intend to strengthen our cooperation in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative."

The Mediterranean Dialogue consists of NATO and seven nations in Africa and the Middle East: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.

The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004[6]aims at upgrading Mediterranean Dialogue partnerships to the level of those of NATO's Partnership for Peace program, which has prepared 12 nations in Eastern Europe for full membership since 1999: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

It also cultivates the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- as NATO military partners. Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are official Troop Contributing Nations (TCNs) for NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, as are Partnership for Peace members Georgia and Ukraine in former Soviet space and Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro in the Balkans.

This past weekend NATO vowed to "deepen the cooperation with current members of the Mediterranean Dialogue and be open to the inclusion in the Mediterranean Dialogue of other countries of the region" and "develop a deeper security partnership with our Gulf partners and remain ready to welcome new partners in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative." That is, to incorporate all of the Middle East and northern Africa into its broader military nexus with an eye on nations like Iraq,[7] Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad and even Kenya.

The summit declaration confirmed the continuation of Operation Active Endeavour, "our Article 5 maritime operation in the Mediterranean," Operation Ocean Shield off the Horn of Africa, the airlifting of Ugandan troops to Somalia for the fighting there and support for the African Standby Force and NATO Training Mission-Iraq.

In addition to detailing expansion plans in Europe, Asia and Africa ad seriatim, NATO has announced that it is now an international military-political formation. The summit declaration expressed "profound gratitude for the professionalism, dedication and bravery of the more than 143,000 men and women from Allied and partner nations who are deployed on NATO's operations and missions."

Its new doctrine also states: "Unique in history, NATO is a security Alliance that fields military forces able to operate together in any environment; that can control operations anywhere through its integrated military command structure...."

The bloc's NATO Response Force (NRF) "provides a mechanism to generate a high readiness and technologically advanced force package made up of land, air, sea and special force components that can be deployed quickly on operations wherever needed."[8]

The NRF was proposed by then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in September of 2002 and formalized at NATO's Prague summit in November of the same year. It conducted its first live-fire exercise, the large-scale Steadfast Jaguar 2006, in the West African island nation of Cape Verde. At the end of the year it was declared to be at full operational capability with up to 25,000 troops "made up of land, air, sea and special forces components...capable of performing missions worldwide across the whole spectrum of operations."[9]

Alluding in part to the NRF, the new Strategic Concept states:

"Where conflict prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO will be prepared and capable to manage ongoing hostilities. NATO has unique conflict management capacities, including the unparalleled capability to deploy and sustain robust military forces in the field."

It also commits its member nations to "further develop doctrine and military capabilities for expeditionary operations, including counterinsurgency, stabilization and reconstruction operations."

In Lisbon, Obama and his fellow heads of state agreed that:

"We, the political leaders of NATO, are determined to continue renewal of our Alliance so that it is fit for purpose in addressing the 21st Century security challenges. We are firmly committed to preserve its effectiveness as the globe's most successful political-military Alliance."

The world's only military bloc does not protect Europe from chimerical missile and nuclear threats or from concerns better addressed by its respective members' judiciary, internal security forces and environmental, immigration, energy, public health and weather ministries and departments.

It rather employs the European continent as a base of operations for military deployments and campaigns most everywhere else.

That role has been solidified with the military integration of the U.S., NATO and the European Union.[10] On November 19 the president of the EU's European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, addressed NATO leaders in Lisbon and said, "the ability of our two organisations to shape our future security environment would be enormous if they worked together. It is time to break down the remaining walls between them."[11]

NATO's new 21st century doctrine affirms:

"[T]he EU is a unique and essential partner for NATO. The two organisations share a majority of members, and all members of both organisations share common values. NATO recognizes the importance of a stronger and more capable European defence. We welcome the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which provides a framework for strengthening the EU's capacities to address common security challenges.

"Non-EU Allies make a significant contribution to these efforts. For the strategic partnership between NATO and the EU, their fullest involvement in these efforts is essential. NATO and the EU can and should play complementary and mutually reinforcing roles."

NATO has also acquired a new partner in Eurasia, one with the world's largest land mass, stretching from the Baltic and the Black Seas to the Pacific Ocean: Russia. The subject of another article.

Notes

1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Lisbon Summit Declaration
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_68828.htm?mode=pressrelease
2. Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, http://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf
3. Thousand Deadly Threats: Third Millennium NATO, Western Businesses Collude On New Global Doctrine, Stop NATO, October 2, 2009
4. Berlin Wall: From Europe Whole And Free To New World Order, Stop NATO, November 9, 2009
5. Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 18, 2010
6. NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul, Stop NATO, February 6, 2009
7. Iraq: NATO Assists In Building New Middle East Proxy Army, Stop NATO, August 13, 2010
8. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Allied Command Operations, http://www.aco.nato.int/page349011837.aspx
9. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, The NATO Response Forc, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm
10. EU, NATO, US: 21st Century Alliance For Global Domination, Stop NATO, February 19, 2009
11. EUobserver, November 21, 2010

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca