File: secD9.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 14.0-3
links: PTS, VCS
area: main
in suites: jessie, jessie-kfreebsd
size: 12,256 kB
ctags: 618
sloc: makefile: 12
file content (903 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 58,144 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>D.9 Why does political power become concentrated under capitalism?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>D.9 Why does political power become concentrated under capitalism?</h1>

<p>
Under capitalism, political power tends to become concentrated in the
executive branch of government, along with a corresponding decline in 
the effectiveness of parliamentary institutions. As Kropotkin discussed 
in his account of <i>"Representative Government,"</i> parliaments grew out of 
the struggle of capitalists against the power of centralised monarchies 
during the early modern period. This meant that the function of 
parliaments was to check and control the exercise of executive power
when it was controlled by another class (namely the aristocracy and
landlords). The role of Parliaments flourished and reached the peak 
of their prestige in the struggle against the monarchy and immediately
afterwards. 
</p><p>
With the end of absolute monarchy, legislatures become battlegrounds of 
contending parties, divided by divergent class and group interests. This 
reduces their capacity for positive action, particularly when struggle 
outside parliament is pressurising representatives to take some interest
in public concerns. The ruling class also needs a strong centralised state 
that can protect its interests internally and externally and which can 
ignore both popular demands and the vested interests of specific sections
of the dominant economic and social elites in order to pursue policies
required to keep the system as a whole going. This means that there will 
be a tendency for Parliaments to give up its prerogatives, building up a 
centralised and uncontrolled authority in the form of an empowered 
executive against which, ironically, it had fought against at its birth.
</p><p>
This process can be seen clearly in the history of the United States. 
Since World War II, power has become centralised in the hands of the
president to such an extent that some scholars now refer to an <i>"imperial
presidency,"</i> following Arthur Schlesinger's 1973 book of that title. 
In the UK, Prime Minister Tony Blair has been repeatedly criticised
for his <i>"presidential"</i> form of government, while Parliament has been
repeatedly side-tracked. This builds on tendencies which flow back
to, at least, the Thatcher government which started the neo-liberal 
transformation of the UK with its associated rise in inequality, 
social polarisation and increases in state centralisation and 
authority.
</p><p>
Contemporary US presidents' appropriation of congressional authority,
especially in matters relating to national security, has paralleled the
rise of the United States as the world's strongest and most imperialistic
military power. In the increasingly dangerous and interdependent world
of the 20th century, the perceived need for a leader who can act quickly
and decisively, without possibly disastrous obstruction by Congress, has 
provided an impetus for ever greater concentration of power in the
White House. This concentration has taken place in both foreign and 
domestic policy, but it has been catalysed above all by a series of 
foreign policy decisions in which modern US presidents have seized the 
most vital of all government powers, the power to make war. For example,
President Truman decided to commit troops in Korea without prior
congressional approval while the Eisenhower Administration established 
a system of pacts and treaties with nations all over the globe, making 
it difficult for Congress to limit the President's deployment of troops 
according to the requirements of treaty obligations and national security, 
both of which were left to presidential judgement. The CIA, a secretive 
agency accountable to Congress only after the fact, was made the primary 
instrument of US intervention in the internal affairs of other nations 
for national security reasons. This process of executive control over
war reached a peak post-911, with Bush's nonsense of a <i>"pre-emptive"</i>
war and public acknowledgement of a long standing US policy that the 
Commander-in-Chief was authorised to take "defensive" war measures 
without congressional approval or UN authorisation. 
</p><p>
And as they have continued to commit troops to war without congressional 
authorisation or genuine public debate, the President's unilateral 
policy-making has spilled over into domestic affairs as well. Most 
obviously, thanks to Bush I and Clinton, important economic treaties 
(like GATT and NAFTA) can be rammed through Congress as <i>"fast-track"</i> 
legislation, which limits the time allowed for debate and forbids 
amendments. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, who reformed the Senior Executive 
Service to give the White House more control over career bureaucrats, 
and Ronald Reagan, who politicised the upper levels of the executive 
branch to an unprecedented degree, presidents can now pack government 
with their spoilsmen and reward partisan bureaucrats (the lack of 
response by FEMA during the Katrina hurricane is an example of this). 
