File: secD1.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 13.4-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: squeeze, wheezy
size: 24,760 kB
ctags: 640
sloc: makefile: 27
file content (1633 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 105,196 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>D.1 Why does state intervention occur?</title>
</head>

<body>

<h1>D.1 Why does state intervention occur?</h1>

<p>
The most obvious interaction between statism and capitalism is when
the state intervenes in the economy. Indeed, the full range of 
capitalist politics is expressed in how much someone thinks this
should happen. At one extreme, there are the right-wing liberals
(sometimes mistakenly called "libertarians") who seek to reduce 
the state to a defender of private property rights. At the other,
there are those who seek the state to assume full ownership and
control of the economy (i.e. state capitalists who are usually 
mistakenly called "socialists"). In practice, the level of state
intervention lies between these two extremes, moving back and forth
along the spectrum as necessity requires.
</p><p>
For anarchists, capitalism as an economy requires state intervention.
There is, and cannot be, a capitalist economy which does not exhibit
some form of state action within it. The state is forced to intervene 
in society for three reasons:
</p><p><ol>
      1. To bolster the power of capital as a whole within society.<br>
      2. To benefit certain sections of the capitalist class against
         others.<br>
      3. To counteract the anti-social effects of capitalism. 
</ol></p><p>
From our discussion of the state and its role in <a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>, 
the first two reasons are unexpected and straight forward. The state is an 
instrument of class rule and, as such, acts to favour the continuation
of the system as a whole. The state, therefore, has always intervened 
in the capitalist economy, usually to distort the market in favour of 
the capitalist class within its borders as against the working class 
and foreign competitors. This is done by means of taxes, tariffs, 
subsidies and so forth. 
</p><p>
State intervention has been a feature of capitalism from the start. 
As Kropotkin argued, <i>"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 <b>always</b> 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. 
<b>And it could not be otherwise.</b> To do so was one of the functions 
-- the chief mission -- of the State."</i> [<b>Evolution and Environment</b>, 
pp. 97-8]
</p><p>
In addition to this role, the state has also regulated certain 
industries and, at times, directly involved itself in employing 
wage labour to product goods and services. The classic example 
of the latter is the construction and maintenance of a transport 
network in order to facilitate the physical circulation of goods. 
As Colin Ward noted, transport <i>"is an activity heavily regulated 
by government. This regulation was introduced, not in the interests
of the commercial transport operators, but in the face of their
intense opposition, as well as that of the ideologists of 'free'
enterprise."</i> He gives the example of the railways, which were 
<i>"built at a time when it was believed that market forces would 
reward the good and useful and eliminate the bad or socially 
useless."</i> However, <i>"it was found necessary as early as 1840 for 
the government's Board of Trade to regulate and supervise them, 
simply for the protection of the public."</i> [<b>Freedom to Go</b>, p. 7
and pp. 7-8]
</p><p>
This sort of intervention was to ensure that no one capitalist or 
group of capitalists had a virtual monopoly over the others which 
would allow them to charge excessive prices. Thus the need to 
bolster capital as a whole may involve regulating or expropriating
certain capitalists and sections of that class. Also, state ownership 
was and is a key means of rationalising production methods, either 
directly by state ownership or indirectly by paying for Research 
and Development. That certain sections of the ruling class may seek 
advantages over others by control of the state is, likewise, a 
truism.
</p><p>
All in all, the idea that capitalism is a system without state 
intervention is a myth. The rich use the state to bolster their 
wealth and power, as would be expected. Yet even if such a thing 
as a truly "laissez-faire" capitalist state were possible, it 
would still be protecting capitalist property rights and the 
hierarchical social relations these produce against those subject
to them. This means, as Kropotkin stressed, it <i>"has never practised"</i> 
the idea of laissez faire. In fact, <i>"while all Governments have 
given the capitalists and monopolists full liberty to enrich 
themselves with the underpaid labour of working men [and women] 
. . . they have <b>never</b>, <b>nowhere</b> given the working [people] the 
liberty of opposing that exploitation. Never has any Government 
applied the 'leave things alone' principle to the exploited masses. 
It reserved it for the exploiters only."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 96] As such, 
under pure "free market" capitalism state intervention would still 
exist but it would be limited to repressing the working class (see 
<a href="secD1.html#secd14">section D.1.4</a> for more discussion). 
</p><p>
Then there is the last reason, namely counteracting the destructive 
effects of capitalism itself. As Chomsky puts it, <i>"in a predatory 
capitalist economy, state intervention would be an absolute necessity 
to preserve human existence and to prevent the destruction of the 
physical environment -- I speak optimistically . . . social protection 
. . . [is] therefore a minimal necessity to constrain the irrational 
and destructive workings of the classical free market."</i> [<b>Chomsky on 
Anarchism</b>, p. 111] This kind of intervention is required simply 
because <i>"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."</i> [Malatesta, <b>Anarchy</b>, 
p. 25]
</p><p>
So while many ideologues of capitalism thunder against state 
intervention (for the benefit of the masses), the fact is that 
capitalism itself produces the need for such intervention. 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 <a href="secC7.html">section C.7</a>), in 
practice the state can only try to postpone them and ameliorate their 
severity. Let's begin with the need for social intervention. 
</p><p>
Capitalism is based on turning both labour and land into commodities. 
As socialist Karl Polanyi points out, however, <i>"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."</i> And this 
means that <i>"human society has become an accessory to the economic 
system,"</i> with humanity placing itself fully in the hands of supply 
and demand. But such a situation <i>"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."</i> This, inevitably, provokes 
a reaction in order to defend the basis of society and the 
environment that capitalism needs, but ruthlessly exploits. As 
Polanyi summarises, <i>"the countermove against economic liberalism 
and laissez-faire possessed all the unmistakable characteristics 
of a spontaneous reaction . . . [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."</i> 
[<b>The Great Transformation</b>, p. 71, pp. 41-42 and pp. 149-150] 
</p><p>
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. 
</p><p>
In other words, the state and many of its various policies are not 
imposed from outside of the capitalist system. It is not some alien 
body but rather has evolved in response to clear failings within 
capitalism itself (either from the perspective of the ruling elite
or from the general population). It contrast, as the likes of von 
Hayek did, to the "spontaneous" order of the market versus a "designed" 
order associated with state fails to understand that the latter can 
come about in response to the former. In other words, as Polanyi noted, 
state intervention can be a <i>"spontaneous reaction"</i> and so be a product 
of social evolution itself. While the notion of a spontaneous order 
may be useful to attack undesired forms of state intervention (usually 
social welfare, in the case of von Hayek), it fails to note this process 
at work nor the fact that the state itself played a key role in the 
creation of capitalism in the first place as well as specifying the 
rules for the operation and so evolution of the market itself.
</p><p>
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, the sole remaining agent of collective
action in the capitalist worldview. Strangely, conservatives and other 
right-wingers fail to see this, instead spouting on about "traditional 
values" while, at the same time, glorifying the "free market." This is 
one of the (many) ironic aspects of free market dogma, namely that it 
is often supported by people who are at the forefront of attacking the 
<b>effects</b> of it. Thus we see conservatives bemoaning the breakdown of 
traditional values while, at the same time, advocating the economic 
system whose operation weakens family life, breaks up communities, 
undermines social bonds and places individual gain above all else, 
particularly "traditional values" and "community." They seem blissfully 
unaware that capitalism destroys the traditions they claim to support 
and recognises only monetary values. 
</p><p>
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 <i>"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."</i> [<b>World Orders, Old and New</b>, p. 114] State intervention 
is as natural to capitalism as wage labour.
</p><p>
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 the key to development and 
success in the "free market." (see, for example, Robert Wade's 
<b>Governing the Market</b>). 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: <i>"Only in the mid-nineteenth 
century, when it had become powerful enough to overcome any competition, 
did England [sic!] embrace free trade."</i> [Chomsky, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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 
<a href="secD8.html">section D.8</a>).
</p><p>
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 <i>"an accessory to the economic system"</i>; (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. Thus 
the contradictions of capitalism necessitate government intervention. 
The more the economy grows, the greater become the contradictions 
and the greater the contradictions, the greater the need for state 
intervention. The development of capitalism as a system provides 
amble empirical support for this theoretical assessment.
</p><p>
Part of the problem is that the assumption that "pure" capitalism does
not need the state is shared by both Marxists and supporters of capitalism. 
<i>"So long as capital is still weak,"</i> Marx wrote, <i>"</i>it supports itself by 
leaning on the crutches of past, or disappearing, modes of production. 
