File: Sectiond.txt

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 11.1-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: sarge
size: 16,544 kB
ctags: 544
sloc: makefile: 38
file content (5020 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 292,430 bytes
Section D - How does statism and capitalism affect society?

D.1 Why does state intervention occur?
	D.1.1	Does state intervention cause the problems to begin with?
	D.1.2 Is state intervention the result of democracy?
	D.1.3 Is state intervention socialistic?

D.2 What influence does wealth have over politics?
	D.2.1	Is capital flight that powerful?
	D.2.2 How extensive is business propaganda?

D.3 How does wealth influence the mass media?
	D.3.1	How does the size, concentrated ownership, owner 
	 	wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant 
	 	mass-media firms affect media content?
	D.3.2 What is the effect of advertising as the primary 
	 	income source of the mass media?
	D.3.3 Why do the media rely on information provided by 
	 	government, business, and "experts" funded and approved 
	 	by these primary sources and agents of power?
	D.3.4 How is "flak" used by the wealthy and powerful as a 
	 	means of disciplining the media?
	D.3.5 Why do the wealthy and powerful use "anticommunism" as 
	 	a national religion and control mechanism? 
	D.3.6 Isn't it a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that the media are 
	 	used as propaganda instruments by the elite?
	D.3.7 Isn't the "propaganda thesis" about the media contradicted by
	 	the "adversarial" nature of much media reporting, e.g. its 
	 	exposes of government and business corruption?

D.4 What is the relationship between capitalism and the ecological crisis?
	D.4.1	Why must capitalist firms "grow or die?"

D.5 What causes imperialism?
	D.5.1	Has imperialism changed over time?
	D.5.2 Is imperialism just a product of private capitalism?
	D.5.3	Does globalisation mean the end of imperialism?
	D.5.4	What is the relationship between imperialism and the
	 	social classes within capitalism?
	
D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism? 

D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation struggles?

D.8 What causes militarism and what are its effects?
	D.8.1	Will militarism change with the apparent end of the Cold War? 

D.9 What is the relationship between wealth polarisation and 
	authoritarian government?
	D.9.1	Why does political power become concentrated 
		under capitalism?
	D.9.2	What is "invisible government"?
	D.9.3	Why are incarceration rates rising?
	D.9.4	Why is government secrecy and surveillance of 
		citizens on the increase?
	D.9.5	But doesn't authoritarian government always involve 
	 	censorship?
	D.9.6	What does the Right want?

D.10 How does capitalism affect technology?

D.11 What causes justifications for racism to appear?
	D.11.1 Does free market ideology play a part in racist tendencies 
	 	 to increase?

Section D - How does statism and capitalism affect society?

This section of the FAQ indicates how both statism and capitalism affect
the society they exist in. It is a continuation of sections B (Why do 
anarchists oppose the current system?) and C (What are the myths of 
capitalist economics?) and it discusses the impact of the underlying social
and power relationships within the current system on society.

This section is important because the institutions and social relationships 
capitalism and statism spawn do not exist in a social vacuum, they have deep 
impacts on our everyday lives. These effects go beyond us as individuals 
(for example, the negative effects of hierarchy on our individuality) and have 
an effect on how the political institutions in our
society work, how technology develops, how the media operates and so on.
Therefore it is worthwhile to point out how (and why) statism and capitalism
affect society as a whole outwith the narrow bounds of politics and economics.

So here we try and sketch some of the impact of concentrations of political
and economic power has upon society. While many people attack the *results* 
of these processes (like state intervention, ecological destruction, 
imperialism, etc.) they ignore their *causes.* This means that the 
struggle against social evils will be never-ending, like a doctor fighting 
the symptoms of a disease without treating the disease itself. We have 
indicated the roots of the problems we face in sections B and C; now we 
discuss some of the other problems they create. This section of the FAQ
explores the interactions of the causes and results and draws out how the 
authoritarian and exploitative nature of capitalism affects the world we
live in. 

It is important to remember that most supporters of capitalism refuse to
do this. Yes, many of them point out *some* flaws and problems within
society but they never relate them to the system as such. As Noam Chomsky
points out, they will attribute the catastrophes of capitalism "to any
other cause *other* than the system that consistently brings them about."
[_Deterring Democracy_, p. 232]

That the system and its effects are interwoven can best be seen from the 
fact that while right-wing parties have been elected to office promising 
to reduce the role of the state in society, the actual size and activity 
of the state has not been reduced, indeed it has usually increased in 
scope (both in size and in terms of power and centralisation). This is
unsurprising, as "free market" implies strong (and centralised) state --
the "freedom" of Management to manage means that the freedom of workers
to resist authoritarian management structures must be weakened by state
action. Thus, ironically, state intervention within society will continue 
to be needed in order to ensure that society survives the rigours of market 
forces and that elite power and privilege are protected from the masses.

D.1 Why does state intervention occur?

The state is forced to intervene in society because of the anti-social
effects of capitalism. The abstractly individualistic theory on which
capitalism is based ("everyone for themselves") results in a high degree
of statism since the economic system itself contains no means to combat
its own socially destructive workings. The state must also intervene in
the economy, not only to protect the interests of the ruling class but
also to protect society from the atomising and destructive impact of
capitalism. Moreover, capitalism has an inherent tendency toward 
periodic recessions or depressions, and the attempt to prevent them has 
become part of the state's function. However, since preventing them is 
impossible (they are built into the system -- see section C.7), in 
practice the state can only try to postpone them and ameliorate their 
severity. Let's begin with the need for social intervention. 

Capitalism is based on turning both labour and land into commodities. As
Karl Polyani points out, however, "labour and land are no other than the
human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural
surroundings in which it exists; to include labour and land in the market
mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws
of the market." [_The Great Transformation_, p. 71] And this means that
"human society has become an accessory to the economic system," with
humanity placing itself fully in the hands of supply and demand. But such
a situation "could not exist for any length of time without annihilating
the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically
destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness." [Ibid.,
pp. 41-42]

To expect that a community would remain indifferent to the scourge of
unemployment, dangerous working conditions, 16-hour working days, the
shifting of industries and occupations, and the moral and psychological
disruption accompanying them -- merely because economic effects, in the
long run, might be better -- is an absurdity. Similarly, for workers to 
remain indifferent to, for example, poor working conditions, peacefully 
waiting for a new boss to offer them better conditions, or for citizens 
to wait passively for capitalists to start voluntarily acting responsibly 
toward the environment, is to assume a servile and apathetic role 
for humanity. Luckily, labour refuses to be a commodity and citizens 
refuse to stand idly by while the planet's ecosystems are destroyed. 

Therefore state intervention occurs as a form of protection against the
workings of the market. As capitalism is based on atomising society in
the name of "freedom" on the competitive market, it is hardly surprising that
defence against the anti-social workings of the market should take
statist forms -- there being few other structures capable of providing
such defence (as such social institutions have been undermined, if not
crushed, by the rise of capitalism in the first place). Thus, ironically, 
"individualism" produces a "collectivist" tendency within society as 
capitalism destroys communal forms of social organisation in favour of 
ones based on abstract individualism, authority, and hierarchy -- all 
qualities embodied in the state. In a free (i.e. communal) society, 
social self-defence would not be statist but would be similar in nature 
to trade unionism and co-operatives -- individuals working together in 
voluntary associations to ensure a free and just society (see section I).

In addition to social protection, state intervention is required to
protect a country's economy (and so the economic interests of the ruling
class). As Noam Chomsky points out, even the USA, home of "free
enterprise," was marked by "large-scale intervention in the economy after
independence, and conquest of resources and markets. . . [while] a
centralised developmental state [was constructed] committed to [the]
creation and entrenchment of domestic manufacture and commerce,
subsidising local production and barring cheaper British imports,
constructing a legal basis for private corporate power, and in numerous
other ways providing an escape from the stranglehold of comparative
advantage." [_World Orders, Old and New_, p. 114]

In the case of Britain and a host of other countries (and more recently in
the cases of Japan and the Newly Industrialising Countries of the Far
East, like Korea) state intervention was, oddly enough, the key to
development and success in the "free market." In other "developing"
countries which have had the misfortune to be subjected to "free-market
reforms" (e.g. neo-liberal Structural Adjustment Programs) rather
than following the interventionist Japanese and Korean models, the
results have been devastating for the vast majority, with drastic
increases in poverty, homelessness, malnutrition, etc. (for the elite,
the results are somewhat different of course).

In the nineteenth century, states only turned to laissez-faire once they
could benefit from it and had a strong enough economy to survive it. "Only
in the mid-nineteenth century, when it had become powerful enough to
overcome any competition, did England [sic!] embrace free trade." [Noam
Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 115] Before this, protectionism and other methods
were used to nurture economic development. And once laissez-faire started to
undermine a country's economy, it was quickly revoked. For example, 
protectionism is often used to protect a fragile economy and militarism 
has always been a favourite way for the ruling elite to help the economy, 
as is still the case, for example, in the "Pentagon System" in the USA 
(see section D.8).

State intervention has been a feature of capitalism from the start. As 
Kropotkin argued, "nowhere has the system of 'non-intervention of the 
State' ever existed. Everywhere the State has been, and still is, the 
main pillar and the creator, direct and indirect, of Capitalism and its 
powers over the masses. Nowhere, since States have grown up, have the 
masses had the freedom of resisting the oppression by capitalists. . . 
The state has *always* interfered in the economic life in favour of 
the capitalist exploiter. It has always granted him protection in 
robbery, given aid and support for further enrichment. *And it could 
not be otherwise.* To do so was one of the functions -- the chief 
mission -- of the State." [_Evolution and Environment_, pp. 97-8] Its
limited attempts at laissez-faire have always been failures, resulting 
in a return to its statist roots. The process of selective laissez-faire 
and collectivism has been as much a feature of capitalism in the past as 
it is now. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky argues, "[w]hat is called 'capitalism' 
is basically a system of corporate mercantilism, with huge and largely
unaccountable private tyrannies exercising vast control over the economy,
political systems, and social and cultural life, operating in close
co-operation with powerful states that intervene massively in the domestic
economy and international society. That is dramatically true of the United
States, contrary to much illusion. The rich and privileged are no more
willing to face market discipline than they have been in the past, though
they consider it just fine for the general population." ["Anarchism,
Marxism and Hope for the Future", _Red and Black Revolution_, issue 2]

Therefore, contrary to conventional wisdom, state intervention will always
be associated with capitalism due to: (1) its authoritarian nature; (2) its
inability to prevent the anti-social results of the competitive market; 
(3) its fallacious assumption that society should be "an accessory to 
the economic system"; (4) the class interests of the ruling elite; and
(5) the need to impose its authoritarian social relationships upon an
unwilling population in the first place.

State intervention is as natural to capitalism as wage labour. As Polyani
summarises, "the countermove against economic liberalism and laissez-faire
possessed all the unmistakable characteristics of a spontaneous reaction. .
. [and] a closely similar change from laissez-faire to 'collectivism' took
place in various countries at a definite stage of their industrial
development, pointing to the depth and independence of the underlying
causes of the process." [Op. Cit., pp. 149-150] For "government cannot
want society to break up, for it would mean that it and the dominant class
would be deprived of sources of exploitation; nor can it leave society to
maintain itself without official intervention, for then people would
soon realise that government serves only to defend property owners. . .
and they would hasten to rid themselves of both." [Errico Malatesta,
_Anarchy_, p. 22]

And neither should it be forgotten that state intervention was required to 
create the "free" market in the first place. To quote Polyani again, 
"[f]or as long as [the market] system is not established, economic 
liberals must and will unhesitatingly call for the intervention of the 
state in order to establish it, and once established, in order to maintain 
it." [Op. Cit., p. 149] Protectionism and subsidy (mercantilism) -- along 
with the liberal use of state violence against the working class -- was 
required to create and protect capitalism and industry in the first place 
(see section F.8 - What role did the state take in the creation of 
capitalism?). 

In short, although laissez-faire may be the ideological basis of capitalism
-- the religion that justifies the system -- it has rarely if ever been 
actually practised. So, while the ideologues are praising "free enterprise" 
as the fountainhead of modern prosperity, the corporations and companies 
are gorging at the table of the State.

The recent enthusiasm for the "free market" is in fact the product of an
extended boom, which in turn was a product of a state co-ordinated war
economy and highly interventionist Keynesian economics (a boom that the
apologists of capitalism use, ironically, as "evidence" that "capitalism"
works) plus an unhealthy dose of nostalgia for a past that never existed. 
It's strange how a system that has never existed has produced so much!

D.1.1 Does state intervention cause the problems to begin with?

Usually, no. This does not mean that state intervention cannot have bad
effects on the economy or society. Given the state's centralised, 
bureaucratic nature, it would be impossible for it *not* to have bad 
effects. State intervention can and does make bad situations worse in 
many cases. As Malatesta notes, "the practical evidence [is] that whatever
governments do is always motivated by the desire to dominate, and is
always geared to defending, extending and perpetuating its privileges
and those of the class of which it is both the representative and
defender." [_Anarchy_, p. 21]

However, for economic liberals (or, as we would call them today,
neo-liberals or "conservatives"), state intervention is the root of all
evil, and for them, it is precisely the state's interference with the
market which causes the problems that society blames on the market. 

But such a position is illogical, for "whoever says regulation says
limitation: now, how conceive of limiting privilege before it existed?
... [I]t would be an effect without a cause" and so "regulation was a
corrective to privilege" and not vice versa. [P-J Proudhon, _System of
Economic Contradictions_, p. 371] As Polyani explains, the neo-liberal 
premise is false, because state intervention always "dealt with some 
problem arising out of modern industrial conditions or, at any rate, 
in the market method of dealing with them." [Karl Polyani, Op. Cit., 
p. 146] In fact, these "collectivist" measures were usually carried 
out by convinced supporters of laissez-faire, who were as a rule 
uncompromising opponents of all forms of socialism (and often 
introduced to undermine support for socialist ideas caused by the
excesses of "free market" capitalism).

Thus state intervention did not spring out of thin air, but occurred in
response to pressing social and economic needs. This can be observed in
the mid 19th century, which saw the closest approximation to laissez-faire
in the history of capitalism. As Takis Fotopoules argues, "the attempt to
establish pure economic liberalism, in the sense of free trade, a
competitive labour market and the Gold Standard, did not last more than 40
years, and by the 1870s and 1880s, protectionist legislation was back. . .
. It was also significant. . . [that all major capitalist powers] passed
through a period of free trade and laissez-faire, followed by a period of
anti-liberal legislation. ["The Nation-state and the Market," p. 48,
_Society and Nature_, Vol. 3, pp. 44-45]

The reason for the return of protectionist legislation was the Depression
of 1873-86, which marked the end of the first experiment with pure
economic liberalism. Paradoxically, then, the attempt to liberalise the
markets led to more regulation. In light of our previous analysis, this
is not surprising. Neither the owners of the country nor the politicians
desired to see society destroyed, the result to which unhindered
laissez-faire leads. Apologists of capitalism overlook the fact that "[a]t
the beginning of the Depression, Europe had been in the heyday of free
trade. [Polyani, Op. Cit., p. 216] State intervention came about in
response to the social disruptions resulting from laissez-faire. It did
not cause them.

Similarly, it is a fallacy to state, as Ludwig Von Mises does, that "as
long as unemployment benefit is paid, unemployment must exist." This
statement is not only ahistoric but ignores the existence of the
*involuntary* unemployment which caused the state to start paying out a
dole in order eliminate the possibility of crime as well as working class 
self-help, which could conceivably have undermined the status quo. The 
elite was well aware of the danger in workers organising for their own 
benefit. 

Sadly, in pursuing of ideologically correct answers, capitalist apologists
often ignore common sense. If one believes people exist for the economy
and not the economy for people, one becomes willing to sacrifice people
and their society today for the supposed economic benefit of future
generations (in reality, current profits). If one accepts the ethics of 
mathematics, a future increase in the size of the economy is more important 
than current social disruption. Thus Polyani again: "a social calamity is 
primarily a cultural not an economic phenomenon that can be measured by income 
figures." [Op. Cit., p. 157] And it is the nature of capitalism to ignore and
despise what cannot be measured.

D.1.2 Is state intervention the result of democracy?

No. Social and economic intervention by the modern state began long 
before universal suffrage became widespread. For example, in Britain,
"collectivist" measures were introduced when property and sexual 
restrictions on voting rights still existed. The centralist and 
hierarchical nature of "representative" democracy means that the 
population at large has little real control over politicians, who 
are far more influenced by big business, business lobby groups, and 
the state bureaucracy. This means that truly popular and democratic
pressures are limited within the capitalist state and the interests
of elites are far more decisive in explaining state actions.

The "New Deal" and the post-war Keynesianism measures of limited state
intervention to stimulate economic recovery from the Depression were
motivated by more material reasons than democracy. Thus Takis Fotopoules
argues that "[t]he fact . . .that 'business confidence' was at its lowest
could go a long way in explaining the much more tolerant attitude of those
controlling production towards measures encroaching on their economic
power and profits. In fact, it was only when -- and as long as -- state
interventionism had the approval of those actually controlling production
that it was successful" ["The Nation-state and the Market", p. 55,
_Society and Nature_, Vol. 3, pp. 44-45]

An example of this principle can be seen in the 1934 Wagner Act in the
USA, which gave US labour its first and last political victory. The act
made it legal for unions to organise, but this placed labour struggles
within the boundaries of legal procedures and so meant that they could be
more easily controlled. In addition, this concession was a form of
appeasement whose effect was to make those involved in union actions less
likely to start questioning the fundamental bases of the capitalist
system. Once the fear of a militant labour movement had passed, the
Wagner Act was undermined and made powerless by new laws, laws which
made illegal the tactics which forced the politicians to pass the
Wagner Act in the first place and increased the powers of bosses over
workers.

Needless to say, the implication of classical liberal ideology that
popular democracy is a threat to capitalism is the root of the fallacy
that democracy leads to state intervention. The notion that by limiting
the franchise the rich will make laws which benefit all says more about
the classical liberals' touching faith in the altruism of the rich than it
does about their understanding of human nature or their grasp of history. 
The fact that they can join with John Locke and claim with a straight face
that all must abide by the rules that only the few make also says a lot
about their concept of "freedom." 

Of course some of the more modern classical liberals (for example,
right-wing libertarians) advocate a "democratic state" which cannot
intervene in economic matters. This is no solution, however, as it only
gets rid of the statist response to real and pressing social problems
caused by capitalism without supplying anything better in its place. 

Anarchists agree that the state, due to its centralisation and
bureaucracy, crushes the spontaneous nature of society and is a handicap
to social progress and evolution. However, leaving the market alone to
work its course fallaciously assumes that people will happily sit back and
let market forces rip apart their communities and environment. Getting
rid of state intervention without getting rid of capitalism and creating a
free, communal society would mean that the need for social self-protection
would still exist but that there would be even less means of achieving it
than now. The results of such a policy, as history shows, would be a
catastrophe for the working class (and the environment, we must add) 
and beneficial only for the elite (as intended, of course).

The implication of the false premise that democracy leads to state
intervention is that the state exists for the benefit of the majority,
which uses the state to exploit the rich minority! Amazingly, many
capitalist apologists accept this as a valid inference from their
premise, even though it's obviously a *reductio ad absurdum* of that
premise as well as going against the facts of history. 

D.1.3 Is state intervention socialistic?

No. Libertarian socialism is about self-liberation and self-management 
of one's activities. Getting the state to act for us is the opposite 
of these ideals. In addition, the question implies that socialism is
connected with its nemesis, statism, and that socialism means even 
more bureaucratic control and centralisation. The identification of 
socialism with the state is something that Stalinists and capitalist 
apologists *both* agreed upon. However, as we'll see in section H.3.13, 
"state socialism" is in reality just state capitalism -- the turning 
of the world into "one office and one factory" (to use Lenin's 
expression). Little wonder that most sane people join with anarchists 
in rejecting it. Who wants to work under a system in which, if one 
does not like the boss (i.e. the state), one cannot even quit? 

The theory that state intervention is "creeping socialism" takes the
laissez-faire ideology of capitalism at its face value, not realising that
it is ideology rather than reality. Capitalism is a dynamic system and
evolves over time, but this does not mean that by moving away from its
theoretical starting point it is negating its essential nature and
becoming socialistic. Capitalism was born from state intervention, and
except for a very short period of laissez-faire which ended in depression,
has always depended on state intervention for its existence.

The claim that state intervention is "socialist" also ignores the
realities of power concentration under capitalism. Real socialism
equalises power by redistributing it to the people, but as Noam Chomsky
points out, "[in] a highly inegalitarian society, it is most unlikely that
government programs will be equalisers. Rather, it is to be expected that
they will be designed and manipulated by private power for their own
benefits; and to a significant degree the expectation is fulfilled." 
[_The Chomsky Reader_, p. 184] "Welfare equals socialism" is nonsense.

Similarly, in Britain and the nationalisation of roughly 20% of the
economy (the most unprofitable sections of it as well) in 1945 by the
Labour Government was the direct result of ruling class fear, not
socialism. As Quintin Hogg, a Tory M.P. at the time, said, "If you don't
give the people social reforms they are going to give you social
revolution." Memories of the near revolutions across Europe after the
First World War were obviously in many minds, on both sides. Not that
nationalisation was particularly feared as "socialism." As anarchists at
the time noted, "the real opinions of capitalists can be seen from Stock
Exchange conditions and statements of industrialists [rather] than the
Tory Front bench. . . [and from these we] see that the owning class is not
at all displeased with the record and tendency of the Labour Party."
[Vernon Richards (ed.), _Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation --
Selections from _Freedom_ 1945-1950_, p. 9]

So where do anarchists stand on state intervention? Usually we are
against it, although most of us think state health care services and
unemployment benefits (for example) are more socially useful than arms
production, and in lieu of more anarchistic solutions, better than the
alternative of "free market" capitalism. This does not mean we are happy
with state intervention, which in practice undermines working class
self-help, mutual aid and autonomy. Also, state intervention of the
"social" nature is often paternalistic, run by and for the "middle classes"
(i.e. professional/managerial types and other self-proclaimed "experts").
However, until such time as a viable anarchist counterculture is created,
we have little option but to "support" the lesser evil (but let's make no
mistake, it *is* an evil).

This is not to deny that in many ways such state "support" can be used as
a means of regaining some of the power and labour stolen from us by
capitalists in the first place. State intervention *can* give working 
people more options than they otherwise would have. If state action could
not be used in this way, it is doubtful that capitalists and their hired
"experts" would spend so much time trying to undermine and limit it. As 
the capitalist class happily uses the state to enforce its power and 
property rights, working people making whatever use they can of it is 
to be expected. Be that as it may, this does not blind anarchists to 
the negative aspects of the welfare state and other forms of state 
intervention (see section J.5.15 for anarchist perspectives on the
welfare state).

One problem with state intervention, as Kropotkin saw, is that the state's
absorption of social functions "necessarily favoured the development of an 
unbridled, narrow-minded individualism. In proportion as the obligations 
towards the State grew in numbers, the citizens were evidently relieved 
from their obligations towards each other." [_Mutual Aid_, p. 183] In 
the case of state "social functions," such as the British National 
Health Service, although they were created as a *result* of the social
atomisation caused by capitalism, they have tended to *reinforce* the
individualism and lack of personal and social responsibility that produced
the need for such action in the first place. (Forms of community and
social self-help and their historical precedents will be discussed in
section J.5.16).

The example of nationalised industries is a good indicator of the
non-socialist nature of state intervention. Nationalisation meant
replacing the capitalist bureaucrat with a state one, with little real
improvement for those subjected to the "new" regime. At the height of the
British Labour Party's post-war nationalisations, anarchists were pointing
out its anti-socialist nature. Nationalisation was "really consolidating
the old individual capitalist class into a new and efficient class of
managers to run. . . state capitalism" by "installing the really creative
industrialists in dictatorial managerial positions." [Vernon Richards, 
Op. Cit., p. 10]

Anarchists are in favour of self-directed activity and direct action to
get improvements and defend reforms in the here and now. By organising
strikes and protests ourselves, we can improve our lives. This does not
mean that using direct action to get favourable laws passed or 
less-favourable ones revoked is a waste of time. Far from it. However, 
unless ordinary people use their own strength and grassroots organisations 
to enforce the law, the state and employers will honour any disliked law 
purely in the breach. By trusting the state, social self-protection 
against the market and power concentrations becomes hollow. In the end,
what the state gives (or is pressurised into giving), it can take away
but what we create and run ourselves is always responsive to *our* 
desires and interests. We have seen how vulnerable state welfare 
is to pressures from the capitalist class to see that this is a 
truism.

D.2 What influence does wealth have over politics?
 
The short answer is: a great deal of influence, directly and indirectly. 
We have already touched on this in section B.2.3 ("How does the ruling class
maintain control of the state?") Here we will expand on those remarks. 

State policy in a capitalist democracy is usually well-insulated from popular
influence but very open to elite influence and money interests. Let's consider 
the possibility of direct influence first. It's obvious that elections cost 
money and that only the rich and corporations can realistically afford to 
take part in a major way. Even union donations to political parties cannot 
effectively compete with those from the business classes. For example, in 
the 1972 US presidential elections, of the $500 million spent, only about $13 
million came from trade unions. The vast majority of the rest undoubtedly 
came from Big Business and wealthy individuals. For the 1956 elections, the 
last year for which direct union-business comparisons are possible, the 
contributions of 742 businessmen matched those of unions representing 17 
million workers. And this was at a time when unions had large memberships 
and before the decline of organised labour.

Therefore, logically, politics will be dominated by the rich and powerful
-- in fact if not in theory -- since only the rich can afford to run and
only parties supported by the wealthy will gain enough funds and
favourable press coverage to have a chance (see section D.3, "How does
wealth influence the mass media?"). Even in countries with strong union
movements which support labour-based parties, the political agenda is
dominated by the media. As the media are owned by and dependent upon
advertising from business, it is hardly surprising that independent
labour-based political agendas are difficult to follow or be taken
seriously. Moreover, the funds available for labour parties are always
less than those of capitalist supported parties, meaning that the 
ability of the former to compete in "fair" elections is hindered. And 
this is ignoring the fact that the state structure is designed to 
ensure that real power lies not in the hands of elected representatives 
but rather in the hands of the state bureaucracy (see section J.2.2) 
which ensures that any pro-labour political agenda will be watered down 
and made harmless to the interests of the ruling class.

To this it must be added that wealth has a massive *indirect* influence
over politics (and so over society and the law). We have noted above that
wealth controls the media and their content. However, beyond this there
is what can be called "Investor Confidence," which is another important
source of influence. If a government starts to pass laws or act in ways
that conflict with the desires of business, capital may become reluctant
to invest (and may even disinvest and move elsewhere). The economic
downturn that results will cause political instability, giving the
government no choice but to regard the interests of business as
privileged. "What is good for business" really is good for the 
country, because if business suffers, so will everyone else. 

David Noble provides a good summary of the effects of such indirect
pressures when he writes firms "have the ability to transfer production
from one country to another, to close a plant in one and reopen it 
elsewhere, to direct and redirect investment wherever the 'climate' is
most favourable [to business]. . . . [I]t has enabled the corporation to
play one workforce off against another in the pursuit of the cheapest
and most compliant labour (which gives the misleading appearance of
greater efficiency). . . [I]t has compelled regions and nations to
compete with one another to try and attract investment by offering
tax incentives, labour discipline, relaxed environmental and other 
regulations and publicly subsidised infrastructure. . . Thus has
emerged the great paradox of our age, according to which those nations
that prosper most (attract corporate investment) by most readily
lowering their standard of living (wages, benefits, quality of life,
political freedom). The net result of this system of extortion is a
universal lowering of conditions and expectations in the name of
competitiveness and prosperity." [_Progress Without People_, 
pp. 91-92]

And, we must note, even when a country *does* lower its standard of
living to attract investment or encourage its own business class to
invest (as the USA and UK did by means of recession to discipline
the workforce by high unemployment), it is no guarantee that capital
will stay. US workers have seen their companies' profits rise while 
their wages have stagnated and (in reward) hundreds of thousands have 
been "down-sized" or seen their jobs moved to Mexico or South East Asia
sweatshops. In the far east, Japanese, Hong Kong, and South Korean workers
have also seen their manufacturing jobs move to low wage (and more 
repressive/authoritarian) countries such as China and Indonesia.