Thanks to the first Bush, presidents now have a powerful new technique 
to enhance presidential prerogatives and erode the intent of Congress even
further -- namely, signing laws while announcing that they will not obey
them. Fifth, thanks also to Bush, yet another new instrument of arbitrary
presidential power has been created: the "tsar," a presidential appointee
with vague, sweeping charges that overlap with or supersede the powers of
department heads. [Michael Lind, <i>"The Case for Congressional Power: the
Out-of-Control Presidency,"</i> <b>The New Republic</b>, Aug. 14, 1995]
</p><p>
Thus we find administrations bypassing or weakening official government 
agencies or institutions to implement policies that are not officially 
permitted. In the US, the Reagan Administration's Iran-Contra affair is 
an example. During that episode the National Security Council, an arm 
of the executive branch, secretly funded the Contras, a mercenary 
counter-revolutionary force in Central America, in direct violation of 
the Boland Amendment which Congress had passed for the specific purpose 
of prohibiting such funding. Then there is the weakening of government 
agencies to the point where they can no longer effectively carry out 
their mandate. Reagan's tenure in the White House again provides a 
number of examples. The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, 
was for all practical purposes neutralised when employees dedicated to 
genuine environmental protection were removed and replaced with people 
loyal to corporate polluters. Such detours around the law are deliberate 
policy tools that allow presidents to exercise much more actual power 
than they appear to have on paper. Finally, the President's authority 
to determine foreign and domestic policy through National Security 
Directives that are kept secret from Congress and the American people. 
Such NSDs cover a virtually unlimited field of actions, shaping policy 
that may be radically different from what is stated publicly by the 
White House and involving such matters as interference with First 
Amendment rights, initiation of activities that could lead to war, 
escalation of military conflicts, and even the commitment of billions
of dollars in loan guarantees -- all without congressional approval or
even knowledge. 
</p><p>
President Clinton's use of an Executive Order to bail out Mexico from 
its debt crisis after Congress failed to appropriate the money falls 
right into the authoritarian tradition of running the country by fiat, 
a process which accelerated with his successor George Bush (in keeping 
with the general tendencies of Republican administrations in particular). 
The second Bush took this disdain for democracy and the law even further. 
His administration has tried to roll back numerous basic liberties and 
rights as well. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights 
that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: 
elimination of presumption of innocence, keeping suspects in indefinite 
imprisonment, ending trial by impartial jury, restricting access to lawyers 
and knowledge of evidence and charges against the accused. He has regularly 
stated when signing legislation that he will assert the right to ignore 
those parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has 
adopted policies which have ignored the Geneva Convention (labelled 
as <i>"quaint"</i>) and publicly tolerated torture of suspects and prisoners 
of war. That this underlying authoritarianism of politicians is often 
belied by their words should go without saying (an obvious fact, somehow
missed by the mainstream media, which made satire redundant in the case 
the second Bush). 
</p><p>
Not that this centralisation of powers has bothered the representatives 
whom are being disempowered by it. Quite the reverse. This is unsurprising,
for under a leader which <i>"guarantees 'order' -- that is to say internal 
exploitation and external expansion -- than the parliament submits to all 
his caprices and arms him with ever new powers . . . That is understandable: 
all government has tendency to become personal since that is its origin and 
its essence . . . it will always search for the man on whom it can unload 
the cares of government and to whom in turn it will submit. As long as we 
confide to a small group all the economic, political, military, financial 
and industrial prerogatives with which we arm them today, this small group 
will necessarily be inclined . . . to submit to a single chief."</i> 
[Kropotkin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 128] As such, there are institutional forces at
work within the government organisational structure which encourage these 
tendencies and as long as they find favour with business interests they 
will not be challenged. 