As soon as it begins to feel itself strong, it throws away these crutches 
and moves about in accordance with its own laws of motion. But as soon as 
it begins to feel itself as a hindrance to further development and is 
recognised as such, it adapts forms of behaviour through the harnessing of 
competition which seemingly indicate its absolute rule but actually point 
to its decay and dissolution."</i> [quoted by Paul Mattick, <b>Marx and 
Keynes</b>, p. 96] Council Communist Paul Mattick comments that a <i>"healthy"</i> 
capitalism <i>"is a strictly competitive capitalism, and the imperfections 
of competition in the early and late stages of its development must be 
regarded as the ailments of an infantile and of a senile capitalism. For 
a capitalism which restricts competition cannot find its indirect 
'regulation' in the price and market movements which derive from the 
value relations in the production process."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 97]
</p><p>
However, this gives capitalism far too much credit -- as well as ignoring
how far the reality of that system is from the theory. State intervention
has always been a constant aspect of economic life under capitalism. 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, <i>"[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."</i> [<b>Marxism, 
Anarchism, and Alternative Futures</b>, p. 784] As Kropotkin put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"What, then is the use of taking, with Marx, about the 'primitive
accumulation' -- as if this 'push' given to capitalists were a thing
of the past? . . . In short, nowhere has the system of 'non-intervention
of the State' ever existed . . . Nowhere, since States have grown up, 
have the masses had the freedom of resisting the oppression by 
capitalists. The few rights they have now they have gained only by
determination and endless sacrifice.
</p><p>
"To speak therefore of 'non-intervention of the State' may be all
right for middle-class economists, who try to persuade the workers
that their misery is 'a law of Nature.' But -- how can Socialists 
use such language?"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>,  pp. 97-8]
</blockquote></p><p>
In other words, while Marx was right to note that the <i>"silent compulsion 
of economic relations sets the seal on the domination of the capitalist 
over the worker"</i> he was wrong to state that <i>"[d]irect extra-economic
force is still of course used, but only in exceptional cases."</i> The
ruling class rarely lives up to its own rhetoric and while <i>"rely[ing] 
on his [the workers'] dependence on capital"</i> it always supplements that
with state intervention. As such, Marx was wrong to state it was 
<i>"otherwise during the historical genesis of capitalist production."</i> 
It is not only the <i>"rising bourgeoisie"</i> which <i>"needs the power of the 
state"</i> nor is it just <i>"an essential aspect of so-called primitive 
accumulation."</i> [<b>Capital</b>, vol. 1, pp. 899-900] 
</p><p>
The enthusiasm for the "free market" since the 1970s is in fact the product 
of the 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! 
When the Keynesian system went into crisis, the ideologues of "free 
market" capitalism seized their chance and found many in the ruling class
willing to utilise their rhetoric to reduce or end those aspects of state
intervention which benefited the many or inconvenienced themselves. However,
state intervention, while reduced, did not end. It simply became more 
focused in the interests of the elite (i.e. the natural order). As Chomsky 
stresses, the "minimal state" rhetoric of the capitalists is a lie, for 
they will <i>"never get rid of the state because they need it for their own 
purposes, but they love to use this as an ideological weapon against 
everyone else."</i> They are <i>"not going to survive without a massive state 
subsidy, so they want a powerful state."</i> [<b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>, p. 215]
</p><p>
And neither should it be forgotten that state intervention was required 
to create the "free" market in the first place. To quote Polanyi again, 
<i>"[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."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 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 <a href="secF8.html">section F.8</a> for details). 
</p><p>
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. As such, it would be wrong to 
suggest that anarchists are somehow "in favour" of state intervention. 
This is not true. We are "in favour" of reality, not ideology. The reality 
of capitalism is that it needs state intervention to be created and needs
state intervention to continue (both to secure the exploitation of labour 
and to protect society from the effects of the market system). That we 
have no truck with the myths of "free market" economics does not mean we 
"support" state intervention beyond recognising it as a fact of a system 
we want to end and that some forms of state intervention are better than
others.</p>

<h2><a name="secd11">D.1.1 Does state intervention cause the problems to begin with?</a></h2>

<p>
It depends. In the case of state intervention on behalf of the ruling 
class, the answer is always yes! However, in terms of social intervention 
the answer is usually no.
</p><p>
However, for classical liberals (or, as we would call them today,
neo-liberals, right-wing "libertarians" or "conservatives"), state 
intervention is the root of all evil. It is difficult for anarchists
to take such argument that seriously. Firstly, it is easily concluded
from their arguments that they are only opposed to state intervention 
on behalf of the working class (i.e. the welfare state or legal support
for trade unionism). They either ignore or downplay state intervention
on behalf of the ruling class (a few <b>do</b> consistently oppose all state 
intervention beyond that required to defend private property, but these
unsurprisingly have little influence beyond appropriation of some 
rhetoric and arguments by those seeking to bolster the ruling elite). 
So most of the right attack the social or regulatory activities of 
the government, but fail to attack those bureaucratic activities (like 
defence, protection of property) which they agree with. As such, their 
arguments are so selective as to be little more than self-serving 
special pleading. Secondly, it does appear that their concern for 
social problems is limited simply to their utility for attacking 
those aspects of state intervention which claim to help those most 
harmed by the current system. They usually show greater compassion 
for the welfare of the elite and industry than for the working class. 
For former, they are in favour of state aid, for the latter the benefits 
of economic growth is all that counts. 
</p><p>
So what to make of claims that it is precisely the state's interference 
with the market which causes the problems that society blames on the 
market? For anarchists, such a position is illogical, for <i>"whoever says 
regulation says limitation: now, how conceive of limiting privilege 
before it existed?"</i> It <i>"would be an effect without a cause"</i> and so 
<i>"regulation was a corrective to privilege"</i> and not vice versa. <i>"In 
logic as well as in history, everything is appropriated and monopolised 
when laws and regulations arrive."</i> [Proudhon, <b>System of Economic 
Contradictions</b>, p. 371] As economist Edward Herman notes:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The growth of government has closely followed perceived failings of
the private market system, especially in terms of market instability,
income insecurity, and the proliferation of negative externalities.
Some of these deficiencies of the market can be attributed to its
very success, which have generated more threatening externalities and
created demands for things the market is not well suited to provide.
It may also be true that the growth of the government further weakens
the market. This does not alter the fact that powerful underlying
forces -- not power hungry bureaucrats or frustrated intellectuals
-- are determining the main drift."</i> [Edward Herman, <b>Corporate Control, 
Corporate Power</b>,  pp. 300-1]
</blockquote></p><p>
In other words, state intervention is the result of the problems caused 
by capitalism rather than their cause. To say otherwise is like arguing
that murder is the result of passing laws against it. 
</p><p>
As Polanyi explains, the neo-liberal premise is false, because state 
intervention always <i>"dealt with some problem arising out of modern 
industrial conditions or, at any rate, in the market method of dealing 
with them."</i> In fact, most of these "collectivist" measures were carried 
out by <i>"convinced supporters of laissez-faire . . . [and who] were as 
a rule uncompromising opponents of [state] socialism or any other form 
of collectivism."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 146] Sometimes such measures were 
introduced to undermine support for socialist ideas caused by the 
excesses of "free market" capitalism but usually there were introduced 
due to a pressing social need or problem which capitalism created but 
could not meet or solve. This means that key to understanding state 
intervention, therefore, is to recognise that politics is a <b>not</b> matter 
of free will on behalf of politicians or the electorate. Rather they are 
the outcome of the development of capitalism itself and result from social, 
economic or environmental pressures which the state has to acknowledge and 
act upon as they were harming the viability of the system as a whole. 
</p><p>
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 Fotopoulos argues, <i>"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."</i> [<i>"The Nation-state and the Market"</i>, pp. 37-80,
<b>Society and Nature</b>, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 48]
</p><p>
For example, 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 <i>"[a]t the beginning of the Depression, Europe had been in the 
heyday of free trade."</i> [Polanyi, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 216] State intervention came 
about in response to the social disruptions resulting from laissez-faire. 
It did not cause them.