As well as the mobility of capital, there is also the threat posed by
public debt. As Doug Henwood notes, "[p]ublic debt is a powerful way of
assuring that the state remains safely in capital's hands. The higher
a government's debt, the more it must please its bankers. Should bankers
grow displeased, they will refuse to roll over old debts or to extend
new financing on any but the most punishing terms (if at all). The 
explosion of [US] federal debt in the 1980s vastly increased the
power of creditors to demand austere fiscal and monetary policies to
dampen the US economy as it recovered . . . from the 1989-92 slowdown."
[_Wall Street_, pp. 23-24] And, we must note, Wall street made a 
fortune on the debt, directly and indirectly.

Commenting on Clinton's plans for the devolution of welfare programmes
from Federal to State government in America, Noam Chomsky makes the
important point that "under conditions of relative equality, this could
be a move towards democracy. Under existing circumstances, devolution is
intended as a further blow to the eroding democratic processes. Major
corporations, investment firms, and the like, can constrain or directly
control the acts of national governments and can set one national
workforce against another. But the game is much easier when the only
competing player that might remotely be influenced by the 'great beast' is
a state government, and even middle-sized enterprise can join in. The
shadow cast by business [over society and politics] can thus be darker,
and private power can move on to greater victories in the name of freedom."
[Noam Chomsky, "Rollback III", _Z Magazine_, March, 1995]

Economic blackmail is a very useful weapon in deterring freedom.

D.2.1 Is capital flight really that powerful?

Yes. By capital flight, business can ensure that any government which
becomes too independent and starts to consider the interests of those who
elected it will be put back into its place. Therefore we cannot expect a
different group of politicians to react in different ways to the same
institutional influences and interests. It's no coincidence that the
Australian Labour Party and the Spanish Socialist Party introduced
"Thatcherite" policies at the same time as the "Iron Lady" implemented them
in Britain. The New Zealand Labour government is a case in point, where
"within a few months of re-election [in 1984], finance minister Roger
Douglas set out a programme of economic 'reforms' that made Thatcher and
Reagan look like wimps. . . .[A]lmost everything was privatised and the
consequences explained away in marketspeak. Division of wealth that had
been unknown in New Zealand suddenly appeared, along with unemployment,
poverty and crime." [John Pilger, "Breaking the one party state," _New
Statesman_, 16/12/94]

An extreme example of capital flight being used to "discipline" a naughty
administration can be seen in the 1974 to '79 Labour government in
Britain. In January, 1974, the FT Index for the London Stock Exchange
stood at 500 points. In February, the Miner's went on strike, forcing
Heath (the Tory Prime Minister) to hold (and lose) a general election. 
The new Labour government (which included many left-wingers in its
cabinet) talked about nationalising the banks and much heavy industry. In
August, 1974, Tony Benn announced plans to nationalise the ship building
industry. By December, the FT index had fallen to 150 points. By 1976 the
Treasury was spending $100 million a day buying back its own money to
support the pound. [_The Times_, 10/6/76]

_The Times_ noted that "the further decline in the value of the pound has
occurred despite the high level of interest rates. . . . [D]ealers said
that selling pressure against the pound was not heavy or persistent, but
there was an almost total lack of interest amongst buyers. The drop in the
pound is extremely surprising in view of the unanimous opinion of bankers,
politicians and officials that the currency is undervalued." [27/5/76]

The Labour government, faced with the power of international capital,
ended up having to receive a temporary "bailing out" by the IMF, which
imposed a package of cuts and controls, to which Labour's response was, in
effect, "We'll do anything you say," as one economist described it. The 
social costs of these policies were disastrous, with unemployment rising 
to the then unheard-of-height of one million. And let's not forget that 
they "cut expenditure by twice the amount the IMF were promised" in an 
attempt to appear business-friendly. [Peter Donaldson, _A Question of 
Economics_, p. 89]

Capital will not invest in a country that does not meet its approval. In
1977, the Bank of England failed to get the Labour government to abolish
its exchange controls. Between 1979 and 1982 the Tories abolished them and
ended restrictions on lending for banks and building societies: 

"The result of the abolition of exchange controls was visible almost
immediately: capital hitherto invested in the U.K. began going abroad. In
the _Guardian_ of 21 September, 1981, Victor Keegan noted that 'Figures
published last week by the Bank of England show that pension funds are now
investing 25% of their money abroad (compared with almost nothing a few
years ago) and there has been no investment at all (net) by unit trusts in
the UK since exchange controls were abolished.'" [Robin Ramsay, _Lobster_
no. 27, p. 3]

Why? What was so bad about the UK? Simply stated, the working class was
too militant, the trade unions were not "shackled by law and subdued," as
_The Economist_ recently put it [February 27, 1993], and the welfare state
could be lived on. The partial gains from previous struggles still existed, 
and people had enough dignity not to accept any job offered or put up with 
an employer's authoritarian practices. These factors created "inflexibility"
in the labour market, so that the working class had to be taught a lesson
in "good" economics.

By capital flight a rebellious population and a slightly radical government 
were brought to heel.

D.2.2 How extensive is business propaganda?

Business spends a lot of money to ensure that people accept the status
quo. Referring again to the US as an example (where such techniques are
common), various means are used to get people to identify "free
enterprise" (meaning state-subsidised private power with no infringement
of managerial prerogatives) as "the American way." The success of these
campaigns is clear, since many working people now object to unions as
having too much power or irrationally rejecting all radical ideas as
"Communism" regardless of their content. 

By 1978, American business was spending $1 billion a year on grassroots
propaganda (known as "Astroturf" by PR insiders, to reflect the appearance 
of popular support, without the substance, and "grasstops" whereby influential 
citizens are hired to serve as spokespersons for business interests). In 
1983, there existed 26 general purpose foundations for this purpose with 
endowments of $100 million or more, as well as dozens of corporate 
foundations. These, along with media power, ensure that force -- always 
an inefficient means of control -- is replaced by the "manufacture
of consent": the process whereby the limits of acceptable expression are
defined by the wealthy. 

This process has been going on for some time. For example "[i]n April 1947,
the Advertising Council announced a $100 million campaign to use all media
to 'sell' the American economic system -- as they conceived it -- to the
American people; the program was officially described as a 'major project
of educating the American people about the economic facts of life.' 
Corporations 'started extensive programs to indoctrinate employees,' the
leading business journal _Fortune_ reported, subjected their captive
audiences to 'Courses in Economic Education' and testing them for
commitment to the 'free enterprise system -- that is, Americanism.' A
survey conducted by the American Management Association (AMA) found that
many corporate leaders regarded 'propaganda' and 'economic education' as
synonymous, holding that 'we want our people to think right'. . . [and
that] 'some employers view. . . [it] as a sort of 'battle of loyalties'
with the unions' -- a rather unequal battle, given the resources available."
[Noam Chomsky, _World Orders, Old and New_, pp. 89-90]

Various institutions are used to get Big Business's message across, for
example, the Joint Council on Economic Education, ostensibly a charitable
organisation, funds economic education for teachers and provides books,
pamphlets and films as teaching aids. In 1974, 20,000 teachers
participated in its workshops. The aim is to induce teachers to present
corporations in an uncritical light to their students. Funding for this
propaganda machine comes from the American Bankers Association, AT&T, the
Sears Roebuck Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

As G. William Domhoff points out, "[a]lthough it [and other bodies like
it] has not been able to bring about active acceptance of all power elite
policies and perspectives, on economic or other domestic issues, it has
been able to ensure that opposing opinions have remained isolated, suspect
and only partially developed." [_Who Rules America Now?_, pp. 103-4] In
other words, "unacceptable" ideas are marginalised, the limits of
expression defined, and all within a society apparently based on 
"the free marketplace of ideas."

The effects of this business propaganda are felt in all other aspects of
life, ensuring that while the US business class is extremely class
conscious, the rest of the American population considers "class" a swear
word!

D.3 How does wealth influence the mass media?

Anarchists have developed detailed and sophisticated analyses of how 
the wealthy and powerful use the media to propagandise in their own
interests. Perhaps the best of these analyses is the "Propaganda Model" 
expounded in _Manufacturing Consent_ by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, 
whose main theses we will summarise in this section (See also Chomsky's
_Necessary Illusions_ for a further discussion of this model of the
media).

Chomsky and Herman's "propaganda model" of the media postulates a set of
five "filters" that act to screen the news and other material disseminated
by the media. These "filters" result in a media that reflects elite
viewpoints and interests and mobilises "support for the special interests
that dominate the state and private activity." [_Manufacturing Consent_,
p. xi] These "filters" are: (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner
wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2)
advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the
reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and
"experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of
power; (4) "flak" (negative responses to a media report) as a means 
of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion 
and control mechanism. 

"The raw material of news must pass through successive filters leaving
only the cleansed residue fit to print," Chomsky and Herman maintain. The
filters "fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the
definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the
basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns." [_Manufacturing 
Consent_, p. 2] We will briefly consider the nature of these five filters 
below (examples are mostly from the US media).

We stress again, before continuing, that this is a *summary* of Herman's
and Chomsky's thesis and we cannot hope to present the wealth of evidence
and argument available in either _Manufacturing Consent_ or _Necessary
Illusions_. We recommend either of these books for more information on and
evidence to support the "propaganda model" of the media.

D.3.1 How does the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and
      profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms affect media 
      content?

Even a century ago, the number of media with any substantial outreach was
limited by the large size of the necessary investment, and this limitation
has become increasingly effective over time. As in any well developed 
market, this means that there are very effective *natural* barriers to
entry into the media industry. Due to this process of concentration, the
ownership of the major media has become increasingly concentrated in fewer
and fewer hands. As Ben Bagdikian's stresses in his book _Media
Monopoly_, the 29 largest media systems account for over half of the
output of all newspapers, and most of the sales and audiences in
magazines, broadcasting, books, and movies. The "top tier" of these --
somewhere between 10 and 24 systems -- along with the government and wire
services, "defines the news agenda and supplies much of the national and
international news to the lower tiers of the media, and thus for the
general public" [Ibid., p. 5]

The twenty-four top-tier companies are large, profit-seeking corporations,
owned and controlled by very wealthy people. Many of these companies are
fully integrated into the financial market, with the result that the
pressures of stockholders, directors, and bankers to focus on the bottom
line are powerful. These pressures have intensified in recent years as
media stocks have become market favourites and as deregulation has
increased profitability and so the threat of take-overs.

The media giants have also diversified into other fields. For example GE,
and Westinghouse, both owners of major television networks, are huge,
diversified multinational companies heavily involved in the controversial
areas of weapons production and nuclear power. GE and Westinghouse
depend on the government to subsidise their nuclear power and military
research and development, and to create a favourable climate for their
overseas sales and investments. Similar dependence on the government
affect other media. 

Because they are large corporations with international investment
interests, the major media tend to have a right-wing political bias. In
addition, members of the business class own most of the mass media, the
bulk of which depends for their existence on advertising revenue (which in
turn comes from private business). Business also provides a substantial
share of "experts" for news programmes and generates massive "flak." Claims
that they are "left-leaning" are sheer disinformation manufactured by the
"flak" organisations described below. 

Thus Herman and Chomsky:

"the dominant media forms are quite large businesses; they are controlled
by very wealthy people or by managers who are subject to sharp constraints
by owners and other market-profit-oriented forces; and they are closely
interlocked, and have important common interests, with other major
corporations, banks, and government. This is the first powerful filter
that effects news choices." [Ibid., p. 14]

Needless to say, reporters and editors will be selected based upon how
well their work reflects the interests and needs of their employers.
Thus a radical reporter and a more mainstream one both of the same
skills and abilities would have very different careers within the
industry. Unless the radical reporter toned down their copy, they are
unlikely to see it printed unedited or unchanged. Thus the structure
within the media firm will tend to penalise radical viewpoints,
encouraging an acceptance of the status quo in order to further a
career. This selection process ensures that owners do not need to
order editors or reporters what to do -- to be successful they will
have to internalise the values of their employers.

D.3.2 What is the effect of advertising as the primary income source
      of the mass media?

The main business of the media is to sell audiences to advertisers. 
Advertisers thus acquire a kind of de facto licencing authority, since
without their support the media would cease to be economically viable. 
And it is *affluent* audiences that get advertisers interested. As Chomsky
and Herman put it, "The idea that the drive for large audiences makes the
mass media 'democratic' thus suffers from the initial weakness that its
political analogue is a voting system weighted by income!" [Ibid., p.16] 

Political discrimination is therefore structured into advertising
allocations by the emphasis on people with money to buy. In addition,
"many companies will always refuse to do business with ideological enemies
and those whom they perceive as damaging their interests." Thus overt
discrimination adds to the force of the "voting system weighted by
income." Accordingly, large corporate advertisers almost never sponsor
programs that contain serious criticisms of corporate activities, such as
negative ecological impacts, the workings of the military-industrial
complex, or corporate support of and benefits from Third World
dictatorships. More generally, advertisers will want "to avoid programs
with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that interfere with
the 'buying mood.'" [Ibid., p. 18]

This also has had the effect of placing working class and radical papers
at a serious disadvantage. Without access to advertising revenue, even the
most popular paper will fold or price itself out of the market. Chomsky
and Herman cite the UK pro-labour and pro-union _Daily Herald_ as an
example of this process. The Daily Herald had almost double the 
readership of _The Times_, the _Financial Times_ and _The Guardian_
combined, but even with 8.1% of the national circulation it got 3.5%
of net advertising revenue and so could not survive on the "free market".

As Herman and Chomsky note, a "mass movement without any major media support,
and subject to a great deal of active press hostility, suffers a serious
disability, and struggles against grave odds." [Ibid., pp. 15-16] With
the folding of the _Daily Herald_, the labour movement lost its voice in
the mainstream media. 

Thus advertising is an effective filter for new choice (and, indeed,
survival in the market).

D.3.3 Why do the media rely on information provided by government,
      business, and "experts" funded and approved by government and business?

Two of the main reasons for the media's reliance on such sources are
economy and convenience: Bottom-line considerations dictate that the
media concentrate their resources where important news often occurs, where
rumours and leaks are plentiful, and where regular press conferences are
held. The White House, Pentagon, and the State Department, in Washington,
D.C., are centres of such activity.
 
Government and corporate sources also have the great merit of being
recognisable and credible by their status and prestige; moreover, they
have the most money available to produce a flow of news that the media can
use. For example, the Pentagon has a public-information service employing
many thousands of people, spending hundreds of millions of dollars every
year, and far outspending not only the public-information resources of any
dissenting individual or group but the *aggregate* of such groups. 

Only the corporate sector has the resources to produce public information
and propaganda on the scale of the Pentagon and other government bodies. 
The Chamber of Commerce, a business *collective*, had a 1983 budget for
research, communications, and political activities of $65 million. Besides
the US Chamber of Commerce, there are thousands of state and local
chambers of commerce and trade associations also engaged in public
relations and lobbying activities.

To maintain their pre-eminent position as sources, government and
business-news agencies expend much effort to make things easy for news
organisations. They provide the media organisations with facilities in
which to gather, give journalists advance copies of speeches and upcoming
reports; schedule press conferences at hours convenient for those needing
to meet news deadlines; write press releases in language that can be used
with little editing; and carefully organise press conferences and "photo
opportunity" sessions. This means that, in effect, the large
bureaucracies of the power elite *subsidise* the mass media by
contributing to a reduction of the media's costs of acquiring the raw
materials of, and producing, news. In this way, these bureaucracies gain
special access to the media. 

Thus "[e]conomics dictates that they [the media] concentrate their 
resources were significant news often occurs, where important rumours
and leaks abound, and where regular press conferences are held. . .
[Along with state bodies] business corporations and trade groups are
also regular purveyors of stories deemed newsworthy. These bureaucracies
turn out a large volume of material that meets the demands of news
organisations for reliable, scheduled flows." [Ibid., pp. 18-19]

The dominance of official sources would, of course, be weakened by the
existence of highly respectable unofficial sources that gave dissident
views with great authority. To alleviate this problem, the power elite
uses the strategy of "co-opting the experts" -- that is, putting them on
the payroll as consultants, funding their research, and organising think
tanks that will hire them directly and help disseminate the messages deemed
essential to elite interests. "Experts" on TV panel discussions and news
programs are often drawn from such organisations, whose funding comes
primarily from the corporate sector and wealthy families -- a fact that
is, of course, never mentioned on the programs where they appear. 

D.3.4 How is "flak" used by the wealthy and powerful as a means of
      disciplining the media?

"Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. Such
responses may be expressed as phone calls, letters, telegrams, e-mail
messages, petitions, lawsuits, speeches, bills before Congress, or other
modes of complaint, threat, or punishment. Flak may be generated by
organisations or it may come from the independent actions of individuals. 
Large-scale flak campaigns, either by organisations or individuals with
substantial resources, can be both uncomfortable and costly to the media. 

Advertisers are very concerned to avoid offending constituencies who might
produce flak, and their demands for inoffensive programming exerts
pressure on the media to avoid certain kinds of facts, positions, or
programs that are likely to call forth flak. The most deterrent kind of
flak comes from business and government, who have the funds to produce it
on a large scale.

For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, the corporate community sponsored
the creation of such institutions as the American Legal Foundation, the
Capital Legal Foundation, the Media Institute, the Center for Media and
Public Affairs, and Accuracy in Media (AIM), which may be regarded as
organisations designed for the specific purpose of producing flak. 
Freedom House is an older US organisation which had a broader design but
whose flak-producing activities became a model for the more recent
organisations. 

The Media Institute, for instance, was set up in 1972 and is funded by
wealthy corporate patrons, sponsoring media monitoring projects,
conferences, and studies of the media. The main focus of its studies and
conferences has been the alleged failure of the media to portray business
accurately and to give adequate weight to the business point of view, but
it also sponsors works such as John Corry's "expose" of alleged left-wing
bias in the mass media. 

The government itself is a major producer of flak, regularly attacking,
threatening, and "correcting" the media, trying to contain any deviations
from the established propaganda lines in foreign or domestic policy. 

And, we should note, while the flak machines steadily attack the media,
the media treats them well. While effectively ignoring radical critiques
(such as the "propaganda model"), flak receives respectful attention and
their propagandistic role and links to corporations and a wider right-wing
program rarely mentioned or analysed.

D.3.5 Why do the power elite use "anticommunism" as a national religion 
      and control mechanism? 

"Communism," or indeed any form of socialism, is of course regarded as the
ultimate evil by the corporate rich, since the ideas of collective
ownership of productive assets, giving workers more bargaining power, or
allowing ordinary citizens more voice in public policy decisions threatens
the very root of the class position and superior status of the elite. 

Hence the ideology of anticommunism has been very useful, because it can
be used to discredit anybody advocating policies regarded as harmful to
corporate interests. It also helps to divide the Left and labour
movements, justifies support for pro-US right-wing regimes abroad as
"lesser evils" than communism, and discourages liberals from opposing such
regimes for fear of being branded as heretics from the national religion. 

Since the end of the Cold War, anti-communism has not been used as
extensively as it once was to mobilise support for elite crusades. 
Instead, the "Drug War" or "anti-terrorism" now often provide the public
with "official enemies" to hate and fear. Thus the Drug War was the 
excuse for the Bush administration's invasion of Panama, and "fighting 
narco-terrorists" has more recently been the official reason for 
shipping military hardware and surveillance equipment to Mexico (where 
it's actually being used against the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas, whose 
uprising is threatening to destabilise the country and endanger US 
investments). 

Of course there are still a few official communist enemy states, like
North Korea, Cuba, and China, and abuses or human rights violations in
these countries are systematically played up by the media while similar
abuses in client states are downplayed or ignored. Chomsky and Herman
refer to the victims of abuses in enemy states as *worthy victims,* while
victims who suffer at the hands of US clients or friends are *unworthy
victims.* Stories about worthy victims are often made the subject of
sustained propaganda campaigns, to score political points against
enemies. 

"If the government of corporate community and the media feel that a story
is useful as well as dramatic, they focus on it intensively and use it to
enlighten the public. This was true, for example, of the shooting down by
the Soviets of the Korean airliner KAL 007 in early September 1983, which
permitted an extended campaign of denigration of an official enemy and
greatly advanced Reagan administration arms plans." 

"In sharp contrast, the shooting down by Israel of a Libyan civilian
airliner in February 1973 led to no outcry in the West, no denunciations
for 'cold-blooded murder,' and no boycott. This difference in treatment
was explained by the _New York Times_ precisely on the grounds of
utility: 'No useful purpose is served by an acrimonious debate over the
assignment of blame for the downing of a Libyan airliner in the Sinai
peninsula last week.' There *was* a very 'useful purpose' served by
focusing on the Soviet act, and a massive propaganda campaign ensued."
[Ibid., p. 32]

D.3.6 Isn't it a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that the media are used as
      propaganda instruments by the elite?

Chomsky and Herman address this charge in the Preface to _Manufacturing
Consent_: "Institutional critiques such as we present in this book are
commonly dismissed by establishment commentators as 'conspiracy theories,'
but this is merely an evasion. We do not use any kind of 'conspiracy'
hypothesis to explain mass-media performance. In fact, our treatment is
much closer to a 'free market' analysis, with the results largely an
outcome of the workings of market forces." 

They go on to suggest what some of these "market forces" are. One of the
most important is the weeding-out process that determines who gets the
journalistic jobs in the major media. "Most biased choices in the media
arise from the preselection of right-thinking people, internalised
preconceptions, and the adaptation of personnel to the constraints of
ownership, organisation, market, and political power." 

In other words, important media employees learn to internalise the values 
of their bosses. "Censorship is largely self-censorship, by reporters and 
commentators who adjust to the realities of source and media organisational 
requirements, and by people at higher levels within media organisations who 
are chosen to implement, and have usually internalised, the constraints
imposed by proprietary and other market and governmental centres of power." 
[Ibid., p. xii]

But, it may be asked, isn't it still a conspiracy theory to suggest
that media leaders all have similar values? Not at all. Such leaders
"do similar things because they see the world through the same lenses, are
subject to similar constraints and incentives, and thus feature stories or
maintain silence together in tacit collective action and leader-follower
behaviour." [Ibid.] 

The fact that media leaders share the same fundamental values does not
mean, however, that the media are a solid monolith on all issues. The
powerful often disagree on the tactics needed to attain generally shared
aims, and this gets reflected in media debate. But views that challenge
the legitimacy of those aims or suggest that state power is being
exercised in elite interests rather than the "national" interest" will 
be excluded from the mass media. 

Therefore the "propaganda model" has as little in common with a "conspiracy 
theory" as saying that the management of General Motors acts to maintain 
and increase its profits.

D.3.7 Isn't the "propaganda thesis" about the media contradicted by the
      "adversarial" nature of much media reporting, e.g. its exposes of
      government and business corruption? 

As noted above, the claim that the media are "adversarial" or (more
implausibly) that they have a "left-wing bias" is due to right-wing PR
organisations. This means that some "inconvenient facts" are occasionally
allowed to pass through the filters in order to give the *appearance* of
"objectivity"-- precisely so the media can deny charges of engaging in
propaganda. As Chomsky and Herman put it: "the 'naturalness' of these
processes, with inconvenient facts allowed sparingly and within the proper
framework of assumptions, and fundamental dissent virtually excluded from
the mass media (but permitted in a marginalised press), makes for a
propaganda system that is far more credible and effective in putting over
a patriotic agenda than one with official censorship." [Ibid., Preface]

To support their case against the "adversarial" nature of the media, 
Herman and Chomsky look into the claims of such right-wing media 
PR machines as Freedom House. However, it is soon discovered that 
"the very examples offered in praise of the media for their independence, 
or criticism of their excessive zeal, illustrate exactly the opposite." 
[Ibid.] Such flak, while being worthless as serious analysis, does help 
to reinforce the myth of an "adversarial media" (on the right the "existing 
level of subordination to state authority is often deemed unsatisfactory" 
and *this* is the source of their criticism! [Ibid., p. 301]) and so
is taken seriously by the media.

Therefore the "adversarial" nature of the media is a myth, but this
is not to imply that the media does not present critical analysis.
Herman and Chomsky in fact argue that the "mass media are not a solid
monolith on all issues." [Ibid., p. xii] and do not deny that it does
present facts (which they do sometimes themselves cite). But, as they
argue, "[t]hat the media provide some facts about an issue. . . proves
absolutely nothing about the adequacy or accuracy of that coverage. The
mass media do, in fact, literally suppress a great deal . . . But even
more important in this context is the question given to a fact - its
placement, tone, and repetitions, the framework within which it is
presented, and the related facts that accompany it and give it meaning
(or provide understanding) . . . there is no merit to the pretence that
because certain facts may be found by a diligent and sceptical researcher,
the absence of radical bias and de facto suppression is thereby 
demonstrated." [Ibid., pp xiv-xv]

D.4 What is the relationship between capitalism and the ecological crisis?

Environmental damage has reached alarming proportions. Almost daily there
are new upwardly revised estimates of the severity of global warming,
ozone destruction, topsoil loss, oxygen depletion from the clearing of
rain forests, acid rain, toxic wastes and pesticide residues in food and
water, the accelerating extinction rate of natural species, etc., etc.
Some scientists now believe that there may be as little as 35 years to act
before vital ecosystems are irreparably damaged and massive human die-offs
begin [Donella M. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers, _Beyond
the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable
Future_, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992]. Or, as Kirkpatrick Sale
puts it, "the planet is on the road to, perhaps on the verge of, global
ecocide." ["Bioregionalism -- A Sense of Place," _The Nation_ 12: 
336-339] 

Many anarchists see the ecological crisis as rooted in the psychology of
domination, which emerged with the rise of patriarchy, slavery, and the
first primitive states during the Late Neolithic. Murray Bookchin, one of
the pioneers of eco-anarchism (see section E), points out that "[t]he
hierarchies, classes, propertied forms, and statist institutions that
emerged with social domination were carried over conceptually into
humanity's relationship with nature. Nature too became increasingly
regarded as a mere resource, an object, a raw material to be exploited as
ruthlessly as slaves on a latifundium." [_Toward an Ecological Society_ 
p. 41] In his view, without uprooting the psychology of domination, 
all attempts to stave off ecological catastrophe are likely to be 
mere palliatives and so doomed to failure. 

