Reply #28: Corporations are at the eclipse of this"competitive as a country" [View All]

[nolabels]

They are at a point where they have become larger than the host that spawned them. And at the very least immune from any correction any one could bring singularly. The moth has shed it's cocoon and is looking for other grounds to be fertile at.

http://www.newint.org/issue167/kidding.htm
EXPORTING ILLUSION: The new imperialism - NI 167 - No Kidding:
(snip)
Plain traders

Where Lenin argued that the desire to export capital was imperialism’s driving force, other commentators have pointed to the need to export goods and import raw materials.

French politician Jules Ferry said ‘The foundation of a colony is the creation of a market’, when he tried to justify his policy of encouraging colonial expansion in the late nineteenth century. The trade depression of that period may have encouraged major trading companies to look for new markets.

The import of raw materials played an important part in encouraging colonization: for example, the Hudson’s Bay Company, which exploited the furs and other natural resources of Canada, encouraged settlers to move westwards. British merchants were also heavily involved in colonising parts of Africa where they developed cash crops like coffee, sisal and cocoa And raw cotton from India was one of the key materials in British industrial development.



Magnetic colonies

Many modern historians, notably David Fieldhouse, have argued that explanations of imperialism have concentrated too much on the colonizing countries, and not taken enough notice of events in the colonies themselves. He refers to ‘The magnetic force of the periphery’ - in other words, the colonies. The arrival of Europeans, whether as traders, farmers or officials, had a disruptive effect on Asian and African societies. In some places there were revolts from the native population. The Europeans felt threatened and their home governments intervened to protect them and their property. This happened in 1882 in Egypt when there was a popular uprising. The UK government was concerned that the Suez Canal, a vital route to India, would fall into unfriendly hands. Within three years the British government was drawn further in, sending the disastrous Gordon expedition to Khartoum in attempt to put down a revolt that threatened Egypt. Britain didn’t intend to take over Egypt, but it became an effective colony for 40 years In other societies rulers made tactical alliances with the European against internal enemies - almost invariably leading to European control. It was always possible for the Europeans to claim that they were restoring order. Having got involved the European nation would be drawn into internal affairs and disputes until a complete takeover was the solution that best served its interests. It could be argued that Soviet policy in Afghanistan and the American involvement in Vietnam are modern reflections of the force of the periphery.

Sideshow wars

Small nations have often found themselves becoming instruments of the foreign policy of larger ones Today, it is claimed, they find themselves acting as surrogates’ - substitutes for a larger nation in a conflict, and coming to a great extent under the control of their giant ally. Direct confrontation between the superpowers would be massively destructive, but they carry on indirect struggles in areas of tension such as the Middle East through those they support.
(snip)