</p><p>
Similarly, it is a fallacy to state, as Ludwig von Mises did, that <i>"as
long as unemployment benefit is paid, unemployment must exist."</i> [quoted
by Polanyi, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 283] This statement is not only ahistoric but 
ignores the existence of the <b>involuntary</b> unemployment (the purer 
capitalism of the nineteenth century regularly experienced periods of
economic crisis and mass unemployment). Even such a die-hard exponent 
of the minimal state as Milton Friedman recognised involuntary 
unemployment existed:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The growth of government transfer payments in the form of unemployment
insurance, food stamps, welfare, social security, and so on, has reduced
drastically the suffering associated with involuntary unemployment. . . 
most laid-off workers . . . may enjoy nearly as high an income when 
unemployed as when employed . . . At the very least, he need not be so 
desperate to find another job as his counterpart in the 1930's. He can 
afford to be choosy and to wait until he is either recalled or a more 
attractive job turns up."</i> [quoted by Elton Rayack, <b>Not so Free to 
Choose</b>, p. 130]
</blockquote></p><p>
Which, ironically, contradicts Friedman's own claims as regards the welfare 
state. In an attempt to show that being unemployed is not as bad as people 
believe Friedman <i>"glaringly contradicts two of his main theses, (1) that 
the worker is free to choose and (2) that no government social programs 
have achieved the results promised by its proponents."</i> As Rayack notes, 
by <i>"admitting the existence of involuntary unemployment, Friedman is, in 
essence, denying that . . . the market protects the worker's freedom to 
choose. . . In addition, since those social programs have made it possible 
for the worker to be 'choosy; in seeking employment, to that extent the 
welfare state has increased his freedom."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 130] But, of 
course, the likes of von Mises will dismiss Friedman as a "socialist" 
and no further thought is required.
</p><p>
That governments started to pay out unemployment benefit is not surprising,
given that mass unemployment can produce mass discontent. This 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 and tried to counter-act it. What
the likes of von Mises forget is that the state has to consider the long
term viability of the system rather than the ideologically correct position
produced by logically deducting abstract principles.
</p><p>
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 Polanyi again: <i>"a social calamity is 
primarily a cultural not an economic phenomenon that can be measured by 
income figures."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 157] And it is the nature of capitalism to 
ignore or despise what cannot be measured.
</p><p>
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 <b>not</b> to have some bad effects. State intervention 
can and does make bad situations worse in some cases. It also has a tendency
for self-perpetuation. As Elisee Reclus put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"As soon as an institution is established, even if it should be only to 
combat flagrant abuses, it creates them anew through its very existence. 
It has to adapt to its bad environment, and in order to function, it must 
do so in a pathological way. Whereas the creators of the institution follow 
only noble ideals, the employees that they appoint must consider above all 
their remuneration and the continuation of their employment."</i> [<i>"The Modern 
State"</i>, pp. 201-15, John P Clark and Camille Martin (eds.), <b>Anarchy, 
Geography, Modernity</b>, p. 207]
</blockquote></p><p>
As such, welfare within a bureaucratic system will have problems but getting
rid of it will hardly <b>reduce</b> inequality (as proven by the onslaught on it
by Thatcher and Reagan). This is unsurprising, for while the state bureaucracy 
can never eliminate poverty, it can and does reduce it -- if only to keep the 
bureaucrats secure in employment by showing some results.
</p><p>
Moreover, as Malatesta notes, <i>"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."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, 
p. 24] In such circumstances, it would be amazing that state intervention 
did not have negative effects. However, to criticise those negative effects 
while ignoring or downplaying the far worse social problems which produced 
the intervention in the first place is both staggeringly illogical and deeply 
hypocritical. As we discuss later, in <a href="secD1.html#secd15">section D.1.5</a>, 
the anarchist approach 
to reforms and state intervention is based on this awareness.
</p>

<h2><a name="secd12">D.1.2 Is state intervention the result of democracy?</a></h2>

<p>
No. Social and economic intervention by the modern state began long before 
universal suffrage became widespread. While this intervention was usually
in the interests of the capitalist class, it was sometimes done explicitly 
in the name of the general welfare and the public interest. Needless to say,
while the former usually goes unmentioned by defenders of capitalism, the
latter is denounced and attacked as violations of the natural order (often
in terms of the sinister sounding "collectivist" measures). 
</p><p>
That democracy is not the root cause for the state's interference in the
market is easily seen from the fact that non-democratic capitalist states
presided over by defenders of "free market" capitalism have done so. For 
example, in Britain, acts of state intervention were introduced when 
property and sexual restrictions on voting rights still existed. More 
recently, taking Pinochet's neo-liberal dictatorship in Chile, we find 
that the state, as would be expected, <i>"often intervened on behalf of 
private and foreign business interests."</i> Given the history of capitalism, 
this is to be expected. However, the state also practised social 
intervention at times, partly to diffuse popular disaffection with 
the economic realities the system generated (disaffection that state 
oppression could not control) and partly to counter-act the negative 
effects of its own dogmas. As such, <i>"[f]ree-market ideologues are 
reluctant to acknowledge that even the Pinochet government intervened 
in many cases in the market-place in last-minute attempts to offset 
the havoc wrecked by its free-market policies (low-income housing, 
air quality, public health, etc.)"</i> [Joseph Collins and John Lear, 
<b>Chile's Free-Market Miracle: A Second Look</b>, p. 254]
</p><p>
The notion that it is "democracy" which causes politicians to promise the 
electorate state action in return for office is based on a naive viewpoint
of representative democracy. 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.
</p><p>
Obviously anarchists are well aware that the state does say it intervenes 
to protect the interests of the general public, not the elite. While much 
of this is often rhetoric to hide policies which (in reality) benefit 
corporate interests far more than the general public, it cannot be denied 
that such intervention does exist, to some degree. However, even here the 
evidence supports the anarchist claim that the state is an instrument of 
class rule, not a representative of the general interest. This is because 
such reforms have, in general, been few and far between compared to those 
laws which benefit the few. 
</p><p>
Moreover, historically when politicians have made legal changes favouring 
the general public rather than the elite they have done so only after 
intense social pressure from below. For examples, the state only passed 
pro-union laws only when the alternative was disruptive industrial 
conflict. In the US, the federal government, at best, ignored or, at 
worse, actively suppressed labour unions during the 19th century. It was 
only when mineworkers were able to shut down the anthracite coal fields 
for months in 1902, threatening disruption of heating supplies around 
the country, that Teddy Roosevelt supported union demands for binding 
arbitration to raise wages. He was the first President in American 
history to intervene in a strike in a positive manner on behalf of 
workers. 
</p><p>
This can be seen from the "New Deal" and related measures of limited state
intervention to stimulate economic recovery during the Great Depression. 
These were motivated by more material reasons than democracy. Thus Takis 
Fotopoulos argues that <i>"[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."</i> [<i>"The Nation-state and the Market"</i>, <b>Op. Cit.</b>,
p. 55] As anarchist Sam Dolgoff notes, the New Deal in America (and similar 
policies elsewhere) was introduced, in part, because the <i>"whole system of
human exploitation was threatened. The political state saved itself, and 
all that was essential to capitalism, doing what 'private enterprise' could 
not do. Concessions were made to the workers, the farmers, the middle-class, 
while the private capitalists were deprived of some of their power."</i> [<b>The
American Labor Movement</b>, pp. 25-6] Much the same can be said of the post-war 
Keynesianism consensus, which combined state aid to the capitalist class with 
social reforms. These reforms were rarely the result of generous politicians 
but rather the product of social pressures from below and the needs of the
system as a whole. For example, the extensive reforms made by the 1945 Labour 
Government in the UK was the direct result of ruling class fear, not socialism. 
As Quentin Hogg, a Conservative M.P., put it in the House of Parliament in 
1943: <i>"If you do not give the people social reforms, they are going to give 
you revolution."</i> Memories of the near revolutions across Europe after the 
First World War were obviously in many minds, on both sides. 
</p><p>
Needless to say, when the ruling class considered a specific reform to be
against its interests, it will be abolished or restricted. An example of 
this can be seen in the 1934 Wagner Act in the USA, which gave US labour 
its first and last political victory. The Act was passed due to the upsurge 
in wildcat strikes, factory occupations and successful union organising 
drives which were spreading throughout the country. Its purpose was 
specifically to calm this struggle in order to preserve "labour peace." 
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 law in 
the first place and increased the powers of bosses over workers. The same 
can be said of other countries.
</p><p>
The pattern is clear. It is always the case that things need to change 
on the ground first and then the law acknowledges the changes. Any state 
intervention on behalf of the general public or workers have all followed 
people and workers organising and fighting for their rights. If labour 
or social "peace" exists because of too little organising and protesting 
or because of lack of strength in the workplace by unions, politicians 
will feel no real pressure to change the law and, consequently, refuse 
to. As Malatesta put it, the <i>"only limit to the oppression of government 
is that power with which the people show themselves capable of opposing 
it . . . When the people meekly submit to the law, or their protests are 
feeble and confined to words, the government studies its own interests 
and ignores the needs of the people; when the protests are lively, 
insistent, threatening, the government . . . gives way or resorts to 
repression."</i> [<b>Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas</b>, p. 196]
</p><p>
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, the realities of both
state and capitalism and 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 elite make says a lot about their concept 
of "freedom." 