Bookchin argues that "the conflict between humanity and nature is an
extension of the conflict between human and human. Unless the ecology
movement encompasses the problem of domination in all its aspects, it
will contribute *nothing* toward eliminating the root causes of the
ecological crisis of our time. If the ecology movement stops at
mere reformism in pollution and conservation control - at mere 
'environmentalism' - without dealing radically with the need for an
expanded concept of revolution, it will merely serve as a safety
value for the existing system of natural and human exploitation."
[Ibid., p. 43]

Since capitalism is the vehicle through which the psychology of
domination finds its most ecologically destructive outlet, most
eco-anarchists give the highest priority to dismantling capitalism. 
"Literally, the system in its endless devouring of nature will reduce the
entire biosphere to the fragile simplicity of our desert and arctic
biomes. We will be reversing the process of organic evolution which has
differentiated flora and fauna into increasingly complex forms and
relationships, thereby creating a simpler and less stable world of life. 
The consequences of this appalling regression are predictable enough in
the long run -- the biosphere will become so fragile that it will
eventually collapse from the standpoint human survival needs and remove
the organic preconditions for human life. That this will eventuate from a
society based on production for the sake of production is . . .merely a
matter of time, although when it will occur is impossible to predict." 
[Ibid., p. 68]

It's important to stress that capitalism must be *eliminated* because it
*cannot* reform itself so as to become "environment friendly," contrary to
the claims of so-called "green" capitalists. This is because "[c]apitalism 
not only validates precapitalist notions of the domination of nature, . . . 
it turns the plunder of nature into society's law of life. To quibble with
this kind of system about its values, to try to frighten it with visions
about the consequences of growth is to quarrel with its very metabolism. 
One might more easily persuade a green plant to desist from photosynthesis
than to ask the bourgeois economy to desist from capital accumulation." 
[Ibid., p. 66] 

Thus capitalism causes ecological destruction because it is based upon
domination (of human over human and so humanity over nature) and 
continual, endless growth (for without growth, capitalism would die).

D.4.1 Why must capitalist firms "grow or die?"

Industrial production has increased fifty fold since 1950. Obviously such
expansion in a finite environment cannot go on indefinitely without
disastrous consequences. Yet, as the quotation above suggests, it is
impossible *in principle* for capitalism to kick its addiction to
growth. It is important to understand why. 

Capitalism is based on production for profit. In order to stay
profitable, a firm must be able to produce goods and services cheaply
enough to compete with other firms in the same industry. If one firm
increases its productivity (as all firms must try to do), it will be able
to produce more cheaply, thus undercutting its competition and capturing
more market share, until eventually it forces less profitable firms into
bankruptcy. Moreover, as companies with higher productivity/profitability
expand, they often realise economies of scale (e.g. getting bulk rates on
larger quantities of raw materials), thus giving them even more of a
competitive advantage over less productive/profitable enterprises. 
Hence, constantly increasing productivity is essential for survival. 

There are two ways to increase productivity, either by increasing the
exploitation of workers (e.g. longer hours and/or more intense work for 
the same amount of pay) or by introducing new technologies that reduce 
the amount of labour necessary to produce the same product or service. 
Due to the struggle of workers to prevent increases in the level of their
exploitation, new technologies are the main way that productivity is
increased under capitalism (though of course capitalists are always
looking for ways to increase the exploitation of workers on a given
technology by other means as well). 

But new technologies are expensive, which means that in order to pay for
continuous upgrades, a firm must continually sell *more* of what it
produces, and so must keep expanding its capital (machinery, floor space,
workers, etc.). Indeed, to stay in the same place under capitalism is to
tempt crisis - thus a firm must always strive for more profits and thus
must always expand and invest. In other words, in order to survive, a firm 
must constantly expand and upgrade its capital and production levels so it 
can sell enough to *keep* expanding and upgrading its capital -- i.e. "grow 
or die," or "production for the sake of production." 

Thus it is impossible in principle for capitalism to solve the ecological
crisis, because "grow or die" is inherent in its nature: 

"To speak of 'limits to growth' under a capitalistic market economy is as 
meaningless as to speak of limits of warfare under a warrior society. The 
moral pieties, that are voiced today by many well-meaning environmentalists,
are as naive as the moral pieties of multinationals are manipulative.
Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being
can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing. Attempts to 'green' capitalism, to
make it 'ecological', are doomed by the very nature of the system as a
system of endless growth." [Murray Bookchin, _Remaking Society_, 
pp. 93-94] 

As long as capitalism exists, it will *necessarily* continue its "endless 
devouring of nature," until it removes the "organic preconditions for human 
life." For this reason there can be no compromise with capitalism: We must
destroy it before it destroys us. And time is running out. 

Capitalists, of course, do not accept this conclusion. Most simply ignore
the evidence or view the situation through rose-coloured spectacles,
maintaining that ecological problems are not as serious as they seem or
that science will find a way to solve them before it's too late. Right
libertarians tend to take this approach, but they also argue that a
genuinely free market capitalism would provide solutions to the ecological 
crisis. In section E we will show why these arguments are unsound and why
libertarian socialism is our best hope for preventing ecological
catastrophe.

D.5 What causes imperialism?

In a word: power. Imperialism is the process by which one country 
dominates another directly, by political means, or indirectly, by 
economic means in order to steal its wealth (either natural or
produced). This, by necessity, means to exploit the exploitation
of working people in the dominated nation and can also aid the
exploitation of working people elsewhere. As such, imperialism 
cannot be considered in isolation from the dominant economic 
and social system. Fundamentally the cause is the same 
inequality of power, which is used in the service of 
exploitation.

As we will discuss in the following sections, imperialism has changed 
over time, particularly during the last two hundred years (where its 
forms and methods have evolved with the evolving needs of capitalism). 
But even in the classic days of empire building imperialism was driven 
by economic forces and needs. In order to make one's state secure, 
in order to increase the wealth available to the state, its ruling
bureaucracy and its associated ruling class, it had to be based 
on a strong economy and have a sufficient resource base. By 
increasing the area controlled by the state, one increased the 
wealth available. 

States by their nature, like capital, are expansionist bodies, 
with those who run them always wanting to increase the range of 
their power and influence. This can be best seen from the massive 
number of wars that have occurred in Europe over the last 500 years, 
as nation-states were created by Kings declaring lands to be their 
private property. Moreover, this conflict did not end when 
monarchies were replaced by more democratic forms of government.
As Bakunin argued:

"we find wars of extermination, wars among races and nations;
wars of conquest, wars to maintain equilibrium, political and
religious wars, wars waged in the name of 'great ideas' . . .
And what do we find beneath all that, beneath all the 
hypocritical phrases used in order to give these wars the 
appearance of humanity and right? Always the same economic
phenomenon: *the tendency on the part of some to live
and prosper at the expense of others* . . . the strong men
who direct the destinies of the State know only too well
that underlying all those wars there is only one motive:
pillage, the seizing of someone else's wealth and the
enslavement of someone else's labour." [_The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 170]

However, while the economic motive for expansion is generally
the same, the economic system which a nation is based on
has a definite impact on what drives that motive and nature
of that imperialism. Thus the empire building of ancient
Rome or Feudal England has a different economic base (and
so driving need) than, say, nineteenth century Germany and 
England or twentieth century (or twenty-first century)
United States. Here we will focus mainly on modern capitalist 
imperialism as it is the only one relevant in the modern 
world.
 
Capitalism, by its very nature, is growth-based and so is 
characterised by the accumulation and concentration of
capital. Companies *must* expand in order to survive 
competition in the marketplace. This, inevitably, sees 
a rise in international activity and organisation as a 
result of competition over markets and resources within 
a given country. By expanding into new markets in new
countries, a company can gain an advantage over its
competitors as well as overcome limited markets and 
resources in the home nation.

Hence capitalism is inevitably imperialistic. Regardless of 
recent claims, capital has always been global. International 
trade has always existed and, indeed, has always played a 
key role in its development (mercantilism, for example, 
manipulated international trade to enhance the accumulation 
of capital). The capitalist system is the most adaptable 
and voracious in history. From its beginning its components
(individual companies, states and capital) have been driven 
by the need to constantly expand or die; the changes that 
have occurred in recent years are an expression of this 
need. As Bakunin argued: 

"just as capitalist production and banking speculation, 
which in the long run swallows up that production, must, 
under the threat of bankruptcy, ceaselessly expand
at the expense of the small financial and productive
enterprises which they absorb, must become universal, 
monopolistic enterprises extending all over the world
-- so this modern and necessarily military State is
driven on by an irrepressible urge to become a universal
State. . . . Hegemony is only a modest manifestation possible
under the circumstances, of this unrealisable urge inherent
in every State. And the first condition of this hegemony
is the relative impotence and subjection of all the
neighbouring States." [Op. Cit., p. 210]

Therefore, economically and politically, the imperialistic
activities of *both* capitalist and state-capitalist (i.e.
the Soviet Union and other "socialist" nations) comes as
no surprise. The changing nature of modern imperialism can be 
roughly linked to developments within the capitalist economy
(see next section). However, the growth of big business to
gain advantage in and survive competition is the key, as 
the size of companies ensure that they *have* to be 
international.

As power depends on profits within capitalism, this means 
that modern imperialism is caused more by economic factors 
than purely political considerations (although, obviously, 
this factor does play a role). As will be seen in section 
D.5.1, imperialism serves capital by increasing the pool 
of profits available for the imperialistic country in the 
world market as well as reducing the number of potential
competitors. As Kropotkin stressed:

"[C]apital knows no fatherland; and if high profits can 
be derived from the work of Indian coolies whose wages
are only one-half of those of English [i.e. British] 
workmen [or women], or even less, capital will migrate
to India, as it has gone to Russian, although its 
migration may mean starvation for Lancashire and
Dundee." [_Fields, Factories and Workshops_, p. 57]

Therefore, capital will travel to where it can maximise
its profits -- regardless of the human or environmental
costs at home or in the foreign land. This is the economic 
base for imperialism, to ensure that any trade conducted 
benefits the stronger party more than the weaker one. Whether
this trade is between nations or between classes is irrelevant,
the aim of imperialism is to give business an advantage on
the market. By travelling to where labour is cheap and the
labour movement weak (usually thanks to dictatorial regimes),
environmental laws few or non-existent, and little stands
in the way of corporate power, big business can maximise
its profits. Moreover, the export of capital allows a 
reduction in the competitive pressures faced by companies 
in the home markets (at least for short periods).

This has two effects. Firstly, the industrially developed 
nation (or, more correctly corporation based in that nation) 
can exploit less developed nations. In this way, the dominant 
power can maximise for itself the benefits created by 
international trade. If, as some claim, trade always benefits
each party, then imperialism allows the benefits of international
trade to accrue more to one side than the other. Secondly, it 
gives big business more weapons to use to weaken the position 
of labour in the imperialist nation. This, again, allows the
benefits of trade (this time the trade of workers liberty
for wages) to accrue to more to business rather than to labour.

How this is done and in what manner varies and changes, but 
the aim is always the same -- exploitation.

This exploitation can be done in many ways. For example,
allowing the import of cheaper raw materials and goods, the 
export of goods to markets sheltered from foreign competitors 
and the export of capital from capital-rich areas to 
capital-poor areas. The investing of capital in less 
industrially developed countries allows the capitalists
in question to benefit from lower wages, for example, or from 
fewer environmental and social controls and laws. All these 
allow profits to be gathered at the expense of the working 
people of the oppressed nation (the rulers of these nations 
generally do well out of imperialism, as would be expected). 
The initial source of exported capital is, of course, 
the exploitation of labour at home but it is exported 
to less developed countries where capital is scarcer, 
the price of land lower, wages lower, and raw materials 
cheaper. These factors all contribute to enlarging profit 
margins:

"The relationship of these global corporations
with the poorer countries had long been an exploiting
one . . . Whereas U.S. corporations in Europe between
1950 and 1965 invested $8.1 billion and made $5.5
billion in profits, in Latin America they invested
$3.8 billion and made $11.2 billion in profits,
and in Africa they invested $5.2 billion and made
$14.3 bullion in profits." [Howard Zinn, _A People's
History of the United States_, p. 556] 

Betsy Hartman, looking at the 1980s, concurs. "Despite
the popular Western image of the Third World as a
bottomless begging bowl," she observes, "it today
gives more to the industrialised world than it takes.
Inflows of official 'aid' and private loans and
investments are exceeded by outflows in the form of
repatriated profits, interest payments, and private
capital sent abroad by Third World Elites." [quoted
by George Bradford, _Woman's Freedom: Key to the
Population Question_, p. 77] 

In addition, imperialism allows big business to increase its 
strength with respect to its workforce in the imperialist
nation by the threat of switching production to other
countries or by using foreign investments to ride out
strikes (also see section D.5.3). While the "home" working 
class are still exploited and oppressed, their continual 
attempts at organising and resisting their exploiters 
proved more and more successful. As such, imperialism
(like capitalism) is not only driven by the need to
increase profits (important as this is, of course), it 
is also driven by the class struggle -- the need for 
capital to escape from the strength of the working class 
in a particular country (this process played a key role 
in the rise of globalisation -- see section D.5.3). From
this perspective, the export of capital can be seen in two
ways. Firstly, as a means of disciplining rebellious workers
at home by an "investment strike" (capital, in effect, runs
away, so causing unemployment). Secondly, as a way to 
increase the 'reserve army' of the unemployed facing 
working people in the imperialist nations by creating new
competitors for their jobs (i.e. dividing, and so ruling,
workers by playing one set of workers against another).
Both are related, of course, and both seek to weaken 
working class power by the fear of unemployment.

Thus imperialism, which is rooted in the search from surplus
profits for big business, is also a response to working class 
power at home. The export of capital is done by emerging
and established transnational companies to overcome working 
class consciousness which is often too advanced for heavy 
exploitation (i.e. huge profit margins), and finance capital 
can make easier and bigger profits by investing productive 
capital elsewhere. 

Imperialism has another function, namely to hinder or
control the industrialisation of other countries. Such
industrialisation will, of course, mean the emergence of
new capitalists, who will compete with the existing
ones both in the "less developed" countries and in the
world market as a whole. Imperialism, therefore, reduces 
competition on the world market. As we discuss in 
the next section, the nineteenth century saw 
the industrialisation of many European nations 
as well as America, Japan and Russia. However, this 
process of industrialisation conducted by other 
countries had a drawback. It means that more
and more competitors can entry the world market. 
Moreover, as Kropotkin noted, they has the advantage
that the "new manufacturers . . . begin where" the
old have "arrived after a century of experiments and
groupings" and so they "are built according to the
newest and best models which have been worked out
elsewhere." [Op. Cit., p. 32 and p. 49] Hence the 
need to stop new competitors, which was achieved
by colonialism in the late nineteenth century:

"Industries of all kinds decentralise and are
scattered all over the globe; and everywhere a
variety, an integrated variety, of trades grows,
instead of specialisation . . . each nation becomes
in its turn a manufacturing nation . . . For each
new-comer the first steps only are difficult . . .
The fact is so well felt, if not understood, that
the race for colonies has become the distinctive
feature of the last twenty years [Kropotkin is
writing in 1912]. Each nation will have her own
colonies. But colonies will not help." [Op. Cit.,
p. 75]

As such, imperialism can also be considered as a means
of hindering (or controlling) industrialisation, of 
hindering the development of new competitors on the 
world market to existing big business operating on
the international market. It also aids the bargaining
position of business by pitting the workers in one
country against another, so while they are being
exploited by the same set of bosses, those bosses
can use this fictional "competition" of foreign workers
to squeeze concessions from workers at home.
 
Imperialism hinders industrialisation in two ways. 
The first way was direct colonisation. The second
is by indirect means -- namely the extraction of
profits by international big business.

A directly dominated country can be stopped from 
developing industry and be forced to specialise as
a provider of raw materials. This was the aim of "classic"
imperialism, with its empires and colonial wars. This
approach has been superseded by indirect means (see
next section).

When capital is invested in foreign nations, the 
surplus value extracted from the workers in those 
nations are not re-invested in those nations. Rather a 
sizeable part of it returns to the base nation of the 
corporation (in the form of profits for that company). 
Indeed, that is to be expected as the whole reason for 
the investment of capital in the first place was to 
get more out of the country than the corporation put 
into it. Instead of this surplus value being re-invested 
into industry in the less-developed nation (as would be
the case with home-grown exploiters, who are dependent
on local markets) it ends up in the hands of foreign 
exploiters who take them out of the dominated country. 
This means that industrial development as less 
resources to draw on, making the local ruling class 
dependent on foreign capital and its whims. By means 
of colonisation, the imperialist powers ensure that 
the less-developed nation stays that way -- so 
ensuring one less competitor as well as favourable 
access to raw materials and cheap labour.

Globalisation can be seen as an intensification of this
process. By codifying into international agreements the 
ability of corporations to sue nation states for violating 
"free trade," the possibility of new competitor nations 
developing is weakened. Industrialisation will be 
dependent on transnational corporations and so
development will be hindered and directed to ensure 
corporate profits and power. Unsurprisingly, those 
nations which *have* industrialised over the last
few decades (such as the East Asian Tiger economies)
have done so by using the state to protect industry 
and control international finance.

The new attack of the capitalist class ("globalisation")
is a means of plundering local capitalists and diminish
their power and area of control. The steady weakening
and ultimate collapse of the Eastern Block (in terms of 
economic/political performance and ideological appeal) 
also played a role in this process. The end of the Cold 
War meant a reduction in the space available for local
elites to manoeuvre. Before this local ruling classes 
could, if they were lucky, use the struggle between 
US and USSR imperialism to give them a breathing 
space in which they could exploit to pursue their 
own agenda (within limits, of course, and with the 
blessing of the imperialist power in whose orbit
they were in). The Eastern Tiger economies were an
example of this process at work. The West could use them
in the ideological conflict of the Cold War as an example 
of the benefits of the "free market" (not that they were) 
and the ruling elites, while maintaining a pro-west
and pro-business environment (by force directed against
their own populations, of course), could pursue their
own economic strategies. With the end of the Cold War,
this factor is no longer in play and these elites are
now "encouraged" (by economic blackmail via the World
Bank and the IMF) to embrace US economic ideology.
Just as neo-liberalism attacks the welfare state in
the Imperialist nations, so it results in a lower
tolerance of local capital in "less developed" nations.

Imperialism, then, is basically the ability of countries to 
globally and locally dictate trade relations and investments
with other countries in such a way as to gain an advantage 
over the other countries. This can be done directly (by 
means of invasion and colonies) or indirectly (by means 
of economic and political power). Which method is used 
depends on the specific circumstances facing the countries 
in question. Moreover, it depends on the balance of class 
forces within each country as well (for example, a nation
with a militant working class would be less likely to pursue 
a war policy due to the social costs involved). However, the 
aim of imperialism is always to enrich and empower the 
capitalist and bureaucratic classes.

This struggle for markets and resources does, by necessity,
lead to conflict. This may be the wars of conquest required
to initially dominate an economically "backward" nation 
(such as the US invasion of the Philippines, the conquest
of Africa by West European states, and so on) or maintain 
that dominance once it has been achieved (such as the Vietnam 
War, the Algerian War, the Gulf War and so on). Or it may be 
the wars between major imperialist powers once the competition 
for markets and colonies reaches a point when they cannot be 
settled peacefully (as in the First and Second World Wars). 

As Kropotkin argued, "men no longer fight for the 
pleasure of kings, they fight for the integrity 
of revenues and for the growing wealth  . . . [for the] 
benefit of the barons of high finance and industry . . . 
[P]olitical preponderance . . . is quite simply a matter
of economic preponderance in international markets. What
Germany, France, Russia, England, and Austria are all
trying to win . . . is not military preponderance: it
is economic domination. It is the right to impose their
goods and their customs tariffs on their neighbours; the
right to exploit industrially backward peoples; the
privilege of building railroads . . . to appropriate
from a neighbour either a port which will activate 
commerce, or a province where surplus merchandise can
be unloaded." He stressed that "[w]hen we fight today,
it is to guarantee our great industrialists a profit
of 30%, to assure the financial barons their domination
at the Bourse [stock-exchange], and to provide the
shareholders of mines and railways with their incomes."
[_Words of a Rebel_, pp. 65-6]

In summary, imperialism has always served the interests of 
Capital. If it did not, if imperialism was bad for business, 
the business class would have opposed it. This partly explains 
why the colonialism of the 19th century is no more (the other 
reasons being social resistance to foreign domination, which 
obviously helped to make imperialism bad for business as well,
and the need for US imperialism to gain access to these markets
after the second world war). There are now more cost-effective 
means than direct colonialism to ensure that "underdeveloped" 
countries remain open to exploitation by foreign capital. Once 
the costs exceeded the benefits, colonialist imperialism changed 
into the neo-colonialism of multinationals, political influence, 
and the threat of force (see next section). Moreover, we must
not forget that any change in imperialism relates to changes
in the underlying economic system. 

Obviously anarchists are opposed to imperialism and imperialistic 
wars. The Cuban anarchists spoke for all of us when they stated
that they were "against all forms of imperialism and colonialism;
against the economic domination of peoples . . . against military
pressure to impose upon peoples political and economic system
foreign to their national cultures, customs and social systems
. . . We believe that among the nations of the world, the small
are as worthy as the big. Just as we remain enemies of national
states because each of them hold its own people in subjection;
so also are we opposed to the super-states that utilise their
political, economic and military power to impose their rapacious
systems of exploitation on weaker countries. As against all
forms of imperialism, we declare for revolutionary
internationalism; for the creation of great confederations
of free peoples for their mutual interests; for solidarity
and mutual aid." [quoted by Sam Dolgoff, _The Cuban 
Revolution: A Critical Perspective_, p. 138]

It is impossible to be free while dependent on the power of 
another. If the capital one uses is owned by another country, 
one is in no position to resist the demands of that country. 
If you are dependent on foreign corporations and international
finance to invest in your nation, then you have to do what
they want (and so the ruling class will suppress political
and social opposition to please their backers as well as
maintain themselves in power). To be self-governing under 
capitalism, a community or nation must be economically 
independent. The centralisation of capital implied by 
imperialism means that power rests in the hands of a few
others, not with those directly affected by the decisions 
made by that power. Thus capitalism soon makes a 
decentralised economy, and so a free society, impossible. 
As such, anarchists stress decentralisation of industry 
and its integration with agriculture (see section I.3.8)
within the context of socialisation of property and workers'
self-management of production. Only this can ensure that
production meets the needs of all rather than the profits
of a few.

Moreover, anarchists also recognise that economic imperialism
is the parent of cultural and social imperialism. As Takis
Fotopoulos argues, "the marketisation of culture and the
recent liberalisation and deregulation of markets have
contributed significantly to the present cultural
homogenisation, with traditional communities and their
cultures disappearing all over the world and people converted
to consumers of a mass culture produced in the advanced
capitalist countries and particularly the USA." [_Towards
an Inclusive Democracy_, p. 40]

This does not mean that anarchists blindly support national 
liberation movements or any form of nationalism. Anarchists 
oppose nationalism just as much as they oppose imperialism -- 
neither offer a way to a free society (see sections D.6 and 
D.7 for more details). Anarchists, therefore, are not against
globalisation or international links and ties as such. Far
from it, we have always been internationalists and are in
favour of "globalisation from below," one that respects and
encourages diversity and difference while sharing the world.
However, we have no desire to live in a world turned bland
by corporate power and economic imperialism. As such, we
are opposed to capitalist trends which commodify culture
as it commodifies social relationships. We want to make
the world an interesting place to live in and that means
opposing both actual (i.e. physical, political and economic) 
imperialism as well as the cultural and social forms of it.

D.5.1 How has imperialism changed over time?

The development of Imperialism cannot be isolated from the 
general dynamics and tendencies of the capitalist economy. 
Imperialist-capitalism, therefore, is not identical to 
pre-capitalist forms of imperialism, although there can, 
of course, be similarities. As such, it must be viewed as 
an advanced stage of capitalism and not as some kind of 
deviation of it. This kind of imperialism was attained 
by some nations, mostly Western European, in the late 
19th and early 20th-century. Since then it has changed 
and developed as economic and political developments 
occurred, but it is based on the same basic principles.

However, it is useful to describe the history of capitalism
in order to fully understand the place imperialism holds
within it, how it has changed and what functions it provides.

Imperialism has important economic advantages for those who 
run the economy. As the needs of the business class change, 
the forms taken by imperialism also change. We can identify 
three main phases: classic imperialism (i.e. conquest), 
indirect (economic) imperialism, and globalisation. We 
will consider the first two in this section and globalisation 
in section D.5.3. However, for all the talk of globalisation 
in recent years, it is important to remember that capitalism 
has always been an international system, that the changing 
forms of imperialism reflect this international nature and 
that the changes within imperialism are in response to 
developments within capitalism itself.

Capitalism has always been expensive. As we noted in the last
section, this is unsurprising as it is based on "compete or
die," which becomes "grow or die." Under mercantilism, for 
example, the "free" market was nationalised *within* the 
nation state while state aid was used to skew international 
trade on behalf of the home elite and favour the development 
of capitalist industry. This meant using the centralised state
(and its armed might) to break down "internal" barriers and 
customs which hindered the free flow of goods, capital and, 
ultimately, labour. We should stress this as the state has 
always played a key role in the development and protection 
of capitalism. The use of the state to, firstly, protect
infant capitalist manufacturing and, secondly, to create
a "free" market (i.e. free from the customs and interference
of society) should not be forgotten, particularly as this
second ("internal") role is repeated "externally" through
imperialism. Needless to say, this process of "internal"
imperialism within the country by the ruling class by
means of the state was accompanied by extensive violence
against the working class (also see section F.8).

So, state intervention was used to create and ensure its 
dominant position at home by protecting it against foreign 
competition and the recently dispossessed working class. This 
transition from feudal to capitalist economy enjoyed the active 
promotion of the state authorities, whose increasing centralisation 
ran parallel with the growing strength and size of merchant 
capital. It also needed a powerful state to protect its 
international trade, to conquer colonies and to fight for 
control over the world market. The absolutist state was 
used to actively implant, help and develop capitalist trade 
and industry.

The first industrial nation was Britain. After building up 
its industrial base under mercantilism and crushing its 
rivals in various wars, it was in an ideal position to 
dominate the international market. It embraced free trade 
as its unique place as the only capitalist/industrialised
nation in the world market meant that it did not have to 
worry about competition from other nations. Any free 
exchange between unequal traders will benefit the stronger 
party. Thus Britain, could achieve domination in the world 
market by means of free trade. This meant that goods were 
exported rather than capital. 

Faced with the influx of cheap, mass produced goods, existing 
industry in Europe and the Americas faced ruin. As economist
Nicholas Kaldor notes, "the arrival of cheap factory-made
English goods *did* cause a loss of employment and output
of small-scale industry (the artisanate) both in European
countries (where it was later offset by large-scale 
industrialisation brought about by protection) and even
more in India and China, where it was no so offset." 
[_Further Essays on Applied Economics_, p. 238] The 
existing industrial base was crushed, industrialisation 
was aborted and unemployment rose. These countries faced
two possibilities: turn themselves into providers of
raw materials for Britain or violate the principles
of the market and industrialise by protectionism.

In many nations of Western Europe (soon to be followed 
by the USA and Japan), the decision was simple. Faced 
with this competition, these countries utilised the means 
by which Britain had industrialised -- state protection. 
Tariff barriers were raised, state aid was provided and 
industry revived sufficiently to turn these nations into 
successful competitors of Britain. This process was termed 
by Kropotkin as "the consecutive development of nations" 
(although he underestimated the importance of state
aid in this process). [_Fields, Factories and Workshops_,
p. 49] No nation, he argued, would let itself become 
specialised as the provider of raw materials or the 
manufacturer of a few commodities but would diversify 
into many different lines of production. Obviously no 
national ruling class would want to see itself be 
dependent on another and so industrial development 
was essential (regardless of the wishes of the general
population). Thus a nation in such a situation "tries
to emancipate herself from her dependency . . . and
rapidly begins to manufacture all those goods she
used to import." [Op. Cit., p. 32]

Protectionism may have violated the laws of neo-classical 
economics, but it proved essential for industrialisation. 
While, as Kropotkin argued, protectionism ensured 
"the high profits of those manufacturers who do not
improve their factories and chiefly reply upon cheap
labour and long hours," it also meant that these profits 
would be used to finance industry and develop an industrial 
base. [Op. Cit., p. 41] Without this state aid, it is 
doubtful that these countries would have industrialised
(as Kaldor notes, "all the present 'developed' or
'industrialised' countries established their industries
through 'import substitution' by means of protective
tariffs and/or differential subsidies." [Op. Cit.,
p. 127]).