</p><p>
This is a key factor, of course. If increased authoritarianism and 
concentration of decision making were actually harming the interests of
the economically dominant elite then more concern would be expressed 
about them in what passes for public discourse. However, the reduction
of democratic processes fits in well with the neo-liberal agenda (and,
indeed, this agenda dependent on it). As Chomsky notes, <i>"democracy reduces 
to empty form"</i> when the votes of the general public votes no impact or 
role in determining economic and social development. In other words, 
<i>"neoliberal reforms are antithetical to promotion of democracy. They 
are not designed to shrink the state, as often asserted, but to 
strengthen state institutions to serve even more than before the 
needs of the substantial people."</i> This has seen <i>"extensive gerrymandering 
to prevent competition for seats in the House, the most democratic of 
government institutions and therefore the most worrisome,"</i> while congress 
has been <i>"geared to implementing the pro-business policies"</i> and the
White House has been reconstructed into top-down systems, in a 
similar way to that of a corporation (<i>"In structure, the political
counterpart to a corporation is a totalitarian state."</i>) [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 218, p. 237 and p. 238]
</p><p>
The aim is to exclude the general politic from civil society, 
creating Locke's system of rule by property owners only. As one
expert (and critic) on Locke argues in his scheme, the <i>"labouring 
class, being without estate, are subject to, but not full members 
of civil society"</i> and the <i>"right to rule (more accurately, the right 
to control any government) is given to men of estate only."</i> The 
working class will be in but not part of civil society in the same 
way that they are in but not part of a company. The labouring class 
may do the actual work in a capitalist firm, but they <i>"cannot take 
part in the operation of the company at the same level as the owners."</i> 
Thus the ideal (classical) "liberal" state is a <i>"joint-stock company 
of owners whose majority decision binds not only themselves but also 
their employees."</i> [C. B. MacPherson, <b>The Political Theory of 
Possessive Individualism</b>, p. 248, p. 249 and p. 251] The aim of
significant sections of the right and the ruling class is to achieve 
this goal within the context of a nominally democratic state which,
on paper, allows significant civil liberties but which, in practice,
operates like a corporation. Liberty for the many will be reduced to 
market forms, the ability to buy and sell, within the rules designed
by and for the property owners. Centralised state power within an
overall authoritarian social culture is the best way to achieve this
aim.
</p><p>
It should be stressed that the rise of inequality and centralised 
state power has came about by design, not by accident. Both 
trends delight the rich and the right, whose aim has always been 
to exclude the general population from the public sphere, eliminate 
taxation on wealth and income derived from owning it and roll back
the limited reforms the general population have won over the years. 
In his book <b>Post-Conservative America</b> Kevin Phillips, one of the 
most knowledgeable and serious conservative ideologues, discusses the
possibility of fundamental alterations that he regards as desirable in the
US government. His proposals leave no doubt about the direction in which
the Right wishes to proceed. <i>"Governmental power is too diffused to make
difficult and necessary economic and technical decisions,"</i> Phillips
maintains. <i>"[A]ccordingly, the nature of that power must be re-thought. 
Power at the federal level must be augmented, and lodged for the most part
in the executive branch."</i> [p. 218] He assures us that all the changes
he envisions can be accomplished without altering the Constitution.
</p><p>
As one moderate British Conservative MP has documented, the "free-market" 
Conservative Thatcher government of the 1980s increased centralisation of 
power and led a sustained <i>"assault on local government."</i> One key reason 
was <i>"dislike of opposition"</i> which applied to <i>"intermediate institutions"</i>
between the individual and the state. These <i>"were despised and disliked 
because they got in the way of 'free-market forces' . . . and were liable 
to disagree with Thatcherite policies."</i> Indeed, they simply abolished 
elected local governments (like the Greater London Council) which were 
opposed to the policies of the central government. They controlled the 
rest by removing their power to raise their own funds, which destroyed 
their local autonomy. The net effect of neo-liberal reforms was that 
Britain became <i>"ever more centralised"</i> and local government was 
<i>"fragmenting and weakening."</i> [<b>Dancing with Dogma</b>, p. 261, p. 262
and p. 269]
</p><p>
This reversal of what, traditionally, conservatives and even
liberals had argued had its roots in the "free market" capitalist
ideology. For <i>"[n]othing is to stand in the way of the free
market, and no such fripperies as democratic votes are to be
allowed to upset it. The unadulterated free market is unalterable,
and those who dislike it or suffer from it must learn to put
up with it. In Rousseau's language, they must be forced to
be free."</i> as such there was <i>"no paradox"</i> to the <i>"Thatcherite
devotion to both the free market and a strong state"</i> as the
<i>"establishment of individualism and a free-market state is 
an unbending if not dictatorial venture which demands the 
prevention of collective action and the submission of 
dissenting institutions and individuals."</i> Thus rhetoric
about "liberty" and rolling back the state can easily be
<i>"combined in practice with centralisation and the expansion
of the state's frontiers."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 273-4 and p. 273]
A similar process occurred under Reagan in America.