</p><p>
Some of the more modern classical liberals (for example, many 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. This is a 
form of paternalism, as the elite determines what is, and is not, 
intervention and what the masses should, and should not, be able to 
do (in their interests, of course). Then there is the obvious conclusion 
that any such regime would have to exclude change. After all, if people 
can change the regime they are under they may change it in ways that 
the right does not support. The provision for ending economic and other
reforms would effectively ban most opposition parties as, by definition,
they could do nothing once in power. How this differs from a dictatorship 
would be hard to say -- after all, most dictatorships have parliamentary 
bodies which have no power but which can talk a lot.
</p><p>
Needless to say, the right often justify this position by appealing to the 
likes of Adam Smith but this, needless to say, fails to appreciate the 
changing political and economic situation since those days. As market 
socialist Allan Engler argues:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"In Smith's day government was openly and unashamedly an instrument of
wealth owners. Less than 10 per cent of British men -- and no women at
all -- had the right to vote. When Smith opposed government interference
in the economy, he was opposing the imposition of wealth owners' interests
on everybody else. Today, when neoconservatives oppose state interference,
their aim to the opposite: to stop the representatives of the people from
interfering with the interests of wealth owners."</i> [<b>Apostles of Greed</b>, 
p. 104]
</blockquote></p><p>
As well as the changing political situation, Smith's society was without 
the concentrations of economic power that marks capitalism as a developed
system. Whether Smith would have been happy to see his name appropriated
to defend corporate power is, obviously, a moot point. However, he had no
illusions that the state of his time interfered to bolster the elite,
not the many (for example: <i>"Whenever the law has attempted to regulate 
the wages of workmen, it has always been rather to lower them than to 
raise them."</i> [<b>The Wealth of Nations</b>, p. 119]). As such, it is doubtful 
he would have agreed with those who involve his name to defend corporate 
power and trusts while advocating the restriction of trade unions as is 
the case with modern day neo-liberalism:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between
masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always masters. When the 
regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just
and equitable . . . When masters combine together in order to reduce 
the wages of their workmen, they commonly enter into a private bond or
agreement . . . Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination 
of the same kind. not to accept of a certain wage under a certain 
penalty, the law would punish them very severely; and if dealt 
impartially, it would treat the masters in the same way."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 129]
</blockquote></p><p>
The interest of merchants and master manufacturers, Smith stressed, 
<i>"is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, 
that of the public . . . The proposal of any new law or regulation 
of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened 
to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after 
having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most 
scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from 
an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that 
of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even 
to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions,
both deceived and oppressed it."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 231-2] These days
Smith would have likely argued that this position applies equally 
to attempts by big business to <b>revoke</b> laws and regulations!
</p><p>
To view the state intervention as simply implementing the wishes 
of the majority is to assume that classes and other social 
hierarchies do not exist, that one class does not oppress and 
exploit another and that they share common interests. It means
ignoring the realities of the current political system as well 
as economic, for political parties will need to seek funds to 
campaign and that means private cash. Unsurprisingly, they will 
do what their backers demands and this dependence the wealthy 
changes the laws all obey. This means that any government will 
tend to favour business and the wealthy as the parties are funded 
by them and so they get some say over what is done. Only those 
parties which internalise the values and interests of their 
donors will prosper and so the wealthy acquire an unspoken veto 
power over government policy. In other words, parties need to 
beg the rich for election funds. Some parties do, of course, have 
trade union funding, but this is easily counteracted by pressure 
from big business (i.e., that useful euphemism, <i>"the markets"</i>) 
and the state bureaucracy. This explains why the unions in, say, 
Britain spend a large part of their time under Labour governments
trying to influence it by means of strikes and lobbying.
</p><p>
The defenders of "free market" capitalism appear oblivious as 
to the reasons <b>why</b> the state has approved regulations and 
nationalisations as well as <b>why</b> trade unions, (libertarian 
and statist) socialist and populist movements came about in the 
first place. Writing all these off as the products of ideology 
and/or economic ignorance is far too facile an explanation, as is 
the idea of power hungry bureaucrats seeking to extend their reach. 
The truth is much more simple and lies at the heart of the current 
system. The reasons why various "anti-capitalist" social movements 
and state interventions arise with such regular periodicity is because 
of the effects of an economic system which is inherently unstable 
and exploitative. For example, social movements arose in the 19th 
century because workers, artisans and farmers were suffering the 
effects of a state busy creating the necessary conditions for 
capitalism. They were losing their independence and had become, 
or were being turned, into wage slaves and, naturally, hated it. 
They saw the negative effects of capitalism on their lives and 
communities and tried to stop it.
</p><p>
In terms of social regulation, the fact is that they were often the result 
of pressing needs. Epidemics, for example, do not respect property rights
and the periodic deep recessions that marked 19th century capitalism made 
the desire to avoid them an understandable one on the part of the ruling 
elite. Unlike their ideological followers in the latter part of the century
and onwards, the political economists of the first half of the nineteenth 
century were too intelligent and too well informed to advocate out-and-out 
laissez-faire. They grasped the realities of the economic system in which 
they worked and thought and, as a result, were aware of clash between the 
logic of pure abstract theory and the demands of social life and morality. 
While they stressed the pure theory, the usually did so in order to justify
the need for state intervention in some particular aspect of social or 
economic life. John Stuart Mill's famous chapter on <i>"the grounds and limits 
of the laissez-faire and non-interference principle"</i> in his <b>Principles of 
Political Economy</b> is, perhaps, the most obvious example of this dichotomy
(unsurprisingly, von Mises dismissed Mill as a "socialist" -- recognising 
the problems which capitalism itself generates will make you ideologically 
suspect to the true believer). 
</p><p>
To abolish these reforms without first abolishing capitalism is to return 
to the social conditions which produced the social movements in the first
place. In other words, to return to the horrors of the 19th century. We 
can see this in the USA today, where this process of turning back the clock 
is most advanced: mass criminality, lower life expectancy, gated communities, 
increased work hours, and a fortune spent on security. However, this should 
not blind us to the limitations of these movements and reforms which, while 
coming about as a means to overcome the negative effects of corporate 
capitalism upon the population, <b>preserved</b> that system. In terms of 
successful popular reform movements, the policies they lead to were 
(usually) the minimum standard agreed upon by the capitalists themselves 
to offset social unrest. 
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, most opponents of state intervention are equally opposed
to popular movements and the pressures they subject the state to.
However trying to weaken (or even get rid of) the social movements 
which have helped reform capitalism ironically helps bolster the power 
and centralisation of the state. This is because to get rid of working 
class organisations means eliminating a key counter-balance to the might 
of the state. Atomised individuals not only cannot fight capitalist 
exploitation and oppression, they also cannot fight and restrict the 
might of the state nor attempt to influence it even a fraction of 
what the wealthy elite can via the stock market and management 
investment decisions. As such, von Hayek's assertion that <i>"it is 
inexcusable to pretend that . . . the pressure which can be brought 
by the large firms or corporation is comparable to that of the 
organisation of labour"</i> is right, but in the exact opposite way he 
intended. [<b>Law, Legislation and Liberty</b>, vol. III, p. 89] Outside 
the imagination of conservatives and right-wing liberals, big business 
has much greater influence than trade unions on government policy (see 
<a href="secD2.html">section D.2</a> for some details). While trade union and other forms of 
popular action are more visible than elite pressures, it does not mean 
that the form does not exist or less influential. Quite the reverse.
The latter may be more noticeable, true, but is only because it has 
to be in order to be effective and because the former is so prevalent. 
</p><p>
The reality of the situation can be seen from looking at the US, a
political system where union influence is minimal while business 
influence and lobbying is large scale (and has been since the 1980s). 
A poll of popular attitudes about the 2005 US budget <i>"revealed that 
popular attitudes are virtually the inverse of policy."</i> In general, 
there is a <i>"dramatic divide between public opinion and public policy,"</i>
but public opinion has little impact on state officials. Unsurprisingly, 
the general population <i>"do not feel that the government is responsive 
to the public will."</i> The key to evaluating whether a state is a 
functioning democracy is dependent on <i>"what public opinion is on 
major issues"</i> and <i>"how it relates to public policy."</i> In the case
of the US, business interests are supreme and, as such, <i>"[n]ot only 
does the US government stand apart from the rest of the world on 
many crucial issues, but even from its own population."</i> The state 
<i>"pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of 
the domestic population,"</i> unless forced otherwise by the people (for 
<i>"rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent authorities"</i> but 
rather by <i>"education and organising"</i>). In summary, governments 
implement policies which benefit <i>"the short-term interests of narrow
sectors of power and wealth . . . It takes wilful blindness not to
see how these commitments guide . . . policy."</i> [Chomsky, <b>Failed 
States</b>, p. 234, p. 235, p. 228, p. 229, p. 262, p. 263 and p. 211] 
A clearer example of how capitalist "democracy" works can hardly be 
found.