Within the industrialising country, the usual process of 
competition driving out competitors continued. More and 
more markets became dominated by big business (although, 
as Kropotkin stressed, without totally eliminating smaller 
workshops within an industry and even creating more around 
them). Oligopoly marked the national economies of the most 
advanced capitalist nations as a means of creating "an
amalgamation of capitalists for the purpose of *dominating 
the market, not for cheapening the technical process.*" 
[Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 354] Indeed, as Maximoff stressed,
the "specific character of Imperialism is . . . the
concentration and centralisation of capital in syndicates,
trusts and cartels, which . . . have a decisive voice,
not only in the economic and political life of their
countries, but also in the life of the nations of the
worlds a whole." [_Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism_,
p. 10] The modern multi-national and transnational
corporations are the latest expression of this process.
Simply put, the size of big business was such that
it had to expand internationally as their original
national markets were not sufficient and to gain further
advantages over their competitors.

Faced with high tariff barriers and rising international 
competition, industry responded in two ways: export of
capital and increased concentration of capital. 

The latter was essential to gain an advantage against 
foreign competitors and dominate the international 
market as they had dominated the national one. So 
the imperialist form of capitalism sees the rise 
of big business and big finance.

In addition to the export of finished goods, capital 
(investment, venture, and finance capital) is also 
exported. This export of capital was an essential way 
of beating protectionism (and even reap benefits from it)
and gain a foothold in foreign markets ("protective duties
have no doubt contributed . . . towards attracting German
and English manufacturers to Poland and Russia" [Kropotkin,
Op. Cit., p. 41]). In addition, it allowed access to cheap 
labour and raw materials by placing capital in foreign lands
As part of this process colonies were seized to increase the 
size of "friendly" markets and, of course, allow the easy 
export of capital into areas with cheap labour and raw
materials. These two processes are both driven by the 
needs of capital to accumulate.

This form of imperialism, which arose in the late nineteenth
century, was based on the creation of larger and larger
businesses and the creation of colonies across the globe
by the industrialised nations. Direct conquest had the 
advantage of opening up more of the planet for the 
capitalist market, thus leading to more trade and 
exploitation of raw materials and labour (and often 
slavery as well). This gave a massive boost to both 
the state and the industries of the invading country 
in terms of new profits, so allowing an increase 
in the number of capitalists and other social parasites 
that could exist in the developed nation. As Kropotkin 
noted at the time, "British, French, Belgian and other 
capitalists, by means of the ease with which they 
exploit countries which themselves have no developed 
industry, today control the labour of hundreds of 
millions of those people in Eastern Europe, Asia, 
and Africa. The result is that the number of those 
people in the leading industrialised countries of 
Europe who live off the work of others doesn't 
gradually decrease at all. Far from it." ["Anarchism 
and Syndicalism", in _Black Flag_ no. 210, p. 26]

As well as gaining access to raw materials, imperialism 
allows the dominating nation to gain access to markets 
for its goods. By having an empire, products produced 
at home can be easily dumped into foreign markets with 
less developed industry, undercutting locally produced 
goods and consequently destroying the local economy 
(and so potential competitors) along with the society 
and culture based on it. Empire building is a good way 
of creating privileged markets for one's goods. By 
eliminating foreign competition, the imperialist nation's
capitalists can charge monopoly prices in the dominated 
country, so ensuring high profit margins for capitalist 
business. This adds with the problems associated with the 
over-production of goods:

"The workman being unable to purchase with their wages the 
riches they are producing, industry must search for new 
markets elsewhere, amidst the middle classes of other
nations. It must find markets, in the East, in Africa, 
anywhere; it must increase, by trade, the number of its 
serfs in Egypt, in India, on the Congo. But everywhere it
finds competitors in other nations which rapidly enter 
into the same line of industrial development. And wars, 
continuous wars, must be fought for the supremacy in the
world-market -- wars for the possession of the East, wars
for getting possession of the seas, wars for the right of
imposing heavy duties on foreign merchandise." [Kropotkin,
_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, pp. 55-6]

This process of expansion into non-capitalist areas also helps 
Capital to weather both the subjective and objective economic 
pressures upon it which cause the business cycle (see section 
C.7 -- "What causes the capitalist business cycle?" for more on 
these). As wealth looted from less industrially developed countries 
is exported back to the home country, profit levels can be
protected both from working-class demands and from any relative 
decline in surplus-value production caused by increased capital 
investment (see section C.2 for more on surplus value). In fact, 
imperialism often allowed the working class of the invading 
country to receive improved wages and living conditions as 
the looted wealth was imported into the country and workers
could fight for, and win, improvements that otherwise would 
have provoked intense class conflict. And as the sons and 
daughters of the poor emigrated to the colonies to make a 
living for themselves on stolen land, the wealth extracted 
from those colonies helped to overcome the reduction in the 
supply of labour at home which would increase its market price. 
This loot also helps reduce competitive pressures on the nation's 
economy. Of course, these advantages of conquest cannot totally 
*stop* the business cycle nor eliminate competition, as the 
imperialistic nations soon discovered. 

Therefore, the "classic" form of imperialism based on direct
conquest and the creation of colonies had numerous advantages
for the imperialist nations and the big business which their
states represented. 

These dominated nations were, in the main, pre-capitalist 
societies. The domination of imperialist powers meant the
importation of capitalist social relationships and institutions
into them, so provoking extensive cultural and physical 
resistance to these attempts of foreign capitalists to 
promote the growth of the free market. However, peasants',
artisans' and tribal people's desires to be "left alone" 
was never respected, and "civilisation" was forced upon 
them "for their own good." As Kropotkin realised, "force 
is necessary to continually bring new 'uncivilised nations' 
under the same conditions [of wage labour]." [_Anarchism 
and Anarchist Communism_, p. 53] Anarchist George Bradford 
also stresses this, arguing that we "should remember that,
historically, colonialism, bringing with it an emerging
capitalist economy and wage system, destroyed the
tradition economies in most countries. By substituting
cash crops and monoculture for forms of sustainable 
agriculture, it destroyed the basic land skills of the
people whom it reduced to plantation workers." [_How
Deep is Deep Ecology_, p. 40] Indeed, this process 
was in many ways similar to the development of capitalism
in the "developed" nations, with the creation of a class
of landless workers who forms the nucleus of the first
generation of people given up to the mercy of the
manufacturers (see section F.8.3 for details).

However, this process had objective limitations. Firstly,
the expansion of empires had the limitation that there
were only so many potential colonies out there. This
meant that conflicts over markets and colonies was
inevitable (as the states involved knew, and so they
embarked on a policy of building larger and larger
armed forces). As Kropotkin argued before the First 
World War, the real cause of war at the time was "the 
competition for markets and the right to exploit 
nations backward in industry." [quoted by Martin 
Miller, _Kropotkin_, p. 225]

Secondly, the creation of trusts, the export of goods
and the import of cheap raw materials cannot stop the
business cycle nor "buy-off" the working class indefinitely
(i.e. the excess profits of imperialism will never be
enough to grant more and more reforms and improvements
to the working class in the industrialised world). Thus
the need to overcome economic slumps propelled business
to find new ways of dominating the market, up to and
including the use of war to grab new markets and destroy
rivals. Moreover, war was a good way of side tracking
class conflict at home -- which, let us not forget,
had been reaching increasingly larger, more militant
and more radical levels in all the imperialist nations
(see John Zerzan's "Origins and Meaning of WWI" in his
_Elements of Refusal_).

Thus this first phase of imperialism began as the growing 
capitalist economy started to reach the boundaries of 
the nationalised market created by the state within 
its own borders. Imperialism was then used to expand 
the area that could be colonised by the capital 
associated with a given nation-state. This stage 
ended, however, once the dominant powers had carved 
up the planet into different spheres of influence 
and there was nowhere new left to expand. In the 
competition to increase sales and access to cheap 
raw materials and foreign markets, nation-states 
came into conflict with each other. As it was 
obvious that a conflict was brewing, the major 
European countries tried to organise a "balance 
of power." This meant that armies were built and 
navies created to frighten other countries and so 
deter war. Unfortunately, these measures were not 
enough to countermand the economic and power 
processes at play. War did break out, a war over 
empires and influence, a war, it was claimed, 
that would end all wars. As we now know, of 
course, it did not because it did not fight the
root cause of modern wars, capitalism.

After the First World War, the identification of 
nation-state with national capital became even 
more obvious, and can be seen in the rise of 
extensive state intervention to keep capitalism 
going -- for example, the rise of Fascism in Italy 
and Germany and the efforts of "national" governments 
in Britain and the USA to "solve" the economic crisis 
of the Great Depression. However, these attempts to
solve the problems of capital did not work. The 
economic imperatives at work before the first world
war had not gone away. Big business still needed 
markets and raw materials and the statification of
industry under fascism only aided to the problems
associated with imperialism. Another war was only 
a matter of time and when it came most anarchists,
as they had during the first world war, opposed
both sides and called for revolution:

"the present struggle is one between rival Imperialisms
and for the protection of vested interests. The workers
in every country, belonging to the oppressed class,
have nothing in common with these interests and the
political aspirations of the ruling class. Their
immediate struggle is their *emancipation.* *Their*
front line is the workshop and factory, not the 
Maginot Line where they will just rot and die, 
whilst their masters at home pile up their 
ill-gotten gains." ["War Commentary", quoted 
Mark Shipway, _Anti-Parliamentary Communism_, 
p. 170]

After the Second World War, the European countries yielded to 
pressure from the USA and national liberation movements and 
grated many former countries "independence" (often after 
intense conflict). As Kropotkin predicted, such social 
movements were to be expected for with the growth of 
capitalism "the number of people with an interest in 
the capitulation of the capitalist state system also 
increases." [Peter Kropotkin, "Anarchism and Syndicalism", 
in _Black Flag_ no. 210, p. 26] Unfortunately these 
"liberation" movements transformed mass struggle from 
a potential struggle against capitalism into movements 
aiming for independent capitalist nation states. 

Not, we must stress, that the USA was being altruistic in 
its actions, independence for colonies weakened its 
rivals as well as allowing US capital access to those 
markets. 

This process was accompanied by capital expanding 
even more *beyond* the nation-state into multinational 
corporations. The nature of imperialism and imperialistic 
wars has changed accordingly. In addition, the various
successful struggles for National Liberation ensured that 
imperialism had to change itself in face of popular 
resistance. These two factors ensured that the old 
form of imperialism was replaced by a new system of 
"neo-colonialism" in which newly "independent" colonies 
are forced, via political and economic pressure, to open 
their borders to foreign capital. If a state takes up a 
position which the imperial powers consider "bad for 
business," action will be taken, from sanctions to 
outright invasion. Keeping the world open and "free" 
for capitalist exploitation has been America's general 
policy since 1945. It springs directly from the expansion 
requirements of private capital and so cannot be 
fundamentally changed. However, it was also influenced
by the shifting needs resulting from the new political
and economic order and the rivalries existing between
imperialist nations (particularly those of the Cold War).
As such, which method of intervention and the shift 
from direct colonialism to neo-colonialism (and any
"anomalies") can be explained by these conflicts.

Within this basic framework of indirect imperialism,
many "developing" nations did manage to start the process
of industrialising. Partly in response to the Great
Depression, some former colonies started to apply the
policies used so successfully by imperialist nations
like Germany and America in the previous century. They
followed a policy of "import substitution" which meant 
that they tried to manufacture goods like, for instance, 
cars that they had previously imported. Without suggesting 
this sort of policy offered a positive alternative 
(it was, after all, just local capitalism) it did have 
one big disadvantage for the imperialist powers, it 
tended to deny them both markets and cheap raw materials
(the current turn towards globalisation was used to
break these policies). As such, whether a nation pursued
such policies was dependent on the costs involved to
the imperialist power involved. 

So instead of direct rule over less developed nations (which 
generally proved to be too costly, both economically and
politically), indirect forms of domination were now preferred, 
with force resorted to only if "business interests" are 
threatened. Examples of new-style imperialistic wars 
include Vietnam, the US support for the Contras in 
Nicaragua and the Gulf War. Political and economic power 
(e.g. the threat of capital flight or sanctions) is used 
to keep markets open for corporations based in the 
advanced nations, with military intervention being 
used only when required (although the threat of it is
always there). Moreover, the competition between the
USA and the USSR also had an impact. On the one hand,
acts of imperial power could be justified in fighting
"Communism" (for the USA) or "US imperialism" (for the
USSR). On the other, fear of provoking a war or driving
developing nations into the hands of the other side
allowed more leeway for developing nations to pursue
policies like import substitution. However, force always
was the ultimate solution for imperialism, just as it
had been previously.

Least it be considered that we are being excessive in our
analysis, let us not forget that the US "has intervened
well over a hundred times in the internal affairs of other
nations since 1945. The rhetoric has been that we have
done so largely to preserve or restore freedom and
democracy, or on behalf of human rights. The reality has
been that [they] . . . have been consistently designed
and implemented to further the interests of US (now
largely transnational) corporations, and the elites both
at home and abroad who profit from their depredations."
[Henry Rosemont, Jr., "U.S. Foreign Policy: the Execution
of Human Rights", pp. 13-25, _Social Anarchism_, no. 29
p. 13] This has involved the overthrow of democratically
elected governments (such as in Iran, 1953; Guatemala,
1954; Chile, 1973) and their replacement by reactionary
right-wing dictatorships (usually involving the military).
As George Bradford argues, "[i]n light of [the economic] 
looting [by corporations under imperialism], it should 
become clearer . . . why nationalist regimes that cease 
to serve as simple conduits for massive U.S. corporate
exploitation come under such powerful attack --
Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973 . . . Nicaragua [in 
the 1980s] . . . [U.S.] State Department philosophy 
since the 1950s has been to rely on various police 
states and to hold back 'nationalistic regimes' that 
might be more responsive to 'increasing popular demand 
for immediate improvements in the low living standards
of the masses,' in order to 'protect our resources' -- 
in their countries!" [_How Deep is Deep Ecology?_, p. 62]

Capital investments in developing nations have increased 
steadily over the years, with profits from the exploitation 
of cheap labour flowing back into the pockets of the corporate 
elite in the imperialist nation, not to its citizens as a 
whole (though there are sometimes temporary benefits to other 
classes, as discussed below). In addition, other countries are 
"encouraged" to buy imperialist countries' goods (often in 
exchange for "aid", typically military "aid") and open 
their markets to the dominant power's companies and their 
products. Imperialism is the only means of defending the 
foreign investments of a nation's capitalist class, and by 
allowing the extraction of profits and the creation of
markets, it also safeguards the future of private capital.

So, imperialism remained intact, as Western (mostly U.S.
and its junior partner, the U.K.) governments continue 
to provide lavish funds to petty right-wing despots 
under the pseudonym, "foreign aid". The express purpose 
of this foreign aid, noble-sounding rhetoric about 
freedom and democracy aside, is to ensure that the 
existing world order remains intact. "Stability" 
has become the watchword of modern imperialists, who see 
*any* indigenous popular movements as a threat to the 
existing world order.

Foreign aid channelled public funds to the ruling 
classes in Third World countries via home based
transnational companies. The U.S. and other Western 
powers provide much-needed war material and training 
for the military of these governments, so that they may 
continue to keep the business climate friendly to foreign 
investors (that means tacitly and overtly supporting fascism 
around the globe). "Foreign aid", basically, is when the 
poor people of rich countries give their money to the 
rich people of poor countries to ensure that the 
investments of the rich people of rich countries 
is safe from the poor people of poor countries!

(Needless to say, the owners of the companies providing 
this "aid" also do very well out of it.)

Thus, the Third World sags beneath the weight of well-funded 
oppression, while its countries are sucked dry of their 
native wealth, in the name of "development" and in the 
spirit of "democracy and freedom". The United States 
leads the West in its global responsibility (another 
favourite buzzword) to ensure that this peculiar kind 
of "freedom" remains unchallenged by any indigenous 
movements. Thus, the fascist regimes remain compliant 
and obedient to the West, capitalism thrives unchallenged, 
and the plight of people everywhere simply worsens. And 
if a regime becomes too "independent", military force always 
remains an option (as can be seen from the 1990 Gulf War).

Thus, imperialism changes as capitalism changes. The 
history of capitalism generally begins with mercantilism, 
the state aided destruction of petit-bourgeois commodity 
production (artisans, guilds and peasants) by capitalist 
manufacturing. Once capitalist industry has found its 
feet, free competition ("free trade") is embraced, which 
naturally progresses to a concentration of production 
(the rise of big business), which continually strive 
towards monopolies -- although it rarely reaches that 
stage (oligopolistic competition reigns). Major economic 
decisions are made by a few heads of major companies and 
corporations. Big business, while appearing to be 
contrary to the foundations of capitalism, is, in 
fact, its most developed form -- with the world 
turned more and more into one big factory, under 
one management hierarchy. Free association is 
replaced by top-down orders and industrial 
development is distorted by the need to maintain 
and extend corporate power and profits. 

With the increasing globalisation of big business and
markets, capitalism (and so imperialism) is on the 
threshold of a new transformation. Just as direct
imperialism transformed into in-direct imperialism,
so in-direct imperialism is transforming into a global
system of government which aims to codify the domination
of corporations over governments. This process is often
called "globalisation" and we discuss it in section D.5.3.
First, however, we need to discuss non-private capitalist
forms of imperialism associated with the Stalinist regimes
and we do that in the next section.

D.5.2 Is imperialism just a product of private capitalism?

While we are predominantly interested in *capitalist* imperialism,
we cannot avoid discussing the activities of the so-called
"socialist" nations (such as the Soviet Union, China, etc.).
Given that imperialism has an economic base caused in developed
capitalism by, in part, the rise of big business organised on
a wider and wider scale, we should not be surprised that the
state capitalist ("socialist") nations are/were also 
imperialistic. As the state-capitalist system expresses the
logical end point of capital concentration (the one big
firm) the same presses that apply to big business will also
apply to the state capitalist nation (see last section).

Given this, it comes as no surprise that the state-capitalist 
countries also participated in imperialist activities, adventures 
and wars, although on a lesser scale and for slightly different 
reasons. As can be seen by Russia's ruthless policy towards her 
satellites, Soviet imperialism was more inclined to the defence 
of what she already had and the creation of a buffer zone between 
herself and the West. This is not to deny that the ruling elite of
the Soviet Union did not try to exploit the countries under its
influence. For example, in the years after the end of the Second
World War, the Eastern Block countries paid the U.S.S.R. millions
of dollars in reparations. As in private capitalism, the "satellite
states were regarded as a source of raw materials and of cheap
manufactured goods. Russia secured the satellites exports at
below world prices. And it exported to them at above world 
prices." [Andy Anderson, _Hungary '56_, pp. 25-6] 

The Soviet elite also aided "anti-imperialist" movements when it
served their interests and placed them within the Soviet sphere 
of influence (along with US pressure which closed off other options). 
Once the Stalinist parties had replaced the local ruling class,
trade relations were formalised between the so-called "socialist"
nations for the benefit of both the local and Russian rulers.
In a similar way, and for identical needs, the Western Imperialist
powers supported murderous local capitalist and feudal elites in 
their struggle against their own working classes, arguing that it 
was supporting "freedom" and "democracy" against Soviet aggression.

Needless to say, the form and content of the state capitalist 
domination of its satellite countries was dependent on its 
own economic and political structure and needs, just as 
traditional capitalist imperialism reflected its needs and 
structures. Part of the difference was, of course, the need 
to plunder these countries of commodities to make up for 
shortages caused by central planning (in contrast, capitalist 
imperialism tended to export goods).

Just as capitalist domination saw the transformation of
the satellite's countries social relations from pre-capitalist
forms tin favour of capitalist ones, the domination of 
"socialist" nations meant the elimination of traditional 
bourgeois social relations in favour of state capitalist 
ones. As such, the nature and form of imperialism was
fundamentally identical and served the interests of the
appropriate ruling class in each case.

Therefore, imperialism is not limited to states based on 
private capitalism -- the state capitalist regimes have
also been guilty of it. This is to be expected, as both 
are based on minority rule, the exploitation and oppression 
of labour and the need to expand the resources available 
to it.

D.5.3 Does globalisation mean the end of imperialism?

No. While it is true that the size of multinational companies 
has increased along with the mobility of capital, the need for 
nation-states to serve corporate interests still exists. With 
the increased mobility of capital, i.e. its ability to move 
from one country and invest in another easily, and with the 
growth in international money markets, we have seen what can 
be called a "free market" in states developing. Corporations 
can ensure that governments do as they are told simply by 
threatening to move elsewhere (which they will do anyway, 
if it results in more profits).

Therefore, as Howard Zinn stresses, "it's very important to point
out that globalisation is in fact imperialism and that there is a
disadvantage to simply using the term 'globalisation' in a way
that plays into the thinking of people at the World Bank and
journalists . . . who are agog at globalisation. They just can't
contain their joy at the spread of American economic and corporate
power all over the world. . . it would be very good to puncture 
that balloon and say 'This is imperialism.'" [_Bush Drives us
into Bakunin's Arms_]

Globalisation, like the forms of imperialism that came before 
it, cannot be understood unless its history is known. The 
current process of increasing international trade, investment 
and finance markets came about after the late 60s and early 
1970s. Increased competition from a re-built Europe and Japan 
challenged US domination combined with working class struggle 
across the globe to leave the capitalist world feeling the 
strain. Dissatisfaction with factory and office life combined 
with other social movements (such as the women's movement, 
anti-racist struggles, anti-war movements and so on) which 
demanded more than capitalism could provide. The near 
revolution in France, 1968, is the most famous of these 
struggles but it occurred all across the globe.

For the ruling class, the squeeze on profits and authority
from ever-increasing wage demands, strikes, stoppages, boycotts,
squatting, protests and other struggles meant that a solution
had to be found and the working class disciplined (and profits
regained). One part of the solution was to "run away" and so
capital flooded into certain areas of the "developing" world.
This increased the trends towards globalisation. Another
solution  was the embrace of Monetarism and tight money
(i.e. credit) policies. This resulted in increases in the
interest rate, which helped deepen the recessions of the 
early 1980s, which broke the back of working class resistance 
in the U.K. and U.S.A. High unemployment helped to discipline 
a rebellious working class and the new mobility of capital 
meant a virtual "investment strike" against nations which 
had a "poor industrial record" (i.e. workers who were
not obedient wage slaves). 

Moreover, as in any economic crisis, the "degree of monopoly" 
(i.e. the dominance of large firms) in the market increased as 
weaker firms went under and others merged to survive. This 
enhancing the tendencies toward concentration and centralisation 
which always exist in capitalism, so ensuring an extra thrust 
towards global operations as the size and position of the 
surviving firms required wider and larger markets to operate 
in.

Internationally, another crisis played its role in promoting
globalisation. This was the Debit Crisis of the late 1970s and
early 1980s. For many countries Debt plays a central part for 
the western powers in dictating how their economies should be 
organised. The debt crisis proved an ideal leverage for the 
western powers to force "free trade" on the "third world." This 
occurred when third world countries faced with falling incomes 
and rising interest rates defaulted on their loans (loans that
were mainly given as a bribe to the ruling elites of those
countries and used as a means to suppress the working people
of those countries -- who now, ironically, have to repay them!).

Before this, as noted in the section D.5.1, many countries had 
followed a policy of "import substitution." This tended to
create new competitors who could deny transnational 
corporations both markets and cheap raw materials. Instead
of military force, the governments of the west sent in the
IMF and World Bank (WB). The loans required by "developing" nations
in the face of recession and rising debt repayments had little
choice but to agree to an IMF-designed economic reform programme.
If they refused, not only were they denied IMF funds, but also
WB loans. Private banks and lending agencies would also pull
out, as they lent under the cover of the IMF -- the only body
with the power to both underpin loans and squeeze repayment
from debtors.

These policies meant introducing austerity programmes which,
in turn, meant cutting public spending, freezing wages, 
restricting credit, allowing foreign multinational companies 
to cherry pick assets at bargain prices, and passing laws to 
liberalise the flow of capital into and out of the country. 
Not surprisingly, the result was disastrous for the working 
population, but the debts were repaid and both local and 
international elites did very well out of it.

Thus economic factors played a key role in the process. 
Moreover, the size of corporations meant that they could 
not help working on a multinational level (and could 
swallow up local industry). The global market needed 
the global firm (and vice versa). By working on a global 
level, these companies could invest in nations which 
could ensure a favourable business climate by repressing 
workers. So while workers in the West suffered repression 
and hardship, the fate of the working class in the 
"developing" world was considerably worse.

Thus globalisation is, like the forms of imperialism that
preceded it, was a response to both objective economic forces
and the class struggle. Moreover, like the forms that came
before, it is based on the economic power of corporations
based in a few developed nations and political power of the
states that are the home base of these corporations.

So, for better or for worse, globalisation has become the latest 
buzz word to describe the current stage of capitalism and so 
we shall use it here. It use does have positive two side effects 
though. Firstly, it draws attention to the increased size and 
power of transnational corporations and their impact on global 
structures of governance *and* the nation state. Secondly, it 
allows anarchists and other protesters to raise the issue of
international solidarity and a globalisation from below which
respects diversity and is based on people's needs, not profit.

After all, as Rebecca DeWitt stresses, anarchism and the WTO
"are well suited opponents and anarchism is benefiting from
this fight. The WTO is practically the epitome of an
authoritarian structure of power to be fought against. 
People came to Seattle because they knew that it was wrong
to let a secret body of officials make policies unaccountable
to anyone except themselves. A non-elected body, the WTO
is attempting to become more powerful than any national
government . . . For anarchism, the focus of global capitalism
couldn't be more ideal." ["An Anarchist Response to Seattle,"
pp. 5-12, _Social Anarchism_, no. 29, p. 6]

While transnational companies are, perhaps, the most well-known
representatives of this process of globalisation, the power and 
mobility of modern capitalism can be seen from the following 
figures. From 1986 to 1990, foreign exchange transactions rose 
from under $300 billion to $700 billion daily and were expected 
to exceed $1.3 trillion in 1994. The World Bank estimates that 
the total resources of international financial institutions 
at about $14 trillion. To put some kind of perspective on
these figures, the Balse-based Bank for International Settlement 
estimated that the aggregate daily turnover in the foreign 
exchange markets at nearly $900 billion in April 1992, equal 
to 13 times the Gross Domestic Product of the OECD group of 
countries on an annualised basis [_Financial Times_, 23/9/93]. 
In Britain, some $200-300 billion a day flows through
London's foreign exchange markets. This is the equivalent 
of the UK's annual Gross National Product in two or three days.
Needless to say, since the early 1990s, these amounts have
grown to even higher levels (daily currency transactions
have risen from a mere $80 billion in 1980 to $1.26 billion
in 1995. In proportion to world trade, this trading in foreign
exchange rose from a ration of 10:1 to nearly 70:1 [Mark
Weisbrot, _Globalisation for Whom?_]).

Little wonder that a _Financial Times_ special supplement
on the IMF stated that "Wise governments realise that the 
only intelligent response to the challenge of globalisation 
is to make their economies more acceptable" [Op. Cit.] More 
acceptable to business, that is, not their populations. As
Chomsky puts it, "free capital flow creates what's sometimes
called a 'virtual parliament' of global capital, which
can exercise veto power over government policies that it
considers irrational. That means things like labour rights,
or educational programmes, or health, or efforts to stimulate
the economy, or, in fact, anything that might help people
and not profits (and therefore irrational in the technical
sense)." [_Rogue States_, pp. 212-3]

This means that under globalisation, states will compete
with each other to offer the best deals to investors and 
transnational companies -- such as tax breaks, union busting, 
no pollution controls, and so forth. The effects on the 
countries' ordinary people will be ignored in the name of 
future benefits (not so much pie in the sky when you die,
more like pie in the future, maybe, if you are nice and do
what you are told). For example, such an "acceptable" 
business climate was created in Britain, where "market 
forces have deprived workers of rights in the name of 
competition" [_Scotland on Sunday_, 9/1/95] and the 
number of people with less than half the average 
income rose from 9% of the population in 1979 to 
25% in 1993. The share of national wealth held by 
the poorer half of the population has fallen from one 
third to one quarter. However, as would be expected, the 
number of millionaires has increased, as has the welfare 
state for the rich, with the public's tax money being 
used to enrich the few via military Keynesianism, 
privatisation and funding for Research and Development. 
Like any religion, the free-market ideology is marked 
by the hypocrisy of those at the top and the sacrifices 
required from the majority at the bottom.

