Liberty, as a buzzword and heartstring, is often bent out of shape with definitions and conflicting individual analysis. We've all done it to make a point at one point or another, whether we are just playing devil's advocate or bouncing off of someone else's skewed definition of liberty. Here's my own skew.

Freedom comes in three flavors: social, political and economic. Social freedom encompasses the rights to individuality, and restrictions on language, religion, marital rights, et cetera curtail this type of freedom. Political freedom has a fairly substantial overlap with social freedom, encompassing privacy and speech issues, and also includes suffrage, variety in political party, number and legality of political parties, and a nearly infinite array of possible infringements that leaders of politically restrictive countries never fail to discover. Finally there is economic freedom, which is just as or more nuanced than the other freedoms in that despotism of economy, which exists in so-called free market as well as socialist economies, can limit social and political freedoms, even if not in writing. In this there are overlaps with the two other categories, particularly in the social category. Caste/class systems exemplify this.

To put contemporary America into context, I believe that the United States is indeed privileged with social, political, and economic freedom more than most countries, with emphasis varying between nations. But the American government, increasingly in recent years, is developing a trend that I see to be negative in all three points: the military-industrial complex. As I see it, the tightening bonds between military, industry, and government (particularly executive, though this ripples through legislative and judicial issues as well) is a shift towards a form of fascism that illustrates several things.

1) The free-market system, where there are large sums of capital, creates an environment that allows those with greater capital advantage to restrict the economic freedoms of those of the lower classes. In this increasingly global age, this gives rise to a sort of hydraulic despotism of various government-industries through oil and to a lesser extent natural gas and other resources.
2) Competition between growing economies and global interests makes it necessary for governments and other bodies who pursue such means to bump up aggression, whether on global markets, military theatres, or their own people; or one as consequence to another, such as the restriction of social and political rights following the initiation of major military operations influenced by the pursuit of resources towards the end of hydraulic despotism. I don't think it's necessary to point out the example I refer to, but this has happened several times before in the United States and thousands of times in various powers throughout history.

It seems to be a trend in this modern age that established powers, as in the above example, are limiting freedoms. But this works in the reverse, as well. Where economic restriction can restrict other freedoms, the easing of economic restrictions and the increase of capital in a developing country can increase freedoms as opportunities trickle into the country.

So, if increased economic freedom can lead to increased socio-political freedoms in small economies, and sustained economic freedom can lead to trusts, monopolies, and eventually decreased economic, social and political freedoms among the middle and lower classes, is there a happy medium that can be maintained? Is there an ideal balance of economic strength, Economic freedom and monopoly-prevention? How must social and political privilege adjust to meet this ideal balance? Does a population's tolerance of restriction determine the level of restriction that can be applied, or does a population become more tolerant of restriction as it is subjected to it?

This is true at the apex of that nation's freedom. However, as corporations gain economic power, they gain political power as well. In large economies such as the United States, they become a ruling factor themselves, through the principles of hydraulic despotism, and through interaction with government, eg lobbying.

I believe the Iraq war is a prime example of the military-industrial complex' fascist basis. The war had largely economic motivation - it continues to be extremely profitable not only to oil firms, but to contractors who provide supplies, arms, ammunition, et cetera to the armed forces. The fascist connection lies in the presence of stockholders and executives of those companies either having influence on foreign policy or actively participating in decision-making. It is oligarchy, profiteering, and a form of economic authoritarianism (again the  allusion to hydraulic despotism) quite dissimilar from socialism, but which rises from similar ideology to classic fascism.
As for the idea of liberation for the Iraqi people, Saddam seems a rather inarbitrary despot to overthrow, considering the rule in many poor* African countries and their economic importance to the United States and its banks, and considering the resources previously under Saddam's control which are now controlled by American markets. I don't know much about the state of the Iraqi market, but it can't look too prosperous, or independent for that matter, in the midst of the US occupation.


And to reiterate my point, the formation of entities that encompass an entire commodity or market is a severe limitation of economic freedom for the vast number of people who do not aggressively hoard control of that economic sector - making anti-trust laws seem meager by comparison .

*By poor, I mean countries whose despots hoard the few resources of that country and take out long-term, high interest loans to the World Bank and IMF, perpetually indebting Africa to the West.

The growth of corporations, and indeed their power alone cannot be called Fascism, you are right. It is, to state once more, the interaction between- in extremis and hypothetically the hybridization of - corporations and government. True, this is only one  aspect of classical Fascism, but a major facet of the American system. Were it not for the common interest - and in some cases identity - of members of corporations and government, particularly the executive branch, one would think the overlap in agenda would not exist. Yet lobbyism exists, and so does cronyism, and that often seems to take precedence over the interest of the American People, or for that matter, the peoples of all nations.

But in terms of true economic, social and political freedom, the Iraqi peoples will not be free until the war is over. If the occupation ever ends, and if the infrastructure recovers - if recover is the proper word, then the peoples of Iraq will be free. When Iraq becomes strong enough to dispel Iranian influence, and if the wave of terrorism that followed the invasion ever loses its momentum, then the Iraqi peoples will be free. When the government of Iraq can accommodate the conflicting wishes of its various ethnic and religious groups, then all the peoples of Iraq will be free - yet, a non-homogeneous country tends to be less stable than an even distribution of people, eg serbia/kosovo, palestine/israel, et cetera. So I wonder if Iraq can truly ever be free.


Unless you're a fan of Alger - who, to be perfectly honest, only encouraged those monopolies, thereby, as we have concluded, restricting the prospects for his inspired readers. But what the hell. The American Dream still lingers.