</p><p>
Von Hayek showed his grasp of reality by stating that the real problem 
is <i>"not the selfish action of individual firms but the selfishness of 
organised groups"</i> and so <i>"the real exploiters in our present society 
are not egotistic capitalists . . . but organisations which derive 
their power from the moral support of collective action and the feeling 
of group loyalty."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 96] So (autocratic) firms and (state 
privileged) corporations are part of the natural order, but (self-organised 
and, at worse, relatively democratic) unions are not. Ignoring the factual 
issues of the power and influence of wealth and business, the logical
problem with this opinion is clear. Companies are, of course, <i>"organised 
groups"</i> and based around <i>"collective action"</i>. The difference is that the 
actions and groups are dictated by the few individuals at the top. 
As would be expected, the application of his ideas by the Thatcher 
government not only bolstered capitalist power and resulted in increased 
inequality and exploitation (see <a href="secJ4.html#secj42">section J.4.2</a>) 
but also a strengthening 
and centralisation of state power. One aspect of this the introduction of
government regulation of unions as well as new legislation which increase 
police powers to restrict the right to strike and protest (both of which
were, in part, due opposition to free market policies by the population).
</p><p>
Anarchists may 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 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).
</p><p>
Ultimately, 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 elite! Amazingly, many capitalist 
apologists accept this as a valid inference from their premise, even 
though it's obviously a <b>reductio ad absurdum</b> of that premise as well 
as going against the facts of history. That the ruling elite is sometimes
forced to accept state intervention outside its preferred area of aid
for itself simply means that, firstly, capitalism is an unstable system
which undermines its own social and ecological basis and, secondly, that 
they recognise that reform is preferable to revolution (unlike their 
cheerleaders).
</p>

<h2><a name="secd13">D.1.3 Is state intervention socialistic?</a></h2>

<p>
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 (<i>"socialism is the 
contrary of governmentalism."</i> [Proudhon, <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, 
vol. 1, p. 63]). As Kropotkin stressed: <i>"State bureaucracy and centralisation are as irreconcilable with 
socialism as was autocracy with capitalist rule."</i> [<b>Evolution and 
Environment</b>, p. 185] The history of both social democracy and state
socialism proved this, with the former merely reforming some aspects
of capitalism while keeping the system intact while the latter 
created an even worse form of class system.
</p><p>
The identification of socialism with the state is something that 
social democrats, Stalinists and capitalist apologists <b>all</b> agree 
upon. However, as we'll see in <a href="secH3.html#sech313">section H.3.13</a>, 
"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? 
</p><p>
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. As such,
while there <i>"may be a residual sense to the notion that the state 
serves as an equaliser, in that without its intervention the destructive
powers of capitalism would demolish social existence and the physical
environment, a fact that has been well understood by the masters of
the private economy who have regularly called upon the state to 
restrain and organise these forces. But the common idea that the 
government acts as a social equaliser can hardly be put forth as a
general principle."</i> [Noam Chomsky, <b>The Chomsky Reader</b>, p. 185]
</p><p>
The list of state aid to business is lengthy and can hardly be
considered as socialistic or egalitarian is aim (regardless of its
supporters saying it is about creating "jobs" rather than securing 
profits, the reality of the situation). Government subsidies to arms 
companies and agribusiness, its subsidy of research and development 
work undertaken by government-supported universities, its spending 
to ensure a favourable international climate for business operations, 
its defence of intellectual property rights, its tort reform (i.e. the 
business agenda of limiting citizen power to sue corporations), its 
manipulation of unemployment rates, and so forth, are all examples of 
state intervention which can, by no stretch of the imagination be 
considered as "socialistic." As left-liberal economist Dean Baker 
notes:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The key flaw in the stance that most progressives have taken 
on economic issues is that they have accepted a framing whereby 
conservatives are assumed to support market outcomes, while 
progressives want to rely on the government . . . The reality 
is that conservatives have been quite actively using the power 
of the government to shape market outcomes in ways that 
redistribute income upward. However, conservatives have been 
clever enough to not own up to their role in this process, 
pretending all along that everything is just the natural working 
of the market. And, progressives have been foolish enough to go 
along with this view."</i> [<b>The Conservative Nanny State: How the 
Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer</b>, p. v]
</blockquote></p><p>
He stresses, that <i>"both conservatives and liberals want government 
intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government 
intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to 
conceal their dependence on the government."</i> They <i>"want to use the 
government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, 
business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of 
rules and structures that have this effect."</i> Dean discusses numerous 
examples of right-wing forms of state action, and notes that <i>"[i]n 
these areas of public policy . . . conservatives are enthusiastic 
promoters of big government. They are happy to have the government 
intervene into the inner workings of the economy to make sure that 
money flows in the direction they like -- upward. It is accurate to 
say that conservatives don't like big government social programs, but 
not because they don't like big government. The problem with big 
government social programs is that they tend to distribute money 
downward, or provide benefits to large numbers of people."</i> It seems 
redundant to note that <i>"conservatives don't own up to the fact that 
the policies they favour are forms of government intervention. 
Conservatives do their best to portray the forms of government 
intervention that they favour, for example, patent and copyright 
protection, as simply part of the natural order of things."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 1 and p. 2]
</p><p>
This, it should be stressed, is unexpected. As we explained in 
<a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>, the state is an instrument 
of minority rule. As such, it strains 
belief that state intervention would be socialist in nature. After all, 
if the state is an agent of a self-interesting ruling class, then its 
laws are inevitably biased in its favour. The ultimate purpose of the 
state and its laws are the protection of private property and so the
form of law is a class weapon while its content is the protection of
class interests. They are inseparable.
</p><p>
So the state and its institutions can <i>"challenge the use of authority 
by other institutions, such as cruel parents, greedy landlords, 
brutal bosses, violent criminals"</i> as well as <i>"promot[ing] desirable 
social activities, such as public works, disaster relief, 
communications and transport systems, poor relief, education and
broadcasting."</i> Anarchists argue, though, the state remains <i>"primarily 
. . . oppressive"</i> and its <i>"main function is in fact to hold down 
the people, to limit freedom"</i> and that <i>"all the benevolent functions
of the state can be exercised and often have been exercised by 
voluntary associations."</i> Moreover, <i>"the essential function of
the state is to maintain the existing inequality"</i> and so <i>"cannot
redistribute wealth fairly because it is the main agency of the
unfair distribution."</i> This is because it is <i>"the political 
expression of the economic structure, that it is the representative
of the people who own or control the wealth of the community and
the oppressor of the people who do the work which creates wealth."</i>
[Walters, <b>About Anarchism</b>, p. 36 and p. 37]
</p><p>
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, <i>"[i]n 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. It is not very likely that matters could 
be otherwise in the absence of mass popular organisations that are 
prepared to struggle for their rights and interests."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 184] The notion that "welfare equals socialism" is nonsense,
although it can reduce poverty and economic inequality somewhat.
As Colin Ward notes, <i>"when socialists have achieved power"</i> they have 
produced nothing more than <i>"[m]onopoly capitalism with a veneer of 
social welfare as a substitute for social justice."</i> [<b>Anarchy in 
Action</b>, p. 18]
</p><p>
This analysis applies to state ownership and control of industry.
Britain, for example, saw the nationalisation of roughly 20% of the
economy by the 1945 Labour Government. These were the most unprofitable 
sections of the economy but, at the time, essential for the economy 
as a whole. By taking it into state ownership, these sections could
be rationalised and developed at public expense. Rather than 
nationalisation being feared as "socialism," the capitalist class had
no real issue with it. As anarchists at the time noted, <i>"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."</i>
[Vernon Richards (ed.), <b>Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation --
Selections from Freedom 1945-1950</b>, p. 9]
</p><p>
Moreover, 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 <i>"really consolidating
the old individual capitalist class into a new and efficient class of
managers to run . . . state capitalism"</i> by <i>"installing the really creative
industrialists in dictatorial managerial positions."</i> [Vernon Richards (ed.), 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 10] Thus, in practice, the real examples of nationalisation
confirmed Kropotkin's prediction that it would be <i>"an exchange of present 
capitalism for state-capitalism"</i> and simply be <i>"nothing but a new, perhaps
improved, but still undesirable form of the wage system."</i> [<b>Evolution and
Environment</b>, p. 193 and p. 171] The nationalised industries were expected,
of course, to make a profit, partly for <i>"repaying the generous compensation 
plus interest to the former owners of the mainly bankrupt industries that 
the Labour government had taken over."</i> [Richards, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 7]
</p><p>
Ultimately, state ownership at local or national level is hardly socialistic
in principle or in practice. As Kropotkin stressed, <i>"no reasonable man [or
woman] will expect that Municipal Socialism, any more than Co-operation, 
could  solve to any extent the Social problem."</i> This was because it was 
<i>"self-evident that [the capitalists] will not let themselves be expropriated 
without opposing resistance. They may favour municipal [or state] enterprise 
for a time; but the moment they see that it really begins to reduce the number 
of paupers . . . or gives them regular employment, and consequently threatens 
to reduce the profits of the exploiters, they will soon put an end to it."</i> 
[<b>Act for Yourselves</b>, p. 94 and p. 95] The rise of Monetarism in the 1970s 
and the subsequent enthronement of the "Natural Rate" of unemployment thesis
proves this argument.