In addition, the globalisation of capital allows it to 
play one work force against another. For example, General 
Motors plans to close two dozen plants in the United States 
and Canada, but it has become the largest employer in Mexico. 
Why? Because an "economic miracle" has driven wages down. 
Labour's share of personal income in Mexico has "declined 
from 36 percent in the mid-1970's to 23 percent by 1992." 
Elsewhere, General Motors opened a $690 million assembly
plant in the former East Germany. Why? Because there workers
are willing to "work longer hours than their pampered 
colleagues in western Germany" (as the _Financial Times_ 
put it) at 40% of the wage and with few benefits. 
[Noam Chomsky, _World Orders, Old and New_, p. 160]

This mobility is a useful tool in the class war. There
has been "a significant impact of NAFTA on strikebreaking.
About half of union organising efforts are disrupted by
employer threats to transfer production abroad, for
example . . . The threats are not idle. When such 
organising drives succeed, employers close the plant
in whole or in part at triple the pre-NAFTA rate (about
15 percent of the time). Plant-closing threats are almost
twice as high in more mobile industries (e.g. manufacturing
vs. construction)." [_Rogue States_, pp. 139-40] This
process is hardly unique to America, and takes place
all across the world (including in the "developing"
world itself). This process has increased the bargaining 
power of employers and has helped to hold wages down
(while productivity has increased). In the US, the 
share of national income going to corporate profits 
increased by 3.2 percentage points between the last 
business cycle (1989) and 1998. This represents a 
significant redistribution of the economic pie. 
[Mark Weisbrot, Op. Cit.] Hence the need for *international*
workers' organisation and solidarity (as anarchists
have been arguing since Bakunin). 

This means that such agreements such as NAFTA and the
recently shelved (but definitely not forgotten) 
Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) weaken
considerably the governments of nation-states -- but
only in one area, the regulation of business. Such
agreements restrict the ability of governments to
check capital flight, restrict currency trading,
eliminate environment and labour protection laws,
ease the repatriation of profits and anything else
that might impede the flow of profits or reduce
corporate power. Indeed, under NAFTA, corporations 
can sue governments if they think the government is 
hindering its freedom on the market. Disagreements are 
settled by unelected panels outside the control of 
democratic governments. As such, such agreements 
represent an increase in corporate power and ensure 
that states can only intervene when it suits 
corporations, not the general public.

The ability of corporations to sue governments was 
enshrined in chapter 11 of NAFTA. In a small town in 
the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi, a California firm 
-- Metalclad -- a commercial purveyor of hazardous wastes, 
bought an abandoned dump site nearby. It proposed to expand 
on the dumpsite and use it to dump toxic waste material. 
The people in the neighbourhood of the dump site protested. 
The municipality, using powers delegated to it by the state, 
rezoned the site and forbid Metalclad to extend its land 
holdings. Metalclad, under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, then 
sued the Mexican government for damage to its profit 
margins and balance sheet as a result of being treated 
unequally by the people of San Luis Potosi. A trade 
panel, convened in Washington, agreed with the company.
In Canada, the Ethyl corporation sued when the government 
banned its gasoline additive as a health hazard. The 
government settled "out of court" to prevent a public 
spectacle of a corporation overruling the nation's 
Parliament. 

NAFTA and other Free Trade agreements are designed for 
corporations and corporate rule. Chapter 11 was not 
enshrined in the NAFTA in order to make a better world 
for the people of Canada, any more than for the people 
of San Luis Potosi but, instead, for the capitalist elite.

This is an inherently imperialist situation, which will 
"justify" further intervention in the "developing" nations 
by the US and other imperialist nations, either through indirect 
military aid to client regimes or through outright invasion, 
depending on the nature of the "crisis of democracy" (a term 
used by the Trilateral Commission to characterise popular 
uprisings and a politicising of the general public).

However, force is always required to protect private capital. 
Even a globalised capitalist company still requires a defender. 
After all, "[a]t the international level, U.S. corporations
need the government to insure that target countries are
'safe for investment' (no movements for freedom and democracy),
that loans will be repaid, contracts kept, and international
law respected (but only when it is useful to do so)." [Henry
Rosemont, Jr., Op. Cit., p. 18]

Therefore it makes sense for corporations to pick and choose 
between states for the best protection, blackmailing their 
citizens to pay for the armed forces via taxes. For the 
foreseeable future, America seems to be the global rent-a-cop 
of choice. On a local level, capital will move to countries
whose governments supply what it demands and punish those 
which do not. Therefore, far from ending imperialism, 
globalisation will see it continue, but with one major 
difference: the citizens in the imperialist countries will 
see even fewer benefits from imperialism than before, while,
as ever, still having to carry the costs.

So, in spite of claims that governments are powerless
in the face of global capital, we should never forget that
state power has increased drastically in one area -- in
state repression against its own citizens. No matter how
mobile capital is, it still needs to take concrete form
to generate surplus value. Without wage salves, capital
would not survive. As such, it can never permanently escape
from its own contradictions -- wherever it goes, it has
to create workers who have a tendency to disobey and
do problematic things like demand higher wages, better
working conditions, go on strike and so on (indeed, this
fact has seen companies based on "developing" nations
move to less "developed" to find more compliant labour).

This, of course, necessitates a strengthening of the
state in its role as protector of property and as a
defence against any unrest provoked by the inequalities,
impoverishment and despair caused by globalisation
(and, of course, the hope, solidarity and direct action
generated by that unrest within the working class).
Hence the rise of the neo-liberal consensus in both
Britain and the USA saw an increase in the number of
police, police powers and in laws directed against the
labour and radical movements. As Malatesta argued:

"[L]iberalism, is in theory a kind of anarchy without
socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom
is not possible without equality, and real anarchy
cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism.
The criticism liberals direct at government consists
of wanting to deprive it of some of its functions and
to call upon the capitalists to fight it out among
themselves, but it cannot attack the repressive functions
which are of its essence: for with the *gendarme* the
property owner could not exist, indeed the government's
powers of repression must perforce increase as free
competition results in more discord and inequality."
[_Anarchy_, p. 46]

As such, it would be a mistake (as many in the 
anti-globalisation movement do) to contrast the market 
to the state. State and capital are not opposed to each 
other -- in fact, the opposite is the case. The modern 
state exists to protect capitalist rule, just as every 
state exists to defend minority rule, and it is 
essential for nation states to attract and retain capital 
within their borders to ensure their revenue by having a 
suitably strong economy to tax. Globalisation is a 
state-led initiative whose primary aim is to keep 
the economically dominant happy. The states which 
are being "undermined" by globalisation are not 
horrified by this process as certain protestors are, 
which should give pause for thought. States are
complicit in the process of globalisation -- unsurprisingly,
as they represent the ruling elites who favour and benefit
from globalisation.

Moreover, with the advent of a "global market" under 
GATT, corporations still need politicians to act for them 
in creating a "free" market which best suits their interests. 
Therefore, by backing powerful states, corporate elites 
can increase their bargaining powers and help shape the
"New World Order" in their own image.

Governments may be, as Malatesta put it, the property owners 
*gendarme*, but they can be influenced by their subjects, 
unlike multinationals. NAFTA was designed to reduce this 
influence even more. Changes in government policy reflect 
the changing needs of business, modified, of course, by 
fear of the working population and its strength. Which 
explains globalisation -- the need for capital to strengthen 
its position vis-a-vis labour by pitting one labour force 
against -- and our next step, namely to strengthen and 
globalise working class resistance. Only when it is 
clear that the costs of globalisation -- in terms of 
strikes, protests, boycotts, occupations and so on -- 
is higher than potential profits will business turn 
away from it. Only international working class direct 
action and solidarity will get results. Until that 
happens, we will see governments co-operating in the
process of globalisation.

To sum up, globalisation will see imperialism change as 
capitalism itself changes. The need for imperialism remains, 
as the interests of private capital still need to be defended 
against the dispossessed. All that changes is that the 
governments of the imperialistic nations become even 
more accountable to capital and even less to their 
populations.

D.5.4	What is the relationship between imperialism and the social 
	classes within capitalism?

The two main classes within capitalist society are, as we
indicated in section B.7, the ruling class and the working
class. The grey area between these two classes is sometimes 
called the middle class. As would be expected, different
classes have different positions in society and, therefore,
different relationships with imperialism (as befitting their
difference social positions within capitalism).

Moreover, we have to also take into account the differences
resulting from the relative positions of the nations in
question in the world economic and political systems. The
ruling class in imperialist nations will not have identical
interests as those in the dominated ones, for example. As
such, our discussion will have indicate these differences 
as well.

The relationship between the ruling class and imperialism is 
quite simple: It is in favour of it when it supports its 
interests and when the benefits outweigh the costs. Therefore,
for imperialist countries, the ruling class will always be
in favour of expanding their influence and power as long as
it pays dividends. If the costs outweigh the benefits,
of course, sections of the ruling class will argue against
imperialist adventures and wars (as, for example, elements
of the US elite did when it was clear that they would lose
both the Vietnam war and, perhaps, the class war at home
by continuing it).

Moreover, there are strong economic forces at work as well.
Due to capital's need to grow in order to survive and
compete on the market, find new markets and raw materials, 
it needs to expand (as we discussed in section D.5). Consequently, 
it needs to conquer foreign markets and gain access to cheap
raw materials and labour. As such, a nation with a powerful
capitalist economy will need an aggressive and expansionist 
foreign policy, which it achieves by buying politicians, 
initiating media propaganda campaigns, funding right-wing 
think tanks, and so on, as previously described. 

Thus the ruling class benefits from, and so usually supports, 
imperialism -- only, we stress, when the costs out-weight the 
benefits will we see members of the elite oppose it. Which,
of course, explains the elites support for what is termed
"globalisation." Needless to say, the ruling class has done 
*very* well over the last few decades. For example, in the US, 
the gaps between rich and poor *and* between the rich and 
middle income reaching their widest point on record in 1997 
(from the _Congressional Budget Office_ study on Historic 
Effective Tax Rates 1979-1997). The top 1% saw their after-tax 
incomes rise by $414,200 between 1979-97, the middle fifth 
by $3,400 and the bottom fifth fell by -$100. The benefits 
of globalisation are concentrated at the top, as is to be
expected (indeed, almost all of the income gains from 
economic growth between 1989 and 1998 accrued to the top
5% of American families).

Needless to say, the local ruling classes of the dominated
nations may not see it that way. While, of course, local
ruling classes do extremely well from imperialism, they
need not *like* the position of dependence and subordination
they are placed in. Moreover, the steady stream of profits
leaving the country for foreign corporations cannot be used
to enrich local elites even more. Just as the capitalist 
dislikes the state or a union limiting their power or 
taxing/reducing their profits, so the dominated nation's 
ruling class dislikes imperialist domination and will 
seek to ignore or escape it whenever possible. This is 
because "every State, in so far as it wants to live not 
only on paper and not merely by sufferance of its 
neighbours, but to enjoy real independence -- inevitably 
must become a conquering State." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., 
p. 211]

Many of the post-war imperialist conflicts were of this nature,
with local elites trying to disentangle themselves from an
imperialist power. Similarly, many conflicts (either fought
directly by imperialist powers or funded indirectly by them)
were the direct result of ensuring that a nation trying to
free itself from imperialist domination did not serve as
a positive example for other satellite nations. Thus the
local ruling class, while benefiting from imperialism, may
dislike its dependent position and, if it feels strong
enough, may contest their position and gain more independence
for themselves.

Which means that local ruling classes can come into conflict
with imperialist ones. These can express themselves as 
wars of national liberation, for example, or just as normal
conflicts (such as the Gulf War). As competition is at the
heart of capitalism, we should not be surprised that sections
of the international ruling class disagree and fight each
other. As we argue in more detail in section D.7, while
anarchists oppose imperialism and defend the rights of
oppressed nations to resist it, we do not support national
liberation movements as these are cross class alliances
which aim to consolidate the local elites power and this
must, by necessity, mean the subjection of working people
(just as support for any nation state means). Therefore 
we never call for the victory of the dominated
country over the imperialist. Instead we call for a 
victory of the workers (and peasants) of that country
against both home and foreign exploiters (in effect,
"no war but the class war").

The relationship between the working class and imperialism 
is more complex. In traditional imperialism, foreign trade 
and the export of capital often make it possible to import 
cheap goods from abroad and increase profits for the 
capitalist class, and in this sense, workers gain because 
they can improve their standard of living without necessarily 
coming into system-threatening conflict with their employers 
(i.e. struggle can win reforms which otherwise would be strongly
resisted by the capitalist class). Needless to say, those 
workers made redundant by these cheap imports may not consider
this as a benefit and, by increasing the pool of unemployment,
help hold or drive down wages for the whole working population.

Moreover, capital export and military spending under imperialistic 
policies may lead to a higher rate of profit for capitalists and 
allow them to temporarily avoid recession, thus keeping employment
and wages higher than would be the case otherwise. So workers 
benefit in this sense as well. Therefore, in imperialistic nations 
during economic boom times, one finds a tendency among the 
working class (particularly the unorganised sector) to support 
foreign military adventurism and an aggressive foreign policy. 
This is part of what is often called the "embourgeoisement" of 
the proletariat, or the co-optation of labour by capitalist 
ideology and "patriotic" propaganda. 

However, as soon as international rivalry between imperialist 
powers becomes too intense, capitalists will attempt to 
maintain their profit rates by depressing wages and laying 
people off in their own country. Workers' real wages will 
also suffer if military spending goes beyond a certain point. 
Moreover, if militarism leads to actual war, the working
class has much more to lose than to gain as they will be
fighting it and making the necessary sacrifices on the
"home front" in order to win it. In addition, while 
imperialism can improve living conditions (for a time), it 
cannot remove the hierarchical nature of capitalism and 
therefore cannot stop the class struggle, the spirit of 
revolt and the instinct for freedom. So, while workers in
the developed nations may sometimes benefit from imperialism, 
such periods cannot last long and cannot, in fact, end
the class struggle.

Rudolf Rocker was correct to stress the contradictory 
(and self-defeating) nature of working class support for 
imperialism:

"No doubt some small comforts may sometimes fall to the 
share of the workers when the bourgeoisie of their country 
attain some advantage over that of another country; but 
this always happens at the cost of their own freedom and 
the economic oppression of other peoples. The worker. . .
participates to some extent in the profits which, without 
effort on their part, fall into the laps of the bourgeoisie 
of his country from the unrestrained exploitation of colonial 
peoples; but sooner or later there comes the time when these 
people too, wake up, and he has to pay all the more dearly 
for the small advantages he has enjoyed. . . . Small gains
arising from increased opportunity of employment and 
higher wages may accrue to the workers in a successful
state from the carving out of new markets at the cost of
others; but at the same time their brothers on the other
side of the border have to pay for them by unemployment
and the lowering of the standards of labour. The result
is an ever widening rift in the international labour
movement . . . By this rift the liberation of the workers
from the yoke of wage-slavery is pushed further and further 
into the distance. As long as the worker ties up his 
interests with those of the bourgeoisie of his country 
instead of with his class, he must logically also take 
in his stride all the results of that relationship. 
He must stand ready to fight the wars of the possessing 
classes for the retention and extension of their markets, 
and to defend any injustice they may perpetrate on other 
people . . . Only when the workers in every country shall
come to understand clearly that their interests are
everywhere the same, and out of this understanding learn
to act together, will the effective basis be laid for
the international liberation of the working class." 
[_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 61]

Ultimately, any "collaboration of workers and employers . . .
can only result in the workers being condemned to . . . eat
the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table." [Rocker,
Op. Cit., p. 60] This applies to both the imperialist and
the satellite state, of course. Moreover, as we argued in
section D.5.1, imperialism needs to have a strong military
force available for it (without force, the imperialist
state could not defend the property of its citizens or
companies invested in foreign countries nor have the
means to threaten satellite nations seeking an independent
path). As such, the military machine must be strengthen
and this "is not directed only against the external
enemy; it aims much more at the internal enemy. It
concerns that element of labour which has learned not
to hope for anything from our institutions, that awakened
part of the working people which has realised that
the war of classes underlies all wars among nations, 
and that if war is justified at all it is the war
against economic dependence and political slavery, the
two dominant issues involved in the struggle of the
classes." In other words, the nation "which is to be
protected by a huge military force is not" that "of the
people, but that of the privileged class; the class
which robs and exploits the masses, and controls their
lives from the cradle to the grave." [Emma Goldman,
_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 306 and p. 302]

However, under globalisation things are somewhat different.
With the increase in world trade and the signing of "free
trade" agreements like NAFTA, the position of workers in
the imperialist nations need not improve. For example,
over the last twenty-five years, the wages -- adjusted for 
inflation -- of the typical American employee have actually 
fallen, even as the economy has grown. In other words, the 
majority of Americans are no longer sharing in the gains 
from economic growth. This is very different from the 
previous era, for example 1946-73, when the real wages 
of the typical worker rose by about 80 percent. Not 
that this globalisation has aided the working class in
the "developing" nations. In Latin America, for example, GDP 
per capita grew by 75 percent from 1960-1980, whereas 
between 1981 and 1998 it has only risen 6 percent. [Mark 
Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Robert Naiman, and Gila Neta,
_Growth May Be Good for the Poor-- But are IMF and 
World Bank Policies Good for Growth?_] 

As Chomsky noted, "[t]o the credit of the _Wall Street
Journal_, it points out that there's a 'but.' Mexico has
'a stellar reputation,' and it's an economic miracle, 
but the population is being devastated. There's been
a 40 percent drop in purchasing power since 1994. The
poverty rate is going up and is in fact rising fast.
The economic miracle wiped out, they say, a generation
of progress; most Mexicans are poorer than their parents.
Other sources reveal that agriculture is being wiped
out by US-subsidised agricultural imports, manufacturing
wages have declines about 20 percent, general wages
even more. In fact, NAFTA is a remarkable success: it's
the first trade agreement in history that's succeeded in
harming the populations of all three countries involved.
That's quite an achievement." In the U.S., "the
medium income (half above, half below) for families
has gotten back now to what it was in 1989, which is
below what it was in the 1970s." [_Rogue States_, 
pp. 98-9 and p. 213]

An achievement which was predicted. But, of course,
while occasionally admitting that globalisation may harm
the wages of workers in developed countries, it is 
argued that it will benefit those in the "developing" 
world. It is amazing how open to socialist arguments
capitalists and their supporters are, as long as its
not their income being redistributed! As can be seen
from NAFTA, this did not happen. Faced with cheap 
imports, agriculture and local industry would be 
undermined, increasing the number of workers seeking
work, so forcing down wages as the bargaining power of
labour is decreased. Combine this with governments which 
act in the interests of capital (as always) and force the 
poor to accept the costs of economic austerity and back
business attempts to break unions and workers resistance
then we have a situation where productivity can increase
dramatically while wages fall behind (either relatively
or absolutely). As has been the case in both the USA
and Mexico, for example.

This reversal has had much to do with changes in the global 
"rules of the game," which have greatly favoured corporations
and weakened labour. Unsurprisingly, the North American
union movement has opposed NAFTA and other treaties which
empower business over labour. Therefore, the position of
labour within both imperialist and dominated nations can
be harmed under globalisation, so ensuring international
solidarity and organisation have a stronger reason to be
embraced by both sides. This should not come as a surprise,
however, as the process towards globalisation was accelerated
by intensive class struggle across the world and was used
as a tool against the working class (see last section).

It is difficult to generalise about the effects of imperialism 
on the "middle class" (i.e. professionals, self-employed, small 

business people, peasants and so on -- *not* middle income 
groups, who are usually working class). Some groups within 
this strata stand to gain, others to lose (in particular,
peasants who are impoverished by cheap imports of food). 
This lack of common interests and a common organisational 
base makes the middle class unstable and susceptible to 
patriotic sloganeering, vague theories of national or 
racial superiority, or fascist scape-goating of minorities 
for society's problems. For this reason, the ruling class 
finds it relatively easy to recruit large sectors of the 
middle class (as well as unorganised sectors of the 
working class) to an aggressive and expansionist 
foreign policy, through media propaganda campaigns. 
Since many in organised labour tends to perceive 
imperialism as being against its overall best interests, 
and thus usually opposes it, the ruling class is able to 
intensify the hostility of the middle class to the organised 
working class by portraying the latter as "unpatriotic" 
and "unwilling to sacrifice" for the "national interest." 

Sadly, the trade union bureaucracy usually accepts the
"patriotic" message, particularly at times of war, and
often collaborates with the state to further imperialistic
interests. This eventually brings them into conflict with
the rank-and-file, whose interests are ignored even more
than usual when this occurs. Under imperialism, like any
form of capitalism, the working class will pay the bill
required to maintain it.

Hence, in general, imperialism tends to produce a tightening
of class lines and increasingly severe social conflict 
between contending interest groups, which has a tendency 
to foster the growth of authoritarian government (see 
section D.9).

D.6 Are anarchists against Nationalism?

To begin to answer this question, we must first define what we mean by
nationalism. For many people, it is just the natural attachment to home,
the place one grew up. These feelings, however, obviously do not exist in
a social vacuum. Nationality, as Bakunin noted, is a "natural and social
fact," as "every people and the smallest folk-unit has its own character,
its own specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking, feeling,
thinking, and acting; and it is this idiosyncrasy that constitutes the
essence of nationality." [_The Political Philosophy of Bakunin_, p. 325]

Perhaps it is in the interest of anarchists to distinguish between 
*nationality* or *ethnicity* (that is, cultural affinity) and *nationalism* 
(confined to the state and government itself) as a better way of defining 
what we support and oppose -- nationalism, at root, is destructive and 
reactionary, whereas ethnic and cultural affinity is a source of community, 
social diversity and vitality.

Such diversity is to be celebrated and allowed to express it itself on its
own terms. Or, as Murray Bookchin puts it, "[t]hat specific peoples should
be free to fully develop their own cultural capacities is not merely a
right but a desideratum. The world would be a drab place indeed if a
magnificent mosaic of different cultures does not replace the largely
decultured and homogenised world created by modern capitalism." 
["Nationalism and the 'National Question'", _Society and Nature_,
pp. 8-36, No. 5, pp. 28-29] But, as he also warns, such cultural freedom
and variety should *not* be confused with nationalism. The latter is far
more (and ethically, a lot less) than simple recognition of cultural
uniqueness and love of home. Nationalism is the love of, or the desire to
create, a nation-state. And for this reason anarchists are opposed
to it, in all its forms.

This means that nationalism cannot and must not be confused with
nationality. The later is a product of social processes while the
former to a product of state action and elite rule. Social evolution
cannot be squeezed into the narrow, restricting borders of the nation
state without harming the individuals whose lives *make* that social
development happen in the first place.

The state, as we have seen, is a centralised body invested with power
and a social monopoly of force. As such it pre-empts the autonomy of
localities and peoples, and in the name of the "nation" crushes the
living, breathing reality of "nations" (i.e. peoples and their cultures)
with one law, one culture and one "official" history. Unlike most
nationalists, anarchists recognise that almost all "nations" are in
fact not homogeneous, and so consider nationality to be far wider in
application than just lines on maps, created by conquest. Hence we think
that recreating the centralised state in a slightly smaller area, as
nationalist movements generally advocate, cannot solve what is called
the "national question."

Ultimately, as Rudolf Rocker argues, the "nation is not the cause,
but the result of the state. It is the state that creates the nation,
not the nation the state." [_Nationalism and Culture_, p. 200]
Every state is an artificial mechanism imposed upon society by
some ruler in order to defend and make secure the interests of
privileged minorities within society. Nationalism was created to
reinforce the state by providing it with the loyalty of a people
of shared linguistic, ethnic, and cultural affinities. And if
these shared affinities do not exist, the state will create them
by centralising education in its own hands, imposing an "official"
language and attempting to crush cultural differences from the people's
within its borders.

Hence we see the all too familiar sight of successful "national liberation"
movements replacing foreign oppression with a home-based one. This is
unsurprising as nationalism delivers power to local ruling classes as
it relies on taking state power. As a result, Nationalism can never
deliver freedom to the working class (the vast majority of a given
"nation"). Moreover, nationalism hides class differences within the
"nation" by arguing that all people must unite around their supposedly
common interests (as members of the same "nation"), when in fact they have 
nothing in common due to the existence of hierarchies and classes. Its
function is to build a mass support base for local elites angry with
imperialism for blocking their ambitions to rule and exploit "their"
nation and fellow country people:

"[W]e must not forget that we are always dealing with the organised
selfishness of privileged minorities which hide behind the skirts of
the nation, hide behind the credulity of the masses [when discussing
Nationalism]. We speak of national interests, national capital, national
spheres of interest, national honour, and national spirit; but we forget
that behind all this there are hidden merely the selfish interests of
power-loving politicians and money-loving business men for whom the
nation is a convenient cover to hide their personal greed and their
schemes for political power from the eyes of the world." [Rudolf Rocker,
Op. Cit., pp. 252-3]

Moreover, the Nation has effectively replaced God in terms of justifying
injustice and oppression and allowing individuals to wash their hands
of their own actions. For "under cover of the nation everything can be
hid" argues Rocker (echoing Bakunin, we must note). "The national
flag covers every injustice, every unhumanity, every lie, every outrage,
every crime. The collective responsibility of the nation kills the
sense of justice of the individual and brings man to the point where
he overlooks injustice done; where, indeed, it may appear to him a
meritorious act if committed in the interests of the nation." [Op.
Cit., p. 252] (perhaps, in the future, the economy will increasingly
replace the nation just as the nation replaced god as the means of
escaping personal responsibility of our acts? Only time will tell,
but "economic efficiency" has been as commonly used to justify
oppression and exploitation as "reasons of state" and "the national
interest" have been).

Thus anarchists oppose nationalism in all its forms as harmful to
the interests of those who make up a given nation and their cultural
identities. However, anarchists are opposed to all forms of exploitation
and oppression, including imperialism (i.e. a situation of external
domination where the ruling class of one country dominates the people
and territory of another country - see section D.5). While rejecting
Nationalism, anarchists do not necessarily oppose national liberation
struggles against such domination (see section D.7 for details).
However, it goes without saying that national "liberation" movements
that take on notions of racial, cultural or ethnic "superiority" or
"purity" or believe that cultural differences are somehow "rooted"
in biology get no support from anarchists.

D.7 Are anarchists opposed to National Liberation struggles?