</p><p>
While state intervention is hardly socialistic, what can be said is that <i>"the 
positive feature of welfare legislation is that, contrary to the capitalist 
ethic, it is a testament to human solidarity. The negative feature is precisely 
that it is an arm of the state."</i> [Colin Ward, <b>Talking Anarchy</b>, p. 79] For 
anarchists, while <i>"we are certainly in full sympathy with all that is being 
done to widen the attributes of city life and to introduce communistic 
conceptions into it. But it is only through a Social Revolution, made by the 
workers themselves, that the present exploitation of Labour by Capital can be
altered."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 95-6] As British anarchists stressed 
during the first post-war Labour Government:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The fact that the alternative, under capitalism, is destitution and the 
sharper anomalies of poverty, does not make the Liberal-Socialistic 
alternative a sound proposition." 
</p><p>
"The only rational insurance against the evils of poverty and industrialism 
and old age under the wages system is the abolition of poverty and the wages 
system, and the transformation of industrialism to serve human ends instead 
of grinding up human beings."</i> [Vernon Richards (ed.), <b>World War - Cold War</b>, 
p. 347]
</blockquote></p><p>
In reality, rather than genuine socialism we had reformists <i>"operating 
capitalism while trying to give it a socialist gloss."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 353] 
The fact is that the ruling class oppose those forms of state intervention 
which aim, at least in rhetoric, to help working class people. This does 
not make such reforms socialistic. The much more substantial state 
intervention for the elite and business are simply part of the natural 
order and go unmentioned. That this amounts to a welfare state for the 
wealthy or socialism for the rich is, of course, one of the great 
unspeakable truths of capitalism.
</p>

<h2><a name="secd14">D.1.4 Is laissez-faire capitalism actually without state intervention?</a></h2>

<p>
The underlying assumption in the neo-liberal and conservative 
attacks against state intervention is the assumption that their
minimal state is without it. The reality of the situation is,
of course, different. Even the minimal state of the ideologues
dreams intervenes on behalf of the ruling class in order to
defend capitalist power and the property and property rights
this flows from.
</p><p>
This means that the laissez-faire position is a form of state 
intervention as well. State "neutrality" considered as simply 
enforcing property rights (the "minimal state") instantly raises 
the question of <b>whose</b> conception of property rights, popular
ones or capitalist ones? Unsurprisingly, the capitalist state 
enforces capitalist notions of property. In other words, it 
sanctions and supports economic inequality and the privileges 
and power of those who own property and, of course, the social 
relationships such a system generates. Yet by defending capitalist 
property, the state can hardly remain "neutral" with regards to 
ownership and the power it generates. In other words, the "neutral" 
state <b>has</b> to intervene to defend the authority of the boss or 
landlord over the workers they exploit and oppress. It is not a 
"public body" defending some mythical "public interest" but rather 
a defender of class society and the socio-economic relationships 
such a system creates. Political power, therefore, reflects and 
defends economic and social power.
</p><p>
As Kropotkin argued, the <i>"major portion"</i> of laws have <i>"but one 
object -- to protect private property, i.e. wealth acquired by 
the exploitation of man by man. Their aim is to open to capital 
fresh fields for exploitation, and to sanction the new forms 
which that exploitation continually assumes, as capital swallows 
up another branch of human activity . . . They exist to keep up 
the machinery of government which serves to secure to capital the 
exploitation and monopoly of wealth produced."</i> This means that all
modern states <i>"all serve one God -- capital; all have but one object 
-- to facilitate the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist."</i> 
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 210]
</p><p>
Given that the capitalist market is marked by inequalities of power, 
any legal framework will defend that power. The state simply allows 
the interaction between parties to determine the norms of conduct in 
any contract. This ensures that the more powerful party to impose 
its desires on the weaker one as the market, by definition, does
not and cannot have any protections against the imposition of private
power. The state (or legal code) by enforcing the norms agreed to by
the exchange is just as much a form of state intervention as more 
obvious forms of state action. In other words, the state's monopoly of
power and coercion is used to enforce the contracts reached between 
the powerful and powerless. As such contracts will hardly be neutral,
the state cannot be a neutral arbiter when presiding over capitalism.
The net result is simply that the state allows the more powerful party
to an exchange to have authority over the weaker party -- all under the
fiction of equality and freedom. And, as Malatesta stressed, state 
power and centralisation will have to increase:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"liberalism, 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 <b>gendarme</b> 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."</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 46]
</blockquote></p><p>
His comments were more than confirmed by the rise of neo-liberalism 
nearly a century later which combined the "free(r) market" with
a strong state marked by more extensive centralisation and police 
powers.
</p><p>
This is unsurprising, as laissez-faire capitalism being <i>"unable to solve 
its celebrated problem of the harmony of interests, [is forced] to impose 
laws, if only provisional ones, and abdicates in its turn before this new 
authority that is incompatible with the practice of liberty."</i> [Proudhon, 
quoted by Alan Ritter, <b>The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon</b>, 
p. 122] Thus capitalism always has to rely on the state, on political 
coercion, if only the minimal state, to assure its survival. The 
capitalist market has to, in other words, resort to the coercion it 
claims to avoid once people start to question its shortcomings. Of 
course, this coercion need not be monopolised in the form of state police 
and armed forces. It has been enforced successfully by private police 
forces and security guards, but it does not change the fact that force 
is required to maintain capitalist property, power and property rights.
</p><p>
In summary, <b>all</b> forms of capitalism rest on the superior force of
economic elites who have the backing of the state to defend the sources
of that power as well as any contracts it has agreed to. In other words,
"laissez-faire" capitalism does not end state intervention, it simply 
creates a situation where the state leaves the market process to the 
domination of those who occupy superior market positions. As Kropotkin 
put it, capitalism <i>"is called the freedom of transactions but it is more 
truly called the freedom of exploitation."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 119]
</p><p>
Given this, it may be objected that in this case there is no reason
for the ruling class to interfere with the economy. If economic coercion
is sufficient, then the elite has no need to turn to the state for aid.
This objection, however, fails to appreciate that the state <b>has</b> to
interfere to counteract the negative impacts of capitalism. Moreover, 
as we discussed in <a href="secC7.html">section C.7</a>, 
economic coercion becomes less pressing
during periods of low unemployment and these tend to provoke a slump.
It is in the interests of the ruling elite to use state action to reduce 
the power of the working classes in society. Thus we find the Federal 
Reserve in the USA studying economic statistics to see if workers are 
increasing their bargaining power on the labour market (i.e. are in a 
position to demand more wages or better conditions). If so, then 
interest rates are increased and the resulting unemployment and job 
insecurity make workers more likely to put up with low pay and do what 
their bosses demand. As Doug Henwood notes, <i>"policy makers are 
exceedingly obsessed with wage increases and the state of labour 
militancy. They're not only concerned with the state of the macroeconomy, 
conventionally defined, they're also concerned with the state of the 
class struggle, to use the old-fashioned language."</i> [<b>Wall Street</b>, 
p. 219] Little wonder the ruling class and its high priests within the 
"science" of economics have embraced the concept of a "natural rate" of 
unemployment (see <a href="secC9.html">section C.9</a> on this and 
as we indicated in <a href="secC6.html">section C.6</a>, 
this has been <b>very</b> enriching for the ruling class since 1980).
</p><p>
Ultimately, the business class wants the state to intervene in the 
economy beyond the minimum desired by a few ideologues of capitalism 
simply to ensure it gets even more wealth and power -- and to ensure 
that the system does not implode. Ironically, to get capitalism to work 
as some of its defenders want it to would require a revolution in itself 
-- against the capitalists! Yet if we go to the trouble of fighting 
public tyranny (the state), why should we stop there? Why should private 
tyranny (capitalism, its autocratic structures and hierarchical social 
relationships) remain untouched? Particularly, as Chomsky notes, under
capitalism <i>"minimising the state means strengthening the private sectors. 
It narrows the domain within which public influence can be expressed.
That's not an anarchist goal . . . It's minimising the state and
increasing an even worse power,"</i> namely capitalist firms and corporations 
which are <i>"private totalitarian organisations."</i> [<b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>, 
p. 214 and p. 213] In other words, if a government "privatises" some 
government function, it is not substituting a market for a bureaucracy. 
It is substituting a private bureaucracy for a public one, usually at 
rock-bottom prices, so that some more capitalists can make a profit. 
All the economic mumbo-jumbo is just a smokescreen for this fact.
</p>

<h2><a name="secd15">D.1.5 Do anarchists support state intervention?</a></h2>

<p>
So where do anarchists stand on state intervention? This question does
not present a short answer simply because it is a complex issue. On the
one hand, as Proudhon stressed, the state exists to <i>"maintain <b>order</b> in 
society, by consecrating and sanctifying obedience of the citizens to 
the State, subordination of the poor to the rich, of the common people 
to the upper class, of the worker to the idler."</i> [<b>The General Idea of 
the Revolution</b>, p. 243] In such circumstances, appealing to the state 
makes little sense. On the other hand, the modern state does do some 
good things (to varying degrees). As a result of past popular struggles, 
there is a basic welfare system in some countries which does help the 
poorest sections of society. That aspect of state intervention is what
is under attack by the right under the slogan of "minimising the state." 
</p><p>
In the long term, of course, the real solution is to abolish capitalism 
<i>"and both citizens and communities will have no need of the intervention 
of the State."</i> [Proudhon, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 268] In a free society, social 
self-defence would not be statist but would be similar in nature to 
trade unionism, co-operatives and pressure groups -- individuals working 
together in voluntary associations to ensure a free and just society -- 
within the context of an egalitarian, decentralised and participatory 
system which eliminates or reduces the problems in the first place 
(see <a href="secIcon.html">section I</a>).
</p><p>
However, that does not answer the question of what we do in the here and 
now when faced with demands that the welfare state (for the working class, 
<b>not</b> corporate welfare) and other reforms be rolled back. This attack 
has been on going since the 1970s, accelerating since 1980. We should be
clear that claims to be minimising the state should be taken with a
massive pitch of salt as the likes of Reagan were <i>"elected to office 
promising to downsize government and to 'get the government off the 
people's back,' even though what he meant was to deregulate big business, 
and make them free to exploit the workers and make larger profits."</i> 
[Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, <b>Anarchism and the Black Revolution</b>, p. 100] 
As such, it would be a big mistake to confuse anarchist hostility to
the state with the rhetoric of right-wing politicians seeking to reduce
social spending (Brian Oliver Sheppard discusses this issue well in his
article <i>"Anarchism vs. Right-Wing 'Anti-Statism'"</i> [<b>Anarcho-Syndicalist 
Review</b>, no. 31, Spring 2001]). Chomsky puts it well:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"State authority is now under severe attack in the more democratic
societies, but not because it conflicts with the libertarian vision.
Rather the opposite: because it offers (weak) protection to some
aspects of that vision. Governments have a fatal flaw: unlike the
private tyrannies, the institutions of state power and authority 
offer to the despised public an opportunity to play some role, 
however limited, in managing their own affairs. That defect is 
intolerable to the masters . . . the goals of a committed anarchist 
should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against 
them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful 
public participation -- and, ultimately, to dismantle them in a much 
more free society, of the appropriate circumstances can be achieved."</i> 
[<b>Chomsky on Anarchism</b>, p. 193 and p. 194]
</blockquote></p><p>
There is, of course, a tension in this position. The state may be
influenced by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of 
<b>capitalist</b> rule. It may intervene in society as a result of people
power and by the necessity to keep the system as a whole going, but
it is bureaucratic and influenced by the wealthy and big business.
Indeed, the onslaught on the welfare state by both Thatcher and 
Reagan was conducted under a "democratic" mandate although, in fact,
these governments took advantage of the lack of real accountability 
between elections. They took advantage of an aspect of the state 
which anarchists had been warning of for decades, being <i>"well aware 
that [the politician] can now commit crimes with immunity, [and so] 
the elected official finds himself immediately exposed to all sorts 
of seductions on behalf of the ruling classes"</i> and so implemented 
policies <i>"solicited by big industry, high officials, and above all, 
by international finance."</i> [Elisee Reclus, <b>The Modern State</b>, p. 208 
and pp. 208-9]
</p><p>
As such, while anarchists are against the state, our position on state
intervention depends on the specific issue at hand. 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 (and make no mistake, it <b>is</b> an evil).
</p><p>
Taking the issue of privatisation of state owned and run industry, the
anarchist position is opposition to both. As we noted in 
<a href="secD1.html#secd13">section D.1.3</a>,
the anarchist prediction that if you substitute government ownership for 
private ownership, <i>"nothing is changed but the stockholders and the 
management; beyond that, there is not the least difference in the position 
of the workers."</i> [Proudhon, quoted by Ritter, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 167-8] 
However, privatisation is a rip-off of the general public for the 
benefit of the wealthy:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Privatisation of public services -- whether it is through the direct 
sale of utilities or through indirect methods such as PFI and PPP -- 
involves a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the pockets 
of private business interests. It negates the concept of there being 
such a thing as 'public service' and subjects everything to the bottom 
line of profit. In other words it seeks to maximise the profits of a 
few at the expense of wages and social obligations. Furthermore, 
privatisation inevitably leads to an attack on wages and working 
conditions - conditions which have been fought for through years 
of trade union agitation are done away with at the scratch of a pen."</i>
[Gregor Kerr, <i>"Privatisation: the rip-off of public resources"</i>, 
pp. 14-18, <b>Black and Red Revolution</b>, no. 11, p. 16]
</blockquote></p><p>
In response to such "reforms", anarchists propose an alternatives to
both options. Anarchists aim not at state ownership but to <i>"transfer 
all that is needed for production . . . from the hands of the individual
capitalists into those of the communities of producers and consumers."</i> 
[Kropotkin, <b>Environment and Evolution</b>, pp. 169-70] In other words, 
while <i>"[i]n today's world 'public sector' has come to mean 'government.' 
It is only if 'public sector' can be made to mean 'people's ownership' 
in a real sense that the call for public ownership can be a truly 
radical one."</i> [Kerr, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 18] This is based on a common-sense
conclusion from the analysis of the state as an instrument of the 
ruling class:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"While anarchists oppose the privatisation of state assets and 
services for the reasons discussed above, we do not call -- as 
some on the left do -- for the 'nationalisation' of services as a 
solution to problems . . . We'd be expecting the same politicians 
who are busily implementing the neo-liberal agenda to now take on 
the role of workers' protectors . . . it is important to point 
out that the 'nationalise it' or 'take it into public ownership' 
slogan is far too often spun out by people on the left without 
their taking into account that there is a massive difference 
between state control/ownership and workers' control/ownership
. . . we all know that even if the revenues . . .  were still 
in state ownership, spending it on housing the homeless or 
reducing hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of 
the government.
</p><p>
"Put simply, state ownership does not equal workers' ownership
. . . we are sold the lie that the resource . . . is 'public 
property.' The reality however is that far from being in the 
ownership of 'the public,' ordinary people have no direct say 
in the allocation of these resources. Just as working class 
people are consistently alienated from the product of their 
labour, this selling of the idea of 'public ownership' over 
which the public have no real say leads to an increase in 
apathy and a sense of helplessness among ordinary people. It 
is much more likely that the political establishment who 
control the purse strings supposedly 'in the public interest' 
will actually spend revenues generated from these 'public 
assets' on measures that will have the long-term effect of 
re-enforcing rather than alleviating social division. Public 
policy consistently results in an increase in the gap between 
the well-off and the poor."</i> [Kerr, Opt. Cit.</b>, pp. 16-7 and p. 17]
</blockquote></p><p>
Thus an anarchist approach to this issue would be to reject both
privatisation <b>and</b> nationalisation in favour of socialisation,
i.e. placing nationalised firms under workers' self-management.
In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, 
they could be self-managed by their workers in association with 
municipal co-operatives -- based on one member, one vote -- which
would be a much better alternative than privatising what is
obviously a natural monopoly (which, as experience shows, simply 
facilitates the fleecing of the public for massive private profit).
Christie and Meltzer state the obvious:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"It is true that government takes over the control of certain 
necessary social functions. It does not follow that <b>only</b> the
state could assume such control. The postmen are 'civil servants'
only because the State makes them such. The railways were not 
always run by the state, They belonged to the capitalists [and 
do once more, at least in the UK], and could as easily have 
been run by the railway workers. 