While anarchists are opposed to nationalism (see last section), this does
not mean that they are indifferent to national liberation struggles. Quite
the opposite. In the words of Bakunin, "I feel myself always the patriot of
all oppressed fatherlands. . . Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact
which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general
acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that
which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is
not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every
nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to
live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of
the general principal of freedom." [quoted by Alfredo M. Bonanno in
_Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle_, pp. 19-20]

More recently Murray Bookchin has expressed similar sentiments: "No left
libertarian. . . can oppose the *right* of a subjugated people to establish
itself as an autonomous entity -- be it in a [libertarian] confederation.
. . or as a nation-state based in hierarchical and class inequities."
["Nationalism and the 'National Question'", _Society and Nature_,
pp. 8-36, No. 5,, p. 31] Even so, anarchists do not elevate the
idea of national liberation into a mindless article of faith, as much
of the Leninist-influenced left has done this century, calling for
support for the oppressed nation without first inquiring into "what
kind of society a given 'national liberation' movement would likely
produce." To do so, as Bookchin points out, would be to "support national
liberation struggles for instrumental purposes, merely as a means
of 'weakening' imperialism," which leads to "a condition of moral
bankruptcy" as socialist ideas become associated with the authoritarian
and statist goals of the "anti-imperialist" dictatorships in "liberated"
nations. [Ibid., pp. 25-31] "But to oppose an oppressor is not
equivalent to calling for *support* for everything formerly colonised
nation-states do." [Ibid., p. 31]

Thus anarchists oppose foreign oppression and are usually sympathetic
to attempts by those who suffer it to end it. This does not mean that
we necessarily support national liberation movements as such (after all,
they usually desire to create a new state) but we cannot sit back
and watch one nation oppress another and so act to stop that oppression 
(by, for example, protesting against the oppressing nation and trying 
to get them to change their policies and withdraw from the oppressed 
nations affairs).

A major problem with national liberation struggles is that they usually
counterpoise the common interests of "the nation" to those of an
oppressor, but assume that *class* is irrelevant. Although nationalist
movements often cut across classes, they still seek to increase autonomy
for certain parts of society while ignoring that of other parts. For
anarchists, a new national state would not bring any fundamental change in
the lives of most people, who would still be powerless both economically
and socially. Looking around the world at all the many nation-states in
existence, we see the same gross disparities in power, influence and
wealth restricting self-determination for working-class people, even if
they are free "nationally." It seems hypocritical for nationalist leaders
to talk of liberating their own nation from imperialism while advocating
the creation of a capitalist nation-state, which will be oppressive to
its own population and, perhaps, eventually become imperialistic itself
as it develops to a certain point and has to seek foreign outlets for
its products and capital in order to continue economic growth and realise
suitable profit levels (as is happening, for example, with South Korea).

In response to national liberation struggles, anarchists stress the
self-liberation of the working class, which can be only achieved by its
members' own efforts, creating and using their own organisations. In 
this process there can be no separation of political, social and economic
goals. The struggle against imperialism cannot be separated from the
struggle against capitalism. This has been the approach of most, if 
not all, anarchist movements in the face of foreign domination -- 
the combination of the struggle against foreign domination with the
class struggle against native oppressors. In many different countries
(including Bulgaria, Mexico, Cuba and Korea) anarchists have tried, by
their "propaganda, and above all *action*, [to] encourage the masses to
turn the struggle for political independence into the struggle for the
Social Revolution." [Sam Dolgoff, _The Cuban Revolution - A critical
perspective_, p. 41 - Dolgoff is referring to the Cuban movement here,
but his comments are applicable to most historical -- and current --
situations]

Moreover, we should point out that Anarchists in imperialist countries
have also opposed national oppression by both words and deeds. For
example, the prominent Japanese Anarchist Kotoku Shusi was framed
and executed in 1910 after campaigning against Japanese expansionism.
In Italy, the anarchist movement opposed Italian expansionism into Eritrea
and Ethiopia in the 1880s and 1890s, and organised a massive anti-war
movement against the 1911 invasion of Libya. In 1909, the Spanish
Anarchists organised a mass strike against intervention in Morocco.
More recently, anarchists in France struggled against two colonial wars
(in Indochina and Algeria) in the late 50's and early 60's, anarchists
world-wide opposed US aggression in Latin America and Vietnam (without,
we must note, supporting the Cuban and Vietnamese Stalinist regimes),
opposed the Gulf War (during which most anarchists raised the call of
"No war but the class war") as well as opposing Soviet imperialism.

In practise national liberation movements are full of contradictions between
the way the rank and file sees progress being made (and their hopes and
dreams) and the wishes of their ruling class members/leaders. The leadership
will always resolve this conflict in favour of the future ruling class.
Most of the time that makes it possible for individuals members of these
struggles to realise this and break from these politics towards anarchism.
But at times of major conflict this contradiction will become very apparent
and at this stage it's possible that large numbers may break from nationalism
*if* an alternative that addresses their concerns exists. Providing that
anarchist do not compromise our ideals such movements against foreign
domination can be wonderful opportunities to spread our politics, ideals
and ideas -- and to show up the limitations and dangers of nationalism itself
and present a viable alternative.

For anarchists, the key question is whether freedom is for abstract
concepts like "the nation" or for the individuals who make up the
nationality and give it life. Oppression must be fought on all fronts,
within nations and internationally, in order for working-class people to
gain the fruits of freedom. Any national liberation struggle which bases
itself on nationalism is doomed to failure as a movement for extending
human freedom. Thus anarchists "refuse to participate in national liberation 
fronts; they participate in class fronts which may or may not be involved 
in national liberation struggles. The struggle must spread to establish 
economic, political and social structures in the liberated territories, 
based on federalist and libertarian organisations." [Alfredo M. Bonanno, 
_Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle_, p. 12]

So while anarchists unmask nationalism for what it is, we do not disdain
the basic struggle for identity and self-management which nationalism
diverts. We encourage direct action and the spirit of revolt against all
forms of oppression -- social, economic, political, racial, sexual,
religious and national. By this method, we aim to turn national liberation
struggles into *human* liberation struggles. And while fighting against
oppression, we struggle for anarchy, a free confederation of communes
based on workplace and community assemblies. A confederation which will
place the nation-state, all nation-states, into the dust-bin of history
where it belongs. 

And as far as "national" identity within an anarchist society is concerned,
our position is clear and simple. As Bakunin noted with respect to the
Polish struggle for national liberation during the last century,
anarchists, as "adversaries of every State, . . . reject the rights and
frontiers called historic. For us Poland only begins, only truly exists
there where the labouring masses are and want to be Polish, it ends where,
renouncing all particular links with Poland, the masses wish to establish
other national links." [quoted in "Bakunin", Jean Caroline Cahm, in
_Socialism and Nationalism_, volume 1, pp. 22-49, p. 43]

D.8 What causes militarism and what are its effects?

There are two main causes of capitalist militarism. Firstly, there is
the need to contain the domestic enemy - the oppressed and exploited
sections of the population. The other, as noted in the section on
imperialism, is that a strong military is necessary in order for a 
ruling class to pursue an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy. 
For most developed capitalist nations, this kind of foreign policy 
becomes more and more important because of economic forces, i.e. in order 
to provide outlets for its goods and to prevent the system from collapsing 
by expanding the market continually outward. This outward expansion of, 
and so competition between, capital needs military force to protect its
interests (particularly those invested in other countries) and give it 
added clout in the economic jungle of the world market.

Capitalist militarism also serves several other purposes and has a number
of effects. First, it promotes the development of a specially favoured group
of companies involved in the production of armaments or armament related
products ("defence" contractors), who have a direct interest in the
maximum expansion of military production. Since this group is particularly
wealthy, it exerts great pressure on government to pursue the type of
state intervention and, often, the aggressive foreign policies it wants.

This "special relationship" between state and Big Business also has the
advantage that it allows the ordinary citizen to pay for industrial
Research and Development. Government subsidies provide an important way
for companies to fund their research and development at taxpayer expense,
which often yields "spin-offs" with great commercial potential as consumer
products (e.g. computers). Needless to say, all the profits go to the
defence contractors and to the commercial companies who buy licences to
patented technologies from them, rather than being shared with the public
which funded the R&D that made the profits possible.

It is necessary to provide some details to indicate the size and impact of 
military spending on the US economy:

"Since 1945. . . there have been new industries sparking investment and
employment . . In most of them, basic research and technological progress
were closely linked to the expanding military sector. The major innovation
in the 1950s was electronics . . . [which] increased its output 15 percent
per year. It was of critical importance in workplace automation, with the
federal government providing the bulk of the research and development
(R&D) dollars for military-orientated purposes. Infrared instrumentation,
pressure and temperature measuring equipment, medical electronics, and
thermoelectric energy conversion all benefited from military R&D. By 
the 1960s indirect and direct military demand accounted for as much as
70 percent of the total output of the electronics industry. Feedbacks also 
developed between electronics and aircraft, the second growth industry of 
the 1950s. By 1960 . . . [i]ts annual investment outlays were 5.3 times 
larger than their 1947-49 level, and over 90 percent of its output went 
to the military. Synthetics (plastics and fibers) was another growth industry 
owning much of its development to military-related projects. Throughout the 
1950s and 1960s, military-related R&D, including space, accounted for 40 
to 50 percent of total public and private R&D spending and at least 85% 
of federal government share." [Richard B. Du Boff, _Accumulation and Power_,
pp. 103-4]

Not only this, government spending on road building (initially justified
using defence concerns) also gave a massive boost to private capital 
(and, in the process, totally transformed America into a land fit for
car and oil corporations). The cumulative impact of the 1944, 1956 and 1968
Federal Highway Acts "allowed $70 billion to be spent on the interstates
without [the money] passing through the congressional appropriations 
board." The 1956 Act "[i]n effect wrote into law the 1932 National
Highway Users Conference strategy of G[eneral] M[otors] chairman 
Alfred P. Sloan to channel gasoline and other motor vehicle-related
excise taxes into highway construction." GM also illegally bought-up 
and effectively destroyed public transit companies across America, so
reducing competition against private car ownership. The net effect of
this state intervention was that by 1963-66 "one in every six business
enterprise was directly dependent on the manufacture, distribution,
servicing, and the use of motor vehicles." The impact of this process
is still evident today -- both in terms of ecological destruction
and in the fact that automobile and oil companies are still dominate
the top twenty of the Fortune 500. [Op. Cit., p. 102]

This system, which can be called military Keynesianism, has three advantages
over socially-based state intervention. Firstly, unlike social programmes, 
military intervention does not improve the situation (and thus, hopes) 
of the majority, who can continue to be marginalised by the system, 
suffer the discipline of the labour market and feel the threat of
unemployment. Secondly, it acts likes welfare for the rich, ensuring 
that while the many are subject to market forces, the few can escape 
that fate - while singing the praises of the "free market". And, thirdly,
it does not compete with private capital.

Because of the connection between militarism and imperialism, it was
natural after World War II that America should become the world's leading
military state at the same time that it was becoming the world's leading
economic power, and that strong ties developed between government,
business, and the armed forces. American "military capitalism" is
described in detail below, but the remarks also apply to a number of
other "advanced" capitalist states.

In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the danger posed to
individual liberties and democratic processes by the "military-industrial
complex," which might, he cautioned, seek to keep the economy in a state 
of continual war-readiness simply because it is good business. This echoed
the warning which had been made earlier by sociologist C. Wright Mills (in
_The Power Elite_, 1956), who pointed out that since the end of World War
II the military had become enlarged and decisive to the shape of the
entire American economy, and that US capitalism had in fact become a
military capitalism. This situation has not substantially changed since
Mills wrote, for it is still the case that all US military officers have
grown up in the atmosphere of the post-war military-industrial alliance and
have been explicitly educated and trained to carry it on. So, despite
recent cuts in the US defence budget, American capitalism remains
military capitalism, with a huge armaments industry and defence
contractors still among the most powerful of political entities.

D.8.1 Will militarism change with the apparent end of the Cold War?

Many politicians seemed to think so in the early nineties, asserting that a
"peace dividend" was at hand. Since the Gulf War, however, Americans have
heard little more about it. Although it's true that some fat was trimmed
from the defence budget, both economic and political pressures have tended
to keep the basic military-industrial complex intact, insuring a state of
global war-readiness and continuing production of ever more advanced
weapons systems into the foreseeable future.

Since it's having more and more trouble dominating the world economically,
America now claims superpower status largely on the basis of its military
superiority. Therefore the US won't be likely to renounce this
superiority willingly-- especially since the prospect of recapturing world
economic superiority appears to depend in part on her ability to bully
other nations into granting economic concessions and privileges, as in the
past. Hence the US public is being bombarded with propaganda designed to
show that an ongoing US military presence is necessary in every corner of
the planet.

For example, after the Gulf War the draft of a government White Paper was
released in which it was argued that the US must maintain its status as
the world's strongest military power and not hesitate to act unilaterally
if UN approval for future military actions is not forthcoming. Although
then President Bush, under election-year political pressures, denied that
he personally held such views, the document reflected the thinking of
powerful authoritarian forces in government -- thinking that has a way of
becoming public policy through secret National Security Directives (see
section D.9.2, "Invisible government").

For these reasons it would not be wise to bet on a deep and sustained
American demilitarisation. It is true that troop strength is being cut
back in response to Soviet withdrawals from Eastern Europe; but these
cutbacks are also prompted by the development of automated weapons systems
which reduce the number of soldiers needed to win battles, as demonstrated
in the Persian Gulf.

Although there may appear to be no urgent need for huge military budgets
now that the Soviet threat is gone, the US has found it impossible to kick
its forty-year addiction to militarism. As Noam Chomsky points out in
many of his works, the "Pentagon System," in which the public is forced 
to subsidise research and development of high tech industry through subsidies
to defence contractors, is a covert substitute in the US for the overt
industrial planning policies of other "advanced" capitalist nations, like
Germany and Japan. US defence businesses, which are among the biggest
lobbyists, cannot afford to lose this "corporate welfare." Moreover,
continued corporate downsizing and high levels of unemployment will
produce strong pressure to maintain defence industries simply in order to
keep people working.

Despite some recent modest trimming of defence budgets, the demands of US
military capitalism still take priority over the needs of the people. For
example, Holly Sklar points out that Washington, Detroit, and Philadelphia
have higher infant death rates than Jamaica or Costa Rica and that Black
America as a whole has a higher infant mortality rate than Nigeria; yet
the US still spends less public funds on education than on the military,
and more on military bands than on the National Endowment for the Arts
["Brave New World Order," in Cynthia Peters, ed., _Collateral Damage_,
1992, pp. 3-46]. But of course, politicians continue to maintain that
education and social services must be cut back even further because there
is "no money" to fund them.

A serious problem at this point, however, is that the collapse of the
Soviet Union leaves the Pentagon in desperate need of a sufficiently
dangerous and demonic enemy to justify continued military spending in the
style to which it's accustomed. Saddam Hussein was temporarily helpful,
but he's not enough of a menace to warrant the robust defence budgets of
yore now that his military machine has been smashed. There are some
indications, however, that the US government has its sights on Iran.

The main point in favour of targeting Iran is that the American public
still craves revenge for the 1979 hostage humiliation, the Lebanon
bombing, the Iran-Contra scandal, and other outrages, and can thus be
relied on to support a war of retribution. Hence it would not be
surprising to hear much more in the future about a possible Iranian
nuclear threat and about the dangers of Iranian influence in the Moslem
republics of the ex-Soviet empire.

In the wake of the Persian Gulf War, the United States has quietly been
building a network of defence alliances reminiscent of the Eisenhower years
after World War II, so that America may now be called upon to police
disturbances all over the Arab World. Sending troops to Somalia appears
to have been designed to help accustom Americans to such a role.

Besides Iran, unfriendly regimes in North Korea, Cuba, and Libya, as well
as communist guerrilla groups in various South American nations, also hold
great promise as future testing grounds for new weapons systems. And of
course there is the recent troop deployments to Haiti and Bosnia, which
provide the Pentagon with more arguments for continued high levels of
defence spending. In a nutshell, then, the trend toward increasing
militarism is not likely to be checked by the present military
"downsizing," which will merely produce a leaner and more efficient
fighting machine.

D.9 What is the relationship between wealth polarisation and
  authoritarian government?

We have previously noted the recent increase in the rate of wealth
polarisation, with its erosion of working-class living standards. This
process has been referred to by Noam Chomsky as "Third-Worldisation." It
is appearing in a particularly acute form in the US -- the "richest"
industrialised nation which also has the highest level of poverty, since it
is the most polarised -- but the process can be seen in other "advanced"
industrial nations as well, particularly in the UK.

Third World governments are typically authoritarian, since harsh measures
are required to suppress rebellions among their impoverished and
discontented masses. Hence "Third-Worldisation" implies not only economic
polarisation but also increasingly authoritarian governments. As Philip
Slater puts it, a large, educated, and alert "middle class" (i.e. average
income earners) has always been the backbone of democracy, and anything
that concentrates wealth tends to weaken democratic institutions [_A Dream
Deferred_, p. 68].

If this is true, then along with increasing wealth polarisation in the US
we should expect to see signs of growing authoritarianism. This
hypothesis is confirmed by numerous facts, including the following:
continuing growth of an "imperial presidency" (concentration of political
power); extralegal operations by the executive branch (e.g. the
Iran-Contra scandal, the Grenada and Panama invasions); skyrocketing
incarceration rates; more official secrecy and censorship; the rise of the
Far Right; more police and prisons; FBI requests for massive wiretapping
capability; and so on. Public support for draconian measures to deal with
crime reflect the increasingly authoritarian mood of citizens beginning to
panic in the face of an ongoing social breakdown, which has been brought
about, quite simply, by ruling-class greed that has gotten out of hand --
a fact that is carefully obscured by the media.

One might think that representative democracy and constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms would make an authoritarian government impossible in
the United States and other liberal democratic nations with similar
constitutional "protections" for civil rights. In reality, however, the
declaration of a "national emergency" would allow the central government
to ignore constitutional guarantees with impunity and set up what Hannah
Arendt calls "invisible government" -- mechanisms allowing an
administration to circumvent constitutional structures while leaving
them nominally in place (see section D.9.2).

In this regard it is important to remember that the Nazis created a
"shadow government" in Germany even as the "democratic" Weimar
constitution continued to operate in theory. Hitler at first implemented
his programmes through the constitution, using existing government agencies
and departments. Later he set up Nazi Party bureaus that duplicated the
functions of the Weimar government, allowing the latter to remain in place
but without power, while the Nazi bureaus (especially the SS, and of
course Hitler himself) held the actual power. The Communist Party in
Russia created a similar invisible government after the Bolshevik
revolution, leaving the revolutionary constitution as well as the
government bureaucracy in place while Communist Party agencies and the
General Secretary wielded the real power [See Marilyn French, _Beyond
Power_, p. 349].

If the drift toward social breakdown continues in the "advanced"
industrial nations, it's not difficult to conceive of voters electing
overtly authoritarian, right-wing administrations campaigning on
"law-and-order" platforms. In the face of widespread rioting, looting,
and mayhem (especially if it spilled over from the ghettos and threatened
the suburbs), reactionary hysteria could propel authoritarian types into
both the executive and legislative branches of government. The "middle
classes" (i.e. professionals, small business people and so on) would then
support charismatic martial-style leaders who promised to restore law and
order, particularly if they were men with impressive military or police
credentials.

Once elected, and with the support of willing legislatures and courts,
authoritarian administrations could easily create much more extensive
mechanisms of invisible government than already exist, giving the
executive branch virtually dictatorial powers. Such administrations could
also vastly increase government control of the media, implement martial
law, escalate foreign militarism, further expand the funding and scope of
the police, national guard units, secret police and foreign intelligence
agencies, and authorise more widespread surveillance of citizens as
well as the infiltration of dissident political groups. Random searches
and seizures, curfews, government control of all organised meetings,
harassment or outright banning of groups that disagreed with or attempted
to block government policies, and the imprisonment of political dissidents
and others judged to be dangerous to "national security" would then become
routine.

These developments would not occur all at once, but so gradually,
imperceptibly, and logically -- given the need to maintain "law and order"
-- that most people would not even be aware that an authoritarian take-over
was underway. Indeed, it is already underway in the US (see Bertram
Gross, _Friendly Fascism_, South End Press, 1989).

In the following subsections we will examine some of the symptoms of
growing authoritarianism listed above, again referring primarily to the
example of the United States. We are including these sections in the FAQ
because the disturbing trends canvassed here give the anarchist programme of
social reconstruction more urgency than would otherwise be the case. For
if radical and dissident groups are muzzled -- as always happens under
authoritarian rule -- that programme will be much more difficult to achieve.

D.9.1 Why does political power become concentrated under capitalism?

Under capitalism, political power tends to become concentrated in the
executive branch of government, along with a corresponding decline in the
effectiveness of parliamentary institutions. As Paul Sweezy points out,
parliaments grew out of the struggle of capitalists against the power of
centralised monarchies during the early modern period, and hence the
function of parliaments has always been to check and control the exercise
of executive power. For this reason, "parliaments flourished and reached
the peak of their prestige in the period of competitive capitalism when
the functions of the state, particularly in the economic sphere, were
reduced to a minimum." [_Theory of Capitalist Development_, p. 310]

As capitalism develops, however, the ruling class must seek to expand its
capital through foreign investments, which leads to imperialism, which in
turn leads to a tightening of class lines and increasingly severe social
conflict, as we have seen earlier (see section D.5.2). As this happens, 
legislatures become battlegrounds of contending parties, divided by 
divergent class and group interests, which reduces their capacity for 
positive action. And at the same time, the ruling class increasingly 
needs a strong centralised state that can protect its interests in 
foreign countries as well as solve difficult and complex economic 
problems. "Under the circumstances, parliament is forced to give up 
one after another of its cherished prerogatives and to see built up 
under its very eyes the kind of centralised and uncontrolled authority 
against which, in its youth, it had fought so hard and so well." 
[Ibid., p. 319]

This process can be seen clearly in the history of the United States. 
Since World War II, power has become centralised in the hands of the
president to such an extent that scholars now refer to an "imperial
presidency," following Arthur Schlesinger's 1973 book of that title. 

Contemporary US presidents' appropriation of congressional authority,
especially in matters relating to national security, has paralleled the
rise of the United States as the world's strongest and most imperialistic
military power. In the increasingly dangerous and interdependent world
of the 20th century, the perceived need for a leader who can act quickly
and decisively, without possibly disastrous obstruction by Congress, has 
provided an impetus for ever greater concentration of power in the
White House. 

This concentration has taken place in both foreign and domestic policy,
but it has been catalysed above all by a series of foreign policy
decisions in which modern US presidents have seized the most vital of all
government powers, the power to make war. And as they have continued to
commit troops to war without congressional authorisation or public debate,
their unilateral policy-making has spilled over into domestic affairs as well.

In the atmosphere of omnipresent crisis that developed in the fifties, the
United States appointed itself guardian of the "free world" against the
Red Menace. This placed unprecedented military resources under the control
of the President. At the same time, the Eisenhower Administration
established a system of pacts and treaties with nations all over the
globe, making it difficult for Congress to limit the President's
deployment of troops according to the requirements of treaty obligations
and national security, both of which were left to presidential judgement. 
The CIA, a secretive agency accountable to Congress only after the fact,
was made the primary instrument of US intervention in the internal affairs
of other nations for national security reasons.

With President Johnson's massive deployment of troops to Vietnam, the
scope of presidential war-making power took a giant leap forward. Unlike
Truman's earlier decision to commit troops in Korea without prior
congressional approval, the UN had not issued any resolutions to
legitimate US involvement in Vietnam. In justifying the President's
decision, the State Department implied that in the interdependent world of
the twentieth century, warfare anywhere on the globe could constitute an
attack on the United States which might require immediate response, and
hence that the Commander-in-Chief was authorised to take "defensive" war
measures without congressional approval or UN authorisation.

Following Vietnam, the presidency was further strengthened by the creation
of an all-volunteer military, which is less subject to rebellions in the
face of popular opposition to a foreign war than a conscripted force. 
With their control over the armed forces more secure, presidents since
Nixon have been liberated for a much wider range of foreign adventures. 
The collapse of the Soviet military threat now makes it easier than ever
for the President to pursue military options in striving to achieve
foreign policy objectives, as the Persian Gulf conflict clearly showed. 
United States involvement there would have been much more difficult during
the Cold War, with the Soviet Union supporting Iraq.

It is sometimes argued that Watergate fatally weakened the power of the US
presidency, but this is not actually the case. Michael Lind lists
several reasons why [in "The Case for Congressional Power: the
Out-of-Control Presidency," _The New Republic_, Aug. 14, 1995]. First,
the President can still wage war at will, without consulting Congress. 
Second, thanks to precedents set by Bush and Clinton, important economic
treaties (like GATT and NAFTA) can be rammed through Congress as
"fast-track" legislation, which limits the time allowed for debate and
forbids amendments. Third, thanks to Jimmy Carter, who reformed the
Senior Executive Service to give the White House more control over career
bureaucrats, and Ronald Reagan, who politicised the upper levels of the
executive branch to an unprecedented degree, presidents can now pack
government with their spoilsmen and reward partisan bureaucrats. Fourth,
thanks to George Bush, presidents now have a powerful new technique to
enhance presidential prerogatives and erode the intent of Congress even
further -- namely, signing laws while announcing that they will not obey
them. Fifth, thanks also to Bush, yet another new instrument of arbitrary
presidential power has been created: the "tsar," a presidential appointee
with vague, sweeping charges that overlap with or supersede the powers of
department heads. 

As Lind also points out, the White House staff that has ballooned since
World War II seems close to becoming an extra-constitutional "fourth
branch" of government The creation of presidential "tsars" whose powers
overlap or supersede those of department heads is reminiscent of the
creation of shadow governments by Hitler and Stalin (see also section 
D.9.2 - What is "Invisible government"?). 

Besides the reasons noted above, another cause of increasing political
centralisation under capitalism is that industrialisation forces masses of
people into alienated wage slavery, breaking their bonds to other people,
to the land, and to tradition, which in turn encourages strong central
governments to assume the role of surrogate parent and to provide
direction for their citizens in political, intellectual, moral, and even
spiritual matters [see Hannah Arendt, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_,
1968]. And as Marilyn French emphasises [in _Beyond Power_], the growing 
concentration of political power in the capitalist state can also be 
attributed to the form of the corporation, which is a microcosm of the 
authoritarian state, since it is based on centralised authority, 
bureaucratic hierarchy, antidemocratic controls, and lack of individual 
initiative and autonomy. Thus the millions of people who work for large 
corporations tend automatically to develop the psychological traits 
needed to survive and "succeed" under authoritarian rule: notably, 
obedience, conformity, efficiency, subservience, and fear of responsibility. 
The political system naturally tends to reflect the psychological conditions 
created at the workplace, where most people spend about half their time. 

Reviewing such trends, Ralph Miliband concludes that "[h]owever strident
the rhetoric of democracy and popular sovereignty may be, and despite the
'populist' overtones which politics must now incorporate, the trend is
toward the ever-greater appropriation of power at the top" [_Divided
Societies_, Oxford, 1989]. 

D.9.2. What is "invisible government"?

We've already briefly noted the phenomenon of "invisible government" or
"shadow government" (see section D.9), which occurs when an administration 
is able to bypass or weaken official government agencies or institutions 
to implement policies that are not officially permitted. In the US, the
Reagan Administration's Iran-Contra affair is an example. During that
episode the National Security Council, an arm of the executive branch,
secretly funded the Contras, a mercenary counterinsurgency force in
Central America, in direct violation of the Boland Amendment which
Congress had passed for the specific purpose of prohibiting such funding. 
The fact that investigators could not prove the President's authorisation
or even knowledge of the operation is a tribute to the presidential
"deniability" its planners took care to build into it.

Other recent cases of invisible government in the United States involve
the weakening of official government agencies to the point where they can
no longer effectively carry out their mandate. Reagan's tenure in the
White House again provides a number of examples. The Environmental
Protection Agency, for instance, was for all practical purposes
neutralised when employees dedicated to genuine environmental protection
were removed and replaced with people loyal to corporate polluters. 
Evidence suggests that the Department of the Interior under
Reagan-appointee James Watt was similarly co-opted. Such detours around
the law are deliberate policy tools that allow presidents to exercise much
more actual power than they appear to have on paper.