</p><p>
"The opponents of anarchism assure us that if we put government
under a ban, there would be no education, for the state controls
the schools. There would be no hospitals - where would the money
come from? Nobody would work -- who would pay their wages? . . .
But in reality, not . . . the state, but the people provide what 
the people have. If the people do not provide for themselves, the 
state cannot help them. It only appears to do so because it is in 
control. Those who have power may apportion work or regulate the 
standard of living, but this is part of the attack upon the people, 
not something undertaken on their behalf."</i> [<b>The Floodgates of 
Anarchy</b>, p. 148-149]
</blockquote></p><p>
Much the same can be said of other aspects of state intervention.
For example, if we look at state education or welfare an anarchist
solution could be to press for <i>"workers' control by all the people
involved"</i> in an institution, in other words <i>"the extension of the
principle of freedom from the economic to the political side of the
health [and education] system[s]."</i> [Nicholas Walters, <b>About 
Anarchism</b>, p. 76] The aim is to create <i>"new forms of organisation 
for the social functions that the state fulfils through the 
bureaucracy."</i> [Colin Ward, <b>Anarchy in Action</b>, p. 19] This means
that anarchists, as part of the wider socialist, labour and social
movements seek <i>"to counterbalance as much as we [can] the centralistic, 
bureaucratic ambitions of Social Democracy."</i> [Kropotkin, <b>Act for 
Yourselves</b>, p. 120] This applies both to the organisation and tactics
of popular movements as well as the proposed reforms and how they
are implemented.
</p><p>
In terms of social reforms, anarchists stress that it cannot be left 
in the hands of politicians (i.e. the agents of the ruling class). It
should be obvious that if you let the ruling class decide (on the basis 
of their own needs and priorities) which reforms to introduce you can 
guess which ones will be implemented. If the state establishes what is 
and is not a "reform", then it will implement those which it favours in 
a manner which benefits itself and the capitalist class. Such top-down
"liberalisation" will only increase the power and freedom of the 
capitalist class and make capitalist and statist exploitation more
efficient. It will not undermine the restrictions on liberty for the
many which ensure the profits, property and power of the few in the
first place. That is, there will be minor changes around the edges of 
the state system in order to give more "freedom" to landlords and 
employers to lord it over their tenants and workers. This can be seen
from the experience of neo-liberalism across the world.
</p><p>
This means that the decision of what aspects of statism to dismantle 
first should <b>never</b> be handed over to politicians and bureaucrats who 
are inevitably agents of the capitalist class. It should be decided 
from below and guided by an overall strategy of dismantling capitalism 
<b>as a system.</b> That means that any reforms should be aimed at those forms 
of state intervention which bolster the profits and power of the ruling 
class and long before addressing those laws which are aimed at making 
exploitation and oppression tolerable for the working class. If this is
not done, then any "reforms" will be directed by the representatives of 
the business class and, consequently, aim to cut social programmes people 
actually need while leaving welfare for the rich in place. As such, 
anarchists argue that pressure from below is required to prioritise 
reforms based on genuine need rather than the interests of capital. For 
example, in the UK this would involve, say, urging the privatisation 
of the Royal Family before even thinking about "reforming" the National 
Health Service or fighting for the state to "get off the backs" of the 
unions trying to deregulate business. The key is that people reject 
a <i>"naive appeal to the legislators and high officials, waiting for 
salvation through their deliberations and decrees."</i> In reality 
<i>"freedom does not come begging, but rather must be conquered."</i> 
[Reclus, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 210] This is not done, then the results 
will simply confirm Voltairine de Cleyre's insight: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Nearly all laws which were originally framed with the intention of 
benefiting workers, have either turned into weapons in their enemies' 
hands, or become dead letters unless the workers through their 
organisations have directly enforced their observance. So that in 
the end, it is direct action that has to be relied on anyway."</i>
[<b>The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader</b>, p. 59]
</blockquote></p><p>
A classic example of the former are the anti-trust laws in America, 
originally aimed at breaking the power of capitalist monopoly but 
were soon turned against labour unions and strikers. De Cleyre's
second point is a truism and, obviously, means that anarchists aim 
to strengthen popular organisations and create mass movements which 
use direct action to defend their rights. Just because there are 
laws protecting workers, for example, there is no guarantee that 
they will be enforced -- unless workers themselves are strong enough 
to make sure the bosses comply with the law. 
</p><p>
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, more correctly, is pressurised into giving), it can take away 
but what we create and run ourselves is always responsive to <b>our</b> 
desires and interests. We have seen how vulnerable state welfare is 
to pressures from the capitalist class to see that this is a truism.
</p><p>
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 <b>can</b> 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 <a href="secJ5.html#secj515">section J.5.15</a> for 
anarchist perspectives on the welfare state).
</p><p>
One problem with state intervention, as Kropotkin saw, is that the state's
absorption of social functions <i>"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."</i> [<b>Mutual Aid</b>, p. 183] In 
the case of state "social functions," such as the British National 
Health Service, although they were created as a <b>result</b> of the social
atomisation caused by capitalism, they have tended to <b>reinforce</b> the
individualism and lack of personal and social responsibility that produced
the need for such action in the first place. The pressing need, therefore, 
is for working class people need <i>"independent control . . . of their own 
welfare programs. Mutual aid and welfare arrangements are necessary."</i> 
[Sam Dolgoff, <b>The American Labour Movement</b>, p. 26] Specific forms of 
community and social self-help and their historical precedents are 
discussed in <a href="secJ5.html#secj516">section J.5.16</a>.
</p><p>
This means that the anarchist task is building popular resistance to
the state and capitalism and that may, at time, involves resisting 
attempts to impose "reforms" which harm the working class and enrich
and empower the ruling class. As such, few anarchists subscribe to the
notion that we should support capitalism inspired "minimising" of the
state in the believe that this will increase poverty and inequality 
and so speed up the arrival of a social revolution. However, such a 
position fails to appreciate that social change is only possible when 
the hope for a better future has not been completely destroyed:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Like many others I have believed in my youth that as social conditions
became worse, those who suffered so much would come to realise the deeper 
causes of their poverty and suffering. I have since been convinced that 
such a belief is a dangerous illusion . . . There is a pitch of material
and spiritual degradation from which a man can no longer rise. Those who
have been born into misery and never knew a better state are rarely able 
to resist and revolt . . . Certainly the old slogan, 'The worse the 
better', was based on an erroneous assumption. Like that other slogan, 
'All or nothing', which made many radical oppose any improvement in the 
lot of the workers, even when the workers demanded it, on the ground 
that it would distract the mind of the proletariat, and turn it away 
from the road which leads to social emancipation. It is contrary to 
all the experience of history and of psychology; people who are not 
prepared to fight for the betterment of their living conditions are not 
likely to fight for social emancipation. Slogans of this kind are like a 
cancer in the revolutionary movement."</i> [Rudolf Rocker, <b>London Years</b>, 
pp. 25-6]
</blockquote></p><p>
The anarchist position is, therefore, a practical one based on the 
specific situation rather than a simplistic application of what is
ideologically correct. Rolling back the state in the abstract is
not without problems in a class and hierarchy ridden system where 
opportunities in life are immensely unequal. As such, any <i>"effort to
develop and implement government programs that really were equalisers
would lead to a form of class war, and in the present state of popular
organisations and distribution of effective power, there can hardly be 
much doubt as to who would win."</i> [Chomsky, <b>The Chomsky Reader</b>, p. 184]
Anarchists seek to build the grassroots resistance for politicians like 
Reagan, Bush Snr and Jnr, Thatcher and so on do not get elected without 
some serious institutional forces at work. It would be insane to think 
that once a particularly right-wing politician leaves office those 
forces will go away or stop trying to influence the political decision 
making process.
</p><p>
The task of anarchists therefore is not to abstractly oppose state 
intervention but rather contribute to popular self-organisation and
struggle, creating pressures from the streets and workplaces that 
governments cannot ignore or defy. This means supporting direct action
rather than electioneering (see <a href="secJ2.html">section J.2</a>) 
for the <i>"make-up of the 
government, the names, persons and political tendencies which rubbed 
shoulders in it, were incapable of effecting the slightest amendment 
to the enduring quintessence of the state organism . . . And the price 
of entering the of strengthening the state is always unfailingly paid 
in the currency of a weakening of the forces offering it their 
assistance. For every reinforcement of state power there is always 
. . . a corresponding debilitation of grassroots elements. Men
may come and go, but the state remains."</i> [Jose Peirats, <b>The CNT in
the Spanish Revolution</b>, vol. 2, p. 150] 
</p>

</html>
</body>