One of the most potent methods of invisible government in the US is the
President's authority to determine foreign and domestic policy through
National Security Directives that are kept secret from Congress and the
American people. Such NSDs cover a virtually unlimited field of actions,
shaping policy that may be radically different from what is stated
publicly by the White House and involving such matters as interference
with First Amendment rights, initiation of activities that could lead to
war, escalation of military conflicts, and even the commitment of billions
of dollars in loan guarantees -- all without congressional approval or
even knowledge.

According to congressional researchers, past administrations have used
national security orders to intensify the war in Vietnam, send US
commandos to Africa, and bribe foreign governments. The Reagan
Administration wrote more than 320 secret directives on everything from
the future of Micronesia to ways to keep the government running after a
nuclear holocaust. Jeffrey Richelson, a leading scholar on US
intelligence, says that the Bush Administration had written more than 100
NSDs as of early 1992 on subjects ranging from the drug wars to nuclear
weaponry to support for guerrillas in Afghanistan to politicians in
Panama. Although the subjects of such orders have been discovered by
diligent reporters and researchers, none of the texts has been
declassified or released to Congress. Indeed, the Bush Administration
consistently refused to release even *un*classified NSDs!

On October 31, 1989, nine months before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
President Bush signed NSD-26, ordering US agencies to expand political and
economic ties with Iraq, giving Iraq access to US financial aid involving
a billion-dollar loan guarantee as well as military technology and
foodstuffs later sold for cash. Members of Congress, concerned that
policy decisions involving billion-dollar commitments of funds should be
made jointly with the legislature, dispatched investigators in 1991 to
obtain a list of the secret directives. The White House refused to
co-operate, ordering the directives kept secret "because they deal with
national security." Iraq's default on the loans it obtained through
NSD-26 means that American taxpayers are footing the billion-dollar
bill.

The underlying authoritarianism of politicians is often belied by their
words. For instance, even as Reagan claimed to favour diminished
centralisation he was calling for a radical increase in his control of the
budget and for extended CIA activities inside the country -- with less
congressional surveillance -- both of which served to increase centralised
power [Tom Farrer, "The Making of Reaganism," New York Review of Books,
Jan 21, 1982, cited in Marilyn French, _Beyond Power_, p. 346]. President 
Clinton's recent use of an Executive Order to bail out Mexico from its 
debt crisis after Congress failed to appropriate the money falls right 
into the authoritarian tradition of running the country by fiat. 

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation to emerge from the Iran-Contra
affair was the Reagan administration's contingency plan for imposing
martial law. Alfonso Chardy, a reporter for the _Miami Herald_, revealed
in July 1987 that Lt. Col. Oliver North, while serving on the National
Security Council's staff, had worked with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency on a plan to suspend the Bill of Rights by imposing martial law in
the event of "national opposition to a US military invasion abroad." 
This martial law directive was still in effect in 1988 [ Richard O. Curry,
ed., _Freedom at Risk: Secrecy, Censorship, and Repression in the
1980s_, Temple University Press, 1988]. 
 
Former US Attorney General Edwin Meese declared that the single most
important factor in implementing martial law would be "advance
intelligence gathering to facilitate internment of the leaders of civil
disturbances" [Ibid., p. 28}. As discussed in B.16.5, during the 1980s
the FBI greatly increased its surveillance of individuals and groups
judged to be potentially "subversive," thus providing the Administration
with a convenient list of people who would be subject to immediate
internment during civil disturbances. The Omnibus Counter-terrorism Bill
now being debated in the US Congress would give the President virtually
dictatorial powers, by allowing him to imprison and bankrupt dissidents by
declaring their organisations "terrorist."

D.9.3 Why are incarceration rates rising?

A large prison population is another characteristic of authoritarian
regimes. Hence the burgeoning US incarceration rate during the past decade, 
coupled with the recent rapid growth of the prison "industry" must be
regarded as further evidence of a drift toward authoritarian government, 
as one would expect given the phenomenon of "Third-Worldisation." 

Prison inmates in the US are predominantly poor, and the sentences handed
out to people without social prestige or the resources to defend
themselves are much harsher than those received by people with higher
incomes who are charged with the same crimes. Federal Bureau of Justice
Statistics show that the median incomes of male prisoners before
sentencing is about one-third that of the general population. Median
incomes of inmates are even lower if the relatively few (and
more-affluent) white-collar criminals are not included in the
calculations.

Since the poor are disproportionately from minorities, the prison
population is also disproportionately minority. By 1992, the American
authorities were imprisoning black men at a rate five times higher than
the old apartheid regime had done at its worst in South Africa, and there
were more prisoners of Mexican descent in the US than in all of Mexico
[Phil Wilayto, "Prisons and Capitalist Restructuring," _Workers' World_, 
January 15, 1995]. 

Michael Specter reports that more than 90 percent of all the offences committed 
by prison inmates are crimes against property ["Community Corrections," _The 
Nation_, March 13, 1982]. In an era where the richest one percent of the 
population owns more property than the bottom 90 percent combined, it's 
hardly a surprise that those at the very bottom should try to recoup illegally 
some of the maldistributed wealth they are unable to obtain legally.

In the 1980s the United States created mandatory sentences for dozens of
drug offences, expanded capital punishment, and greatly increased the
powers of police and prosecutors. The result was a doubling of the
prison population from 1985 to 1994, according to a report recently issued
by the US Department of Justice. Yet the overall crime rate in the U.S.
has remained almost constant during the past twenty years, according to
the same report. Indeed, the rate dropped 15 percent from 1980 to 1984, yet
the number of prisoners increased 43 percent during that same period. 
The crime rate then increased by 14 percent from 1985 to 1989, while the
number of prisoners grew by 52 percent.

Although the growth of the US prison population has been swollen out of
proportion to the crime rate by new drug sentencing laws, drug use has
not decreased. Repressive measures are clearly not working, as anyone
can see, yet they're still favoured over social programmes, which continue to
be scaled back. For example, a recently passed crime law in the US
commits billions of dollars for more police and prisons, while at the same
time the new Republican Congress eliminates family planning clinics,
school lunch programmes, summer youth jobs programmes, etc. Prison
construction has become a high-growth industry, one of the few "bright"
spots in the American economy, attracting much investment by Wall Street
vultures. 

D.9.4 Why is government secrecy and surveillance of citizens on the increase? 

Authoritarian governments are characterised by fully developed secret
police forces, extensive government surveillance of civilians, a high
level of official secrecy and censorship, and an elaborate system of state
coercion to intimidate and silence dissenters. All of these phenomena
have existed in the US for at least eighty years, but since World War II
they have taken more extreme forms, especially during the 1980s. In this
section we will examine the operations of the secret police. 

The creation of an elaborate US "national security" apparatus has come
about gradually since 1945 through congressional enactments, numerous
executive orders and national security directives, and a series of Supreme
Court decisions that have eroded First Amendment rights. The policies of
the Reagan administration, however, reflected radical departures from the
past, as revealed not only by their comprehensive scope but by their
institutionalisation of secrecy, censorship, and repression in ways that
will be difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. As Richard Curry
points out, the Reagan administration's success stems "from major
structural and technological changes that have occurred in American
society during the twentieth century -- especially the emergence of the
modern bureaucratic State and the invention of sophisticated electronic
devices that make surveillance possible in new and insidious ways." 
[Curry, Op. Cit., p. 4]

The FBI has used "countersubversive" surveillance techniques and kept
lists of people and groups judged to be potential national security
threats since the days of the Red Scare in the 1920s. Such activities
were expanded in the late 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt instructed the FBI
to gather information about Fascist and Communist activities in the US and
to conduct investigations into possible espionage and sabotage. FBI chief
J. Edgar Hoover interpreted these directives as authorising open-ended
inquiries into a very broad category of potential "subversives"; and by
repeatedly misinforming a succession of careless or indifferent presidents
and attorneys general about the precise scope of Roosevelt's directives,
Hoover managed for more than 30 years to elicit tacit executive approval
for continuous FBI investigations into an ever-expanding class of
political dissidents [Geoffrey R. Stone, "The Reagan Administration, the
First Amendment, and FBI Domestic Security Investigations," in Curry,
Ibid.]. 

The advent of the Cold War, ongoing conflicts with the Soviet Union, and
fears of the "international Communist conspiracy" provided justification
not only for covert CIA operations and American military intervention in
countries all over the globe, but also contributed to the FBI's rationale
for expanding its domestic surveillance activities. 

Thus in 1957, without authorisation from Congress or any president, 
Hoover launched a highly secret operation called COINTELPRO: 

"From 1957 to 1974, the bureau opened investigative files on more than 
half a million 'subversive' Americans. In the course of these investigations, 
the bureau, in the name of 'national security,' engaged in widespread 
wire-tapping, bugging, mail-openings, and break-ins. Even more insidious 
was the bureau's extensive use of informers and undercover operative to
infiltrate and report on the activities and membership of 'subversive' 
political associations ranging from the Socialist Workers Party to the 
NAACP to the Medical Committee for Human Rights to a Milwaukee Boy Scout 
troop." [Stone, Ibid., p. 274].

But COINTELPRO involved much more than just investigation and
surveillance. It was used to discredit, weaken, and ultimately destroy the
New Left and Black radical movements of the sixties and early seventies,
i.e. to silence the major sources of political dissent and opposition. 

The FBI fomented violence through the use of agents provocateurs and destroyed
the credibility of movement leaders by framing them, bringing false
charges against them, distributing offensive materials published in their
name, spreading false rumours, sabotaging equipment, stealing money, and
other dirty tricks. By such means the Bureau exacerbated internal
frictions within movements, turning members against each other as 
well as other groups.

Government documents show the FBI and police involved in creating
acrimonious disputes which ultimately led to the break-up of such groups
as Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panther Party, and the
Liberation News Service. The Bureau also played a part in the failure of
such groups to form alliances across racial, class, and regional lines. 
The FBI is implicated in the assassination of Malcolm X, who was killed in
a "factional dispute" that the Bureau bragged of having "developed" in the
Nation of Islam, and of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the target of an
elaborate FBI plot to drive him to suicide before he was conveniently
killed by a sniper. Other radicals were portrayed as criminals,
adulterers, or government agents, while still others were murdered in
phoney "shoot-outs" where the only shooting was done by the police.

These activities finally came to public attention because of the Watergate
investigations, congressional hearings, and information obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In response to the revelations of FBI
abuse, Attorney General Edward Levi in 1976 set forth a set of public
guidelines governing the initiation and scope of the bureau's domestic
security investigations, severely restricting its ability to investigate
political dissidents. 

The Levi guidelines, however, proved to be only a temporary reversal of
the trend. Although throughout his presidency Ronald Reagan professed to
be against the increase of state power in regard to domestic policy, he in
fact expanded the power of the national bureaucracy for "national
security" purposes in systematic and unprecedented ways. One of the most
significant of these was his immediate elimination of the safeguards
against FBI abuse that the Levi guidelines had been designed to prevent. 
This was accomplished through two interrelated executive branch
initiatives: Executive Order 12333, issued in 1981, and Attorney General
William French Smith's guidelines, which replaced Levi's in 1983.

The Smith guidelines permitted the FBI to launch domestic security
investigations if the facts "reasonably indicated" that groups or
individuals were involved in criminal activity. More importantly,
however, the new guidelines also authorised the FBI to "anticipate or
prevent crime." As a result, the FBI could now investigate groups or
individuals whose statements "advocated" criminal activity or indicated an
*apparent intent* to engage in crime, particularly crimes of violence.

As Curry notes, the language of the Smith guidelines provided FBI
officials with sufficient interpretative latitude to investigate virtually
any group or individual it chose to target, including political activists
who opposed the administration's foreign policy. Not surprisingly, under
the new guidelines the Bureau immediately began investigating a wide
variety of political dissidents, quickly making up for the time it had
lost since 1976. Congressional sources show that in 1985 alone the FBI
conducted 96 investigations of groups and individuals opposed to the
Reagan Administration's Central American policies, including religious
organisations who expressed solidarity with Central American refugees.

The Smith guidelines only allowed the Bureau to investigate dissidents.
Now, however, there is a far greater threat to the US Bill of Rights
waiting in the wings: the so-called Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill. If
passed, this bill would allow the President, on his own initiative and by
his own definition, to declare any person or organisation "terrorist." 

Section 301(c)6 states that these presidential rulings will be considered
as conclusive and cannot be appealed in court. The Attorney General would
also be handed new enforcement powers, e.g. suspects would be considered
guilty unless proven innocent, and the source or nature of the
evidence brought against suspects would not have to be revealed if the
Justice Department claimed a "national security" interest in suppressing
such facts, as of course it would. Suspects could also be held without
bail and deported for any reason if they were visiting aliens. Resident
aliens would be entitled to a hearing, but could nevertheless be deported
even if no crime were proven! US citizens could be put in jail for up to
ten years and pay a $250,000 fine if declared guilty.

An equally scary provision of the Counter-Terrorism Bill is Section 603,
which subsumes all "terrorist" crimes under the RICO (Racketeer-Influenced
Criminal Organisation) civil asset forfeiture statutes. Thus anyone
merely accused of "interfering" or "impeding" or "threatening" a current
or former federal employee could have all their property seized under
"conspiracy to commit terrorism" charges. Some in Congress now want to
designate all local gun-related charges as federal terrorist crimes. 
Obviously the Counter-Terrorism Bill would simply add to the abuses that
are already widespread in drug cases under the seizure and forfeiture laws.
This is hardly surprising, since Federal and state agencies and local
police are encouraged to make seizures and get to keep the property for
their own use, and since anonymous informants who make charges leading to
seizures are entitled to part of the property seized.

If this bill passes, it is certain to be used against the Left, as
COINTELPRO was in the past. For it will greatly increase the size and
funding of the FBI and give it the power to engage in "anti-terrorist"
activities all over the country, without judicial oversight. The mind
reels at the ability this bill would give the government to suppress
dissidents or critics of capitalism, who have historically been the
favourite targets of FBI abuses. For example, if an agent provocateur 
were to bring an illegal stick of dynamite to a peaceful meeting of
philosophical anarchists, he could later report everyone at the meeting to
the government on charges of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. The
agent could even blow something up with the dynamite and claim that other
members knew of the plan. Everyone in the group could then have all their
property seized and be jailed for up to ten years!

Even if the Counter-Terrorism Bill doesn't pass in its present form, the
fact that a draconian measure like this is even being considered says
volumes about the direction in which the US -- and by implication the
other "advanced" capitalist states -- are headed.

D.9.5 But doesn't authoritarian government always involve censorship? 

Yes. And central governments have been quietly increasing their power
over the media for the past several decades. Monopolistic control of mass
communications may not be readily evident in nominally democratic
societies, where there seem to be many different sources of information. 
Yet on closer inspection it turns out that virtually all the major media
-- those that reach the vast majority of people -- promulgate essentially
the same neocapitalist world view. This is because the so-called "free" 
press is owned by a handful of capitalistic media conglomerates. Such 
uniformity insures that any facts, concepts, or opinions that clash with 
or tend to discredit the fundamental principles of that world view are 
unlikely to reach a wide audience (see section D.3). 

There are numerous ties between government, news magazines, and
newspapers. Corporate interests dominate television and radio; and for
reasons described earlier, the interests of major corporations largely
coincide with those of the government. The tendency in recent
years has been toward the absorption of small independent print media,
especially newspapers, by conglomerates that derive their major profits
from such industries as steel, oil, and telephone equipment. As Marilyn
French notes, the effect of these conglomerates' control "is to warn
communications media away from anything that might be disturbing, and
toward a bland, best-of-all-possible-worlds point of view. Although
people have a wide range of reading and viewing material to choose from,
the majority of it offers the same kinds of distraction -- fads and
fashions, surface glitter -- or tranquillisation: all problems are
solvable, no serious injustice or evil is permitted to continue" [French,
Op. Cit., p. 350]. In other words, people are granted ever-increasing 
access to an ever-decreasing range of "acceptable" ideas.

These trends represent an unofficial and unsystematic form of censorship. 
In the United States, however, the federal government has been extending
official and systematic forms of censorship as well. Again, the Reagan
Administration proceeded furthest in this regard. In 1983 alone, more
than 28,000 speeches, articles, and books written by government employees
were submitted to government censors for clearance. The Reagan government
even set a precedent for restricting information that is not classified. 
This it accomplished by passing laws requiring all government employees
with security clearances to sign Standard Form 189, which allows them to
be prosecuted for divulging not only classified information but that which
is "nonclassified but classifiable." The latter is a deliberately vague,
Catch-22 category that has sufficient interpretative latitude to allow for
the harassment of most would-be whistle-blowers [Curry, Op. Cit.].

The United States Information Agency (USIA), which sends scholars overseas
as part of its AMPARTS programme of educational and cultural exchanges, has
attempted to screen the political opinions of scholars it selects for
foreign speaking engagements. In 1983 the House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on International Operations criticised USIA officials for
"violating the letter and spirit of its charter" in choosing its AMPARTS
speakers on the basis of "partisan political ideology."

In early 1984 the USIA's policies became a national scandal when the
_Washington Post_ revealed that since late 1981 the USIA had been
compiling a blacklist containing not only the names of prominent academics
but of national figures, including Coretta Scott King, Congressman Jack
Brooks, and former Senator Gary Hart. Under the Immigration,
Naturalisation, and Nationality Act (known as "the McCarran Act") foreign
nationals have been denied entry into the United States because of their
political and ideological beliefs. Among the most notable among the
thousands who have been so denied are Nobel Prize-winning authors Gabriel
Garcia Marquez and Czeslaw Milosz, as well as author Carlos Fuentes,
playwright Dario Fo, actress Franca Rame, novelist Doris Lessing, NATO
Deputy Supreme Commander Nino Pasti, renowned Canadian writer Farley
Mowat, American-born feminist writer Margaret Randall, and Hortensia
Allende, widow of the former Socialist president of Chile, Salvador
Allende.

In perhaps the most disturbing censorship development in recent years, the
Reagan Administration used the powers of the Trading with the Enemy Act to
place an embargo on magazines and newspapers from Cuba, North Vietnam, and
Albania (but not China or the ex-Soviet Union), and confiscated certain
Iranian books purchased by television journalists abroad. These materials
were not embargoed because they contained American secrets, but simply
because it was thought they might contain information the Administration
did not want Americans to know [French, Op. Cit., p. 433].

Official censorship was also highly evident during the recent Persian Gulf
massacre. In this one-sided conflict, the government not only severely
curtailed the press's access to information about the war, restricting
reporters to escorted "press pools," but to a large extent turned the
major news media into compliant instruments of Administration propaganda.
This was accomplished by creating competition between the TV networks and
news services for the limited number of slots in the pools, thus making
news departments dependent on the government's good will and turning news
anchors into cheerleaders for the US-led slaughter.

Reporting on the Gulf War was also directly censored by the military, by
news and photo agencies, or by both. For instance, when award-winning
journalist Jon Alpert, a longtime NBC stringer, "came back from Iraq with
spectacular videotape of Basra [Iraq's second largest city, population
800,000] and other areas of Iraq devastated by US bombing, NBC president
Michael Gartner not only ordered that the footage not be aired but forbade
Alpert from working for the network in the future" [Fairness and Accuracy
in Reporting, _Extra, Special Issue on the Gulf War_, 1991, p. 15].

As John R. Macarthur has documented, congressional approval for the war
might not have been forthcoming without a huge preliminary propaganda and
disinformation campaign designed to demonise Saddam Hussein and his
troops. The centrepiece of this campaign -- the now infamous story of
Iraqi soldiers allegedly ripping premature Kuwaiti babies from their
incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floor -- was a
total fabrication masterminded by an American public relations firm funded
by the Kuwaiti government-in-exile and eagerly disseminated by the
Administration with the help of a credulous and uncritical news
establishment [John R. Macarthur, _Second Front: Censorship and
Propaganda in the Gulf War_, Hill & Wang, 1992; also, John Stauber and 
Sheldon Rampton, _Toxic Sludge is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lies
and the Public Relations Industry_, Common Courage Press, 1995].

These trends toward a system of official and unofficial censorship do not
bode well for future freedom of speech and of the press. For they
establish precedents for muzzling, intimidating, and co-opting the primary
sources of public information -- precedents that can be invoked whenever
an administration finds it convenient. This is just one more piece of
evidence that late capitalism is leading inexorably toward authoritarian
government. 

D.9.6 What does the Right want?

In his book _Post-Conservative America_ Kevin Phillips, one of the most
knowledgeable and serious conservative ideologues, discusses the
possibility of fundamental alterations that he regards as desirable in the
US government. His proposals leave no doubt about the direction in which
the Right wishes to proceed. "Governmental power is too diffused to make
difficult and necessary economic and technical decisions," Phillips
maintains. "[A]ccordingly, the nature of that power must be re-thought. 
Power at the federal level must be augmented, and lodged for the most part
in the executive branch" [p. 218].

In the model state Phillips describes, Congress would be reduced to a mere
tool of a presidency grown even more "imperial" than it already is, with
congressional leaders serving in the Cabinet and the two-party system
merged into a single-party coalition. Before we dismiss this idea as
impossible to implement, let's remember that the distinction between the
two major parties has already been virtually obliterated, as each is
controlled by the corporate elite, albeit by different factions within it.

Despite many tactical disagreements, virtually all members of this elite
share a basic set of principles, attitudes, ideals, and values. Whether
Democrat or Republican, most of them have graduated from the same Ivy
League schools, belong to the same exclusive social clubs, serve on the
same interlocking boards of directors of the same major corporations, and
send their children to the same private boarding schools [See G. William
Domhoff, Who Rules America Now? 1983; C. Wright Mills, _The Power Elite_,
1956]. Perhaps most importantly, they share the same psychology, which
means that they have the same priorities and interests: namely, those of
corporate America. 

Hence there's actually only one party already -- the Business Party -- which 
wears two different masks to hide its real face from the public. Similar
remarks apply to the liberal democratic regimes in the rest of the advanced 
capitalist states. The absence of a true opposition party, which itself is 
a main characteristic of authoritarian regimes, is thus an accomplished fact
already, and has been so for many years. 

Besides the merging of the major political parties, other forces are
leading inexorably toward the scenario described by Phillips. For
instance, the power of the executive branch continues to grow because the
authority of Congress has been progressively weakened by scandals,
partisan bickering, gridlock, and ongoing revelations of legislative
corruption. Indeed, bribe-taking, influence-peddling, check-bouncing,
conflicts of interest, shady deals, sex scandals, and general
incompetence now seem almost routine on Capitol Hill. Unless something is
done to restore congressional respectability, the climate will remain
conducive to a further consolidation of power in the presidency. 

Phillips assures us that all the changes he envisions can be accomplished
without altering the Constitution. Such marvels are indeed possible. The
Emperor Augustus centralised all real power in his own hands without
disbanding the Roman Senate or the Roman Republic; Hitler implemented 
his Nazi programmes while leaving the Weimar constitution intact; Stalin 
ruled under the revolutionary constitution which was theoretically 
democratic. 

The facts cited here as evidence for the gradual authoritarianisation 
of the United States have been canvassed before by others, sometimes
accompanied by warnings of impending dictatorship. So far such warnings
have proven to be premature. What is especially alarming today, however,
is that the many signs of growing authoritarianism examined above are now
coinciding with the symptoms of a social breakdown -- a "coincidence" which
in the past has heralded the approach of tyranny. 

Fully authoritarian regimes in the US and other First World nations would
represent far more than a mere threat to citizens' civil liberties and
their hopes for a better society. For authoritarian regimes tend to be
associated with reckless military adventurism led by autocratic heads of
state. Thus, in a nuclear world in which Europe and Japan followed the US
lead toward authoritarian government, the likelihood of nuclear aggression
by irresponsible politicians would continue to grow. In that case, the
former anxieties of the Cold War would seem mild by comparison. Hence the
urgency of the anarchist programme of anti-authoritarianism, political
decentralisation, and grassroots democracy -- the only real antidotes to the
disturbing trends described above. 

As an aside we should note that many naysayers and ruling class apologists 
often deny the growing authoritarianism as "paranoia" or "conspiracy 
theorising." The common retort is "but if things are as bad as you say, 
how come the government lets you write this seditious FAQ?" 

The reason we can write this work unmolested is testimony to the lack 
of power possessed by the public at large, in the existing political
culture--that is, countercultural movements needn't be a concern to the
government until they become broader-based and capable of challenging the
existing economic order--only then is it "necessary" for the repressive,
authoritarian forces to work on undermining the movement.

So long as there is no effective organising and no threat to the interests
of the ruling elite, people are permitted to say whatever they want. This 
creates the illusion that the society is open to all ideas, when, in fact, 
it isn't. But, as the decimation of the Wobblies and anarchist movement
after the First World War first illustrated, the government will seek to 
eradicate any movement that poses a significant threat.

The proper application of spin to dissident ideology can make it seem that
*any* alternatives to the present system "just wouldn't work" or "are
utopian", even when such alternatives are in the self-interest of the
population at large. This ideological pruning creates the misperception in
people's minds that radical theories haven't been successfully implemented
because they are inherently flawed--and naturally, the current authoritarian
ideology is portrayed as the only "sane" course of action for people to follow.

For example, most Americans reject socialism outright, without any
understanding or even willingness to understand what socialism is 
really about. This isn't because (libertarian) socialism is wrong; it's 
a direct result of capitalist propagandising of the past 70 years (and
its assertion that "socialism" equals Stalinism).

Extending this attitude to the people themselves, authoritarians (with
generous help from the corporate press) paint dissidents as "crackpots" 
and "extremists," while representing themselves as reasonable "moderates", 
regardless of the relative positions they are advocating. In this way, a 
community opposing a toxic waste incinerator in their area can be lambasted 
in the press as the bad guys, when what is really happening is a local 
community is practising democracy, daring to challenge the 
corporate/government authoritarians!

In the Third World, dissenters are typically violently murdered and tossed
into unmarked mass graves; here, in the First World, more subtle subversion
must take place. The "invisible hand" of advanced capitalist authoritarian
societies is no less effective; the end result is the same, if the
methodology differs--the elimination of alternatives to the present
socio-economic order.

D.10 How does capitalism affect technology?
 
Technology has an obvious effect on individual freedom, in some ways
increasing it, in others restricting it. However, since capitalism is 
a social system based on inequalities of power, it is a truism that
technology will reflect those inequalities, as it does not develop 
in a social vacuum.

No technology evolves and spreads unless there are people who benefit 
from it and have sufficient means to disseminate it. In a capitalist 
society, technologies useful to the rich and powerful are generally 
the ones that spread. This can be seen from capitalist industry, where 
technology has been implemented specifically to deskill the worker, so 
replacing the skilled, valued craftperson with the easily trained (and 
eliminated!) "mass worker." By making trying to make any individual 
worker dispensable, the capitalist hopes to deprive workers of a means 
of controlling the relation between their effort on the job and the pay 
they receive. In Proudhon's words, the "machine, or the workshop, after
having degraded the labourer by giving him a master, completes his
degeneracy by reducing him from the rank of artisan to that of common
workman." [_System of Economical Contradictions_, p. 202]

So, unsurprisingly, technology within a hierarchical society will tend
to re-enforce hierarchy and domination. Managers/capitalists will select
technology that will protect and extend their power (and profits), not
weaken it. Thus, while it is often claimed that technology is "neutral"
this is not (and can never be) the case. Simply put, "progress" within
a hierarchical system will reflect the power structures of that system.

As George Reitzer notes, technological innovation under a hierarchical
system soon results in "increased control and the replacement of human
with non-human technology. In fact, the replacement of human with
non-human technology is very often motivated by a desire for greater
control, which of course is motivated by the need for profit-maximisation. 
The great sources of uncertainty and unpredictability in any rationalising 
system are people. . . .McDonaldisation involves the search for the means 
to exert increasing control over both employees and customers." [George 
Reitzer, _The McDonaldisation of Society_, p. 100] For Reitzer, 
capitalism is marked by the "irrationality of rationality," in which 
this process of control results in a system based on crushing the 
individuality and humanity of those who live within it.

In this process of controlling employees for the purpose of maximising
profit, deskilling comes about because skilled labour is more expensive
than unskilled or semi-skilled and skilled workers have more power over 
their working conditions and work due to the difficulty in replacing
them. In addition it is easier to "rationalise" the production process 
with methods like Taylorism, a system of strict production schedules 
and activities based on the amount of time (as determined by management) 
that workers "need" to perform various operations in the workplace, thus 
requiring simple, easily analysed and timed movements. And as companies 
are in competition, each has to copy the most "efficient" (i.e. profit 
maximising) production techniques introduced by the others in order to 
remain profitable, no matter how dehumanising this may be for workers. 
Thus the evil effects of the division of labour and deskilling becoming 
widespread. Instead of managing their own work, workers are turned into 
human machines in a labour process they do not control, instead being
controlled by those who own the machines they use (see also Harry Braverman,
_Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth
Century_, Monthly Review Press, 1974). 

As Max Stirner noted (echoing Adam Smith), this process of deskilling and
controlling work means that "[w]hen everyone is to cultivate himself into
man, condemning a man to *machine-like labour* amounts to the same thing
as slavery. . . . Every labour is to have the intent that the man be
satisfied. Therefore he must become a *master* in it too, be able to
perform it as a totality. He who in a pin-factory only puts on heads, only
draws the wire, works, as it were mechanically, like a machine; he remains
half-trained, does not become a master: his labour cannot *satisfy* him,
it can only *fatigue* him. His labour is nothing by itself, has no object
*in itself,* is nothing complete in itself; he labours only into another's
hands, and is *used* (exploited) by this other." [_The Ego and Its Own_, 
p. 121] Kropotkin makes a similar argument against the division of
labour ("machine-like labour") in _The Conquest of Bread_ (see chapter 
XV -- "The Division of Labour") as did Proudhon (see chapters III and
IV of _System of Economical Contradictions_).

Modern industry is set up to ensure that workers do not become "masters"
of their work but instead follow the orders of management. The evolution
of technology lies in the relations of power within a society. This is
because "the viability of a design is not simply a technical or even
economic evaluation but rather a political one. A technology is deemed
viable if it conforms to the existing relations of power." [David Noble,
_Progress without People_, p. 63]

This process of controlling, restricting, and de-individualising labour 
is a key feature of capitalism. Work that is skilled and controlled by
workers in empowering to them in two ways. Firstly it gives them pride
in their work and themselves. Secondly, it makes it harder to replace
them or suck profits out of them. Therefore, in order to remove the
"subjective" factor (i.e. individuality and worker control) from the 
work process, capital needs methods of controlling the workforce to 
prevent workers from asserting their individuality, thus preventing 
them from arranging their own lives and work and resisting the 
authority of the bosses. 

This need to control workers can be seen from the type of machinery
introduced during the Industrial Revolution. According to Andrew Ure, a
consultant for the factory owners, "[i]n the factories for spinning coarse
yarn. . .the mule-spinners [skilled workers] have abused their powers
beyond endurance, domineering in the most arrogant manner. . . over their
masters. High wages. . . have, in too many cases, cherished pride and
supplied funds for supporting refractory spirits in strikes. . . . During
a disastrous turmoil of [this] kind. . . several capitalists. . . had
recourse to the celebrated machinists. . . of Manchester. . . [to
construct] a self-acting mule. . . . This invention confirms the great
doctrine already propounded, that when capital enlists science in her
service, the refractory hand of labour will always be taught docility"
[Andrew Ure, _Philosophy of Manufactures_, pp. 336-368 -- quoted by
Noble, Op. Cit., p. 125]

Why is it necessary for workers to be "taught docility"? Because "[b]y the
infirmity of human nature, it happens that the more skilful the workman,
the more self-willed and intractable he is apt to become, and of course
the less fit a component of mechanical system in which . . . he may do 
great damage to the whole." [Ibid.] Proudhon quotes an English Manufacturer
who argues the same point:

"The insubordination of our workmen has given us the idea of dispensing
with them. We have made and stimulated every imaginable effort to replace
the service of men by tools more docile, and we have achieved our object.
Machinery has delivered capital from the oppression of labour." [_System
of Economical Contradictions_, p. 189]

As David Noble summarises, during the Industrial Revolution "Capital 
invested in machines that would reinforce the system of domination 
[in the workplace], and this decision to invest, which might in the 
long run render the chosen technique economical, was not itself an 
economical decision but a political one, with cultural sanction." 
[Op. Cit., p. 6] 

A similar process was at work in the US, where the rise in trade unionism
resulted in "industrial managers bec[oming] even more insistent that skill 
and initiative not be left on the shop floor, and that, by the same token, 
shop floor workers not have control over the reproduction of relevant 
skills through craft-regulated apprenticeship training. Fearful that 
skilled shop-floor workers would use their scare resources to reduce 
their effort and increase their pay, management deemed that knowledge 
of the shop-floor process must reside with the managerial structure." 
[William Lazonick, _Organisation and Technology in Capitalist 
Development_, p. 273]

American managers happily embraced Taylorism (aka "scientific management"), 
according to which the task of the manager was to gather into his possession 
all available knowledge about the work he oversaw and reorganise it. Taylor
himself considered the task for workers was "to do what they are told to
do promptly and without asking questions or making suggestions." [quoted
by David Noble, _American By Design_, p. 268] Taylor also relied exclusively
upon incentive-pay schemes which mechanically linked pay to productivity
and had no appreciation of the subtleties of psychology or sociology (which
would have told him that enjoyment of work and creativity is more important
for people than just higher pay). Unsurprisingly, workers responded to
his schemes by insubordination, sabotage and strikes and it was "discovered
. . . that the 'time and motion' experts frequently knew very little
about the proper work activities under their supervision, that often they
simply guessed at the optimum rates for given operations . . . it meant
that the arbitrary authority of management has simply been reintroduced
in a less apparent form." [David Noble, Op. Cit., p. 272] Although, now,
the power of management could hide begin the "objectivity" of "science."

Katherine Stone also argues (in her account of "The Origins of Job Structure
in the Steel Industry" in America) that the "transfer of skill [from the 
worker to management] was not a response to the necessities of production, 
but was, rather, a strategy to rob workers of their power" by "tak[ing]
knowledge and authority from the skilled workers and creating a management
cadre able to direct production." Stone highlights that this deskilling 
process was combined by a "divide and rule" policy by management by wage 
incentives and new promotion policies. This created a reward system in 
which workers who played by the rules would receive concrete gains in 
terms of income and status. Over time, such a structure would become 
to be seen as "the natural way to organise work and one which offered 
them personal advancement" even though, "when the system was set up, 
it was neither obvious nor rational. The job ladders were created just 
when the skill requirements for jobs in the industry were diminishing 
as a result of the new technology, and jobs were becoming more and more
equal as to the learning time and responsibility involved." The modern 
structure of the capitalist workplace was created to break workers 
resistance to capitalist authority and was deliberately "aimed at altering 
workers' ways of thinking and feeling -- which they did by making workers' 
individual 'objective' self-interests congruent with that of the employers 
and in conflict with workers' collective self-interest." It was a means of 
"labour discipline" and of "motivating workers to work for the employers' 
gain and preventing workers from uniting to take back control of 
production." Stone notes that the "development of the new labour 
system in the steel industry was repeated throughout the economy in
different industries. As in the steel industry, the core of these new
labour systems were the creation of artificial job hierarchies and the
transfer pf skills from workers to the managers." [Root & Branch (ed.),
_Root and Branch: The Rise of the Workers' Movements_, pp. 152-5] 

This process was recognised by libertarians at the time, with the I.W.W., 
for example, arguing that "[l]abourers are no longer classified by difference 
in trade skill, but the employer assigns them according to the machine 
which they are attached. These divisions, far from representing differences 
in skill or interests among the labourers, are imposed by the employers 
that workers may be pitted against one another and spurred to greater 
exertion in the shop, and that all resistance to capitalist tyranny may 
be weakened by artificial distinctions." [quoted by Katherine Stone,
Op. Cit., p. 157] For this reason, anarchists and syndicalists argued 
for, and built, industrial unions -- one union per workplace and industry 
-- in order to combat these divisions and effectively resist capitalist 
tyranny.

Needless to say, such management schemes never last in the long run nor 
totally work in the short run either -- which explains why hierarchical 
management continues, as does technological deskilling (workers always 
find ways of using new technology to increase their power within the 
workplace and so undermine management decisions to their own advantage).

This of process deskilling workers was complemented by many factors -- state 
protected markets (in the form of tariffs and government orders -- the "lead 
in technological innovation came in armaments where assured government orders 
justified high fixed-cost investments"); the use of "both political and 
economic power [by American Capitalists] to eradicate and diffuse workers' 
attempts to assert shop-floor control"; and "repression, instigated and 
financed both privately and publicly, to eliminate radical elements [and 
often not-so-radical elements as well, we must note] in the American labour
movement." [William Lazonick, _Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor_, 
p. 218, p. 303]) Thus state action played a key role in destroying
craft control within industry, along with the large financial resources
of capitalists compared to workers.

Bringing this sorry story up to date, we find "many, if not most,
American managers are reluctant to develop skills [and initiative] 
on the shop floor for the fear of losing control of the flow of 
work." [William Lazonick, _Organisation and Technology in Capitalist 
Development_, pp. 279-280] Given that there is a division of knowledge 
in society (and, obviously, in the workplace as well) this means that 
capitalism has selected to introduce a management and technology mix 
which leads to inefficiency and waste of valuable knowledge, experience 
and skills. 

Thus the capitalist workplace is both produced by and is a weapon
in the class struggle and reflects the shifting power relations 
between workers and employers. The creation of artificial job 
hierarchies, the transfer of skills away from workers to managers 
and technological development are all products of class struggle. 
Thus technological progress and workplace organisation within 
capitalism have little to do with "efficiency" and far more to 
do with profits and power.

This means that while self-management has consistently proven to 
be more efficient (and empowering) than hierarchical management 
structures (see section J.5.12), capitalism actively selects 
*against* it. This is because capitalism is motivated purely 
by increasing profits, and the maximisation of profits is best 
done by disempowering workers and empowering bosses (i.e. the 
maximisation of power) -- even though this concentration of power 
harms efficiency by distorting and restricting information flow 
and the gathering and use of widely distributed knowledge within 
the firm (as in any command economy) as well as having a serious 
impact on the wider economy and social efficiency.

Thus the last refuge of the capitalist/technophile (namely that the
productivity gains of technology outweigh the human costs or the means
used to achieve them) is doubly flawed. Firstly, disempowering technology 
may maximise profits, but it need not increase efficient utilisation of
resources or workers time, skills or potential (and as we argue in greater 
detail later, in section J.5.12, efficiency and profit maximisation are two 
different things, with such deskilling and management control actually 
*reducing* efficiency -- compared to workers' control -- but as it allows 
managers to maximise profits the capitalist market selects it). Secondly, 
"when investment does in fact generate innovation, does such innovation yield
greater productivity?. . . After conducting a poll of industry executives
on trends in automation, _Business Week_ concluded in 1982 that 'there
is a heavy backing for capital investment in a variety of labour-saving
technologies that are designed to fatten profits without necessary
adding to productive output.'" David Noble concludes that "whenever 
managers are able to use automation to 'fatten profits' and enhance their 
authority (by eliminating jobs and extorting concessions and obedience from 
the workers who remain) without at the same time increasing social product, 
they appear more than ready to do." [David Noble, _Progress Without People_, 
pp. 86-87 and p. 89]

Of course the claim is that higher wages follow increased investment and
technological innovation ("in the long run" -- although usually "the long 
run" has to be helped to arrive by workers' struggle and protest!). Passing
aside the question of whether slightly increased consumption really makes
up for dehumanising and uncreative work, we must note that it is usually
the capitalist who *really* benefits from technological change in money
terms. For example, between 1920 and 1927 (a period when unemployment
caused by technology became commonplace) the automobile industry (which was
at the forefront of technological change) saw wages rise by 23.7%. Thus,
claim supporters of capitalism, technology is in all our interests. However,
capital surpluses rose by 192.9% during the same period -- 8 times faster!
Little wonder wages rose! Similarly, over the last 20 years the USA and
many other countries have seen companies "down-sizing" and "right-sizing" 
their workforce and introducing new technologies. The result? Simply
put, the 1970s saw the start of "no-wage growth expansions." Before
the early 1970s, "real wage growth tracked the growth of productivity 
and production in the economy overall. After . . ., they ceased to do 
so. . . Real wage growth fell sharply below measured productivity growth." 
[James K. Galbraith, _Created Unequal_, p. 79] So while real wages have 
stagnated, profits have been increasing as productivity rises and the 
rich have been getting richer -- technology yet again showing whose 
side it is on. 

Overall, as David Noble notes (with regards to manufacturing):

"U.S. Manufacturing industry over the last thirty years . . . [has
seen] the value of capital stock (machinery) relative to labour
double, reflecting the trend towards mechanisation and automation.
As a consequence . . . the absolute output person hour increased
115%, more than double. But during this same period, real earnings
for hourly workers . . . rose only 84%, less than double. Thus, after
three decades of automation-based progress, workers are now earning
less relative to their output than before. That is, they are producing
more for less; working more for their boss and less for themselves."
[Op. Cit., pp. 92-3]

Noble continues:

"For if the impact of automation on workers has not been ambiguous,
neither has the impact on management and those it serves -- labour's
loss has been their gain. During the same first thirty years of our
age of automation, corporate after tax profits have increased 450%,
more than five times the increase in real earnings for workers."
[Op. Cit., p. 95]

But why? Because labour has the ability to produce a flexible amount 
of output (use value) for a given wage. Unlike coal or steel, a worker
can be made to work more intensely during a given working period and
so technology can be utilised to maximise that effort as well as
increasing the pool of potential replacements for an employee by
deskilling their work (so reducing workers' power to get higher
wages for their work). Thus technology is a key way of increasing
the power of the boss, which in turn can increase output per worker 
while ensuring that the workers'  receive relatively less of that output 
back in terms of wages -- "Machines," argued Proudhon, "promised us an 
increase of wealth they have kept their word, but at the same time 
endowing us with an increase of poverty. They promised us liberty. . . 
[but] have brought us slavery." [Op. Cit., p. 199]

But do not get us wrong, technological progress does not imply that
we are victims. Far from it, much innovation is the direct result
of our resistance to hierarchy and its tools. For example, capitalists
turned to Taylorism and "scientific management" in response to 
the power of skilled craft workers to control their work and working
environment (the famous 1892 Homestead strike, for example, was a
direct product of the desire of the company to end the skilled workers' 
control and power on the shop-floor). In response to this, factory
and other workers created a whole new structure of working class 
power -- a new kind of unionism based on the industrial level. This 
can be seen in many different countries. For example, in Spain, the 
C.N.T. (an anarcho-syndicalist union) adopted the *sindicato unico* 
(one union) in 1918 which united all workers of the same workplace 
in the same union (by uniting skilled and unskilled in a single
organisation, the union increased their fighting power). In the UK, 
the shop stewards movement arose during the first world war based on 
workplace organisation (a movement inspired by the pre-war syndicalist 
revolt and which included many syndicalist activists). This movement 
was partly in response to the reformist TUC unions working with the 
state during the war to suppress class struggle. In Germany, the
1919 near revolution saw the creation of revolutionary workplace unions 
and councils (and a large increase in the size of the anarcho-syndicalist 
union FAU which was organised by industry). In the USA, the 1930s saw a 
massive and militant union organising drive by the C.I.O. based on 
industrial unionism and collective bargaining (inspired, in part, by 
the example of the I.W.W. and its broad organisation of unskilled 
workers). 

More recently, workers in the 1960s and 70s responded to the 
increasing reformism and bureaucratic nature of such unions as 
the CIO and TUC by organising themselves directly on the shop 
floor to control their work and working conditions. This informal 
movement expressed itself in wildcat strikes against both unions 
and management, sabotage and unofficial workers' control of production 
(see John Zerzan's essay "Organised Labour and the Revolt Against
Work" in _Elements of Refusal_). In the UK, the shop stewards' 
movement revived itself, organising much of the unofficial strikes 
and protests which occurred in the 1960s and 70s. A similar 
tendency was seen in many countries during this period. 

So in response to a new developments in technology and workplace 
organisation, workers' developed new forms of resistance which
in turn provokes a response by management. Thus technology and 
its (ab)uses is very much a product of the class struggle, of 
the struggle for freedom in the workplace.

With a given technology, workers and radicals soon learn to 
resist it and, sometimes, use it in ways never dreamed off to 
resist their bosses and the state (which necessitates a transformation 
of within technology again to try and give the bosses an upper hand!). 
The use of the Internet, for example, to organise, spread and co-ordinate 
information, resistance and struggles is a classic example of this 
process (see Jason Wehling, "'Netwars' and Activists Power on the 
Internet", _Scottish Anarchist_ no. 2 for details). There is 
always a "guerrilla war" associated with technology, with workers 
and radicals developing their own tactics to gain counter control 
for themselves. Thus much technological change reflects *our* 
power and activity to change our own lives and working conditions. 
We must never forget that.

While some may dismiss our analysis as "Luddite," to do so is 
make "technology" an idol to be worshipped rather than something 
to be critically analysed. Moreover, to do so is to misrepresent 
the ideas of the Luddites themselves -- they never actually opposed 
*all* technology or machinery. Rather, they opposed "all Machinery 
hurtful to Commonality" (as a March 1812 letter to a hated Manufacturer 
put it). Rather than worship technological progress (or view it 
uncritically), the Luddites subjected technology to critical analysis 
and evaluation. They opposed those forms of machinery that harmed 
themselves or society. Unlike those who smear others as "Luddites," 
the labourers who broke machines were not intimidated by the modern 
notion of progress. Their sense of right and wrong was not clouded 
by the notion that technology was somehow inevitable or neutral. 
They did not think that *human* values (or their own interests) 
were irrelevant in evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of a given 
technology and its effects on workers and society as a whole. Nor 
did they consider their skills and livelihood as less important 
than the profits and power of the capitalists. In other words, 
they would have agreed with Proudhon's comment that machinery 
"plays the leading role in industry, man is secondary" *and* they 
acted to change this relationship. [Op. Cit., p. 204] Indeed, 
it would be temping to argue that worshippers of technological 
progress are, in effect, urging us *not* to think and to sacrifice 
ourselves to a new abstraction like the state or capital. The Luddites 
were an example of working people deciding what their interests were 
and acting to defend them by their own direct action -- in this case 
opposing technology which benefited the ruling class by giving them 
an edge in the class struggle. Anarchists follow this critical 
approach to technology, recognising that it is not neutral nor 
above criticism.

For capital, the source of problems in industry is people. Unlike
machines, people can think, feel, dream, hope and act. The "evolution" of
technology will, therefore, reflect the class struggle within society and
the struggle for liberty against the forces of authority. Technology, far
from being neutral, reflects the interests of those with power. Technology
will only be truly our friend once we control it ourselves and *modify*
to reflect *human* values (this may mean that some forms of technology
will have to be written off and replaces by new forms in a free society). 
Until that happens, most technological processes -- regardless of the other
advantages they may have -- will be used to exploit and control people.

Thus Proudhon's comments that "in the present condition of society,
the workshop with its hierarchical organisation, and machinery" could
only serve "exclusively the interests of the least numerous, the least
industrious, and the wealthiest class" rather than "be employed for the
benefit of all." [Op. Cit., p. 205]

While resisting technological "progress" (by means up to and including
machine breaking) is essential in the here and now, the issue of
technology can only be truly solved when those who use a given 
technology control its development, introduction and use. Little 
wonder, therefore, that anarchists consider workers' self-management
as a key means of solving the problems created by technology. Proudhon, 
for example, argued that the solution to the problems created by the 
division of labour and technology could only be solved by "association", 
and "by a broad education, by the obligation of apprenticeship, and by 
the co-operation of all who take part in the collective work."  This 
would ensure that "the division of labour can no longer be a cause of 
degradation for the workman [or workwoman]." [_The General Idea of the 
Revolution_, p. 223] 

While as far as technology goes, it may not be enough to get rid of 
the boss, this is a necessary first step in creating a technology which 
enhances freedom rather than controlling and shaping the worker (or user 
in general) and enhancing the power and profits of the capitalist (see
 also section I.4.9 -- Should technological advance be seen as 
anti-anarchistic?).

D.11 What causes justifications for racism to appear?

The tendency toward social breakdown which is inherent in the growth of
wealth polarisation, as discussed in section D.9, is also producing a growth 
in racism in the countries affected. As we have seen, social breakdown leads
to the increasingly authoritarian government prompted by the need of the
ruling class to contain protest and civil unrest among those at the 
bottom of the wealth pyramid. In the US those in the lowest economic 
strata belong mostly to racial minorities, while in several European 
countries there are growing populations of impoverished minorities 
from the Third World, often from former colonies. The desire of the 
more affluent strata to justify their superior economic positions
is, as one would expect, causing racially based theories of privilege 
to become more popular. 

That racist feelings are gaining strength in America is evidenced by the
increasing political influence of the Far Right, whose thinly disguised
racism reflects the darkening vision of a growing segment of the
conservative community. Further evidence can be seen in the growth of
ultraconservative extremist groups preaching avowedly racist philosophies,
such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, the White Aryan Resistance,
and others [see James Ridgeway, _Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan,
Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture_,
Thunder's Mouth Press, 1990]. Thus, American Politicians and organisers
such as Pat Buchanan, David Duke, and Ralph Metzger have been able to
exploit the budding racism of lower- and middle-class white youths, who
must compete for increasingly scarce jobs with desperate minorities who
are willing to work at very low wages. The expanding popularity of such
racist groups in the US is matched by a similar phenomenon in Europe,
where xenophobia and a weak economy have propelled extreme right-wing
politicians into the limelight on promises to deport foreigners. 

Most conservative US politicians have taken pains to distance themselves
officially from the Far Right. Yet during the 1992 presidential campaign,
mainstream conservative politicians used code words and innuendo ("welfare
queens," "quotas," etc.) to convey a thinly veiled racist message.
David Duke's candidacy for the governorship of Louisiana in 1991 and for
the presidency in 1992, as well as the Republican Convention speeches of
Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson, reflected the increasing influence of the
Far Right in American politics. More recently there has been Proposition
187 in California, targeting illegal immigrants.

What easier way is there to divert people's anger than onto scapegoats? 
Anger about bad housing, no housing, boring work, no work, bad wages and 
conditions, job insecurity, no future, and so on. Instead of attacking the 
real causes of these (and other) problems, people are encouraged to direct 
their anger against people who face the same problems just because they
have a different skin colour or come from a different part of the world!
Little wonder politicians and their rich backers like to play the racist
card -- it diverts attention away from them and the system they run (i.e.
the *real* causes of our problems).

Racism, in other words, tries to turn class hatred into race hatred. 
Little wonder that sections of the ruling elite will turn to it, as
and when required. Their class interests (and, often, their personal
bigotry) requires them to do so -- a divided working class will never
challenge their position in society. 

Therefore, justifications for racism appear for two reasons. Firstly,
to try and justify the existing inequalities within society (for example,
the infamous -- and highly inaccurate -- "Bell Curve" and related works).
Secondly, to divide the working class and divert anger about living
conditions and social problems away from the ruling elite and their 
system onto scapegoats in our own class.

D.11.1 Does free market ideology play a part in racist tendencies to increase?

The most important factor in the right-wing resurgence in the US has been
the institutionalisation of the Reagan-Bush brand of conservatism, whose
hallmark was the reinstatement, to some degree, of laissez-faire economic 
policies (and, to an even larger degree, of laissez-faire rhetoric). A 
"free market," Reagan's economic "experts" argued, necessarily produced 
inequality; but by allowing unhindered market forces to select the
economically fittest and to weed out the unfit, the economy would become
healthy again. The wealth of those who survived and prospered in the
harsh new climate would ultimately benefit the less fortunate, through 
a "trickle-down" effect which was supposed to create millions of new
high-paying jobs. 

All this would be accomplished by deregulating business, reducing taxes 
on the wealthy, and dismantling or drastically cutting back federal 
programmes designed to promote social equality, fairness, and compassion. 
The aptly named Laffer Curve illustrated how cutting taxes actually *raises* 
government revenue. In actuality, and unsurprisingly, the opposite happened, 
with wealth flooding upwards and the creation of low-paying, dead-end jobs.
(the biggest "Laffers" in this scenario were the ruling class, who saw 
unprecedented gains in wealth at the expense of the rest of us).

The Reaganites' doctrine of inequality gave the official seal of approval
to ideas of racial superiority that right-wing extremists had used for
years to rationalise the exploitation of minorities. If, on average, blacks
and Hispanics earn only about half as much as whites; if more than a
third of all blacks and a quarter of all Hispanics lived below the poverty
line; if the economic gap between whites and non-whites was growing --
well, that just proved that there was a racial component in the
Social-Darwinian selection process, showing that minorities "deserved"
their poverty and lower social status because they were "less fit."

In the words of left-liberal economist James K. Galbraith:

"What the economists did, in effect, was to reason backward, from the
troublesome effect to a cause that would rationalise and justify it 
. . . [I]t is the work of the efficient market [they argued], and the
fundamental legitimacy of the outcome is not supposed to be questioned.

"The *apologia* is a dreadful thing. It has distorted our understanding,
twisted our perspective, and crabbed our politics. On the right, as one
might expect, the winners on the expanded scale of wealth and incomes are
given a reason for self-satisfaction and an excuse for gloating. Their
gains are due to personal merit, the application of high intelligence,
and the smiles of fortune. Those on the loosing side are guilty of sloth,
self-indulgence, and whining. Perhaps they have bad culture. Or perhaps
they have bad genes. While no serious economist would make that last
leap into racist fantasy, the underlying structure of the economists'
argument has undoubtedly helped to legitimise, before a larger public,
those who promote such ideas." [_Created Unequal: The Crisis in American
Pay_, p. 264]

The logical corollary of this social Darwinism is that whites who are
"less fit" (i.e., poor) also deserve their poverty. But philosophies of
racial hatred are not necessarily consistent. Thus the ranks of white
supremacist organisations have been swollen in recent years by
undereducated and underemployed white youths frustrated by a declining
industrial labour market and a noticeably eroding social status [Ridgeway,
Ibid., p.186]. Rather than drawing the logical Social-Darwinian
conclusion -- that they too are "inferior" -- they have instead blamed
blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews for "unfairly" taking their jobs. 
Thus the neo-Nazi skinheads, for example, have been mostly recruited from
disgruntled working-class whites below the age of 30. This has provided
leaders of right-wing extremist groups with a growing base of potential
storm troopers.

Therefore, laissez-faire ideology helps create a social environment in 
which racist tendencies can increase. Firstly, it does so by increasing
poverty, job insecurity, inequality and so on which right-wing groups
can use to gather support by creating scapegoats in our own class to
blame (for example, by blaming poverty on blacks "taking our jobs" rather 
than capitalists moving their capital to other, more profitable, countries
or them cutting wages and conditions for *all* workers -- and as we 
point out in section B.1.4, racism, by dividing the working class, 
makes poverty and inequality *worse* and so is self-defeating). Secondly, 
it abets racists by legitimising the notions that inequalities in pay 
and wealth are due to racial differences rather than a hierarchical system 
which harms *all* working class people (and uses racism to divide, and
so weaken, the oppressed). By pointing to individuals rather than to 
institutions, organisations, customs, history and above all power -- the 
relative power between workers and capitalists, citizens and the state, 
the market power of big business, etc. -- laissez-faire ideology points 
analysis into a dead-end as well as apologetics for the wealthy, apologetics 
which can be, and are, utilised by racists to justify their evil politics.