</p><p>
As Chomsky stresses, the <i>"antidemocratic thrust has precedents, 
of course, but is reaching new heights"</i> under the current set of 
<i>"reactionary statists"</i> who <i>"are dedicated warriors. With consistency 
and passion that approach caricature, their policies serve the serve 
the substantial people -- in fact, an unusually narrow sector of 
them -- and disregard or harm the underlying population and future 
generations. They are also seeking to use their current opportunities 
to institutionalise these arrangements, so that it will be no small 
task to reconstruct a more humane and democratic society."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
p. 238 and p. 236] As we noted in <a href="secD1.html">section D.1</a>, the likes of Reagan, 
Thatcher and Bush do not appear by accident. They and the policies
they implement reflect the interests of significant sectors of the 
ruling elite and their desires. These will not disappear if different, 
more progressive sounding, politicians are elected. Nor will the nature 
of the state machine and its bureaucracy, nor will the workings and 
needs of the capitalist economy.
</p><p>
This helps explains why the distinctions between the two major parties 
in the US have been, to a large extent, virtually obliterated. Each is 
controlled by the corporate elite, albeit by different factions within it. 
Despite many tactical and verbal disagreements, virtually all members of 
this elite share a basic set of principles, attitudes, ideals, and values. 
Whether Democrat or Republican, most of them have graduated from the same 
Ivy League schools, belong to the same exclusive social clubs, serve on the
same interlocking boards of directors of the same major corporations, and
send their children to the same private boarding schools (see G. William
Domhoff, <b>Who Rules America Now?</b> and C. Wright Mills, <b>The Power Elite</b>). 
Perhaps most importantly, they share the same psychology, which means 
that they have the same priorities and interests: namely, those of
corporate America. That the Democrats are somewhat more dependent and 
responsive to progressive working class people while the Republicans 
are beholden to the rich and sections of the religious right come election 
time should not make us confuse rhetoric with the reality of policies
pursued and underlying common assumptions and interests.
</p><p>
This means that in the USA there is really only one party -- the Business 
Party -- which wears two different masks to hide its real face from the 
public. Similar remarks apply to the liberal democratic regimes in the 
rest of the advanced capitalist states. In the UK, Blair's "New Labour"
has taken over the mantle of Thatcherism and have implemented policies
based on its assumptions. Unsurprisingly, it received the backing of
numerous right-wing newspapers as well as funding from wealthy 
individuals. In other words, the UK system has mutated into a more
US style one of two Business parties one of which gets more trade 
union support than the other (needless to say, it is unlikely that 
Labour will be changing its name to "Capital" unless forced to by
the trading standards office nor does it look likely that the trade 
union bureaucracy will reconsider their funding in spite of the fact 
New Labour simply ignored them when not actually attacking them!).
The absence of a true opposition party, which itself is a main 
characteristic of authoritarian regimes, is thus an accomplished 
fact already, and has been so for many years.
</p><p>
Besides the reasons noted above, another cause of increasing political
centralisation under capitalism is that industrialisation forces masses of
people into alienated wage slavery, breaking their bonds to other people,
to the land, and to tradition, which in turn encourages strong central
governments to assume the role of surrogate parent and to provide
direction for their citizens in political, intellectual, moral, and even
spiritual matters. (see Hannah Arendt, <b>The Origins of Totalitarianism</b>). 
And as Marilyn French emphasises in <b>Beyond Power</b>, the growing 
concentration of political power in the capitalist state can also be 
attributed to the form of the corporation, which is a microcosm of 
the authoritarian state, since it is based on centralised authority, 
bureaucratic hierarchy, antidemocratic controls, and lack of individual 
initiative and autonomy. Thus the millions of people who work for large 
corporations tend automatically to develop the psychological traits 
needed to survive and "succeed" under authoritarian rule: notably, 
obedience, conformity, efficiency, subservience, and fear of responsibility. 
The political system naturally tends to reflect the psychological conditions 
created at the workplace, where most people spend about half their time. 
</p><p>
Reviewing such trends, Marxist Ralph Miliband concludes that <i>"it points
in the direction of a regime in which democratic forms have ceased to
provide effective constraints upon state power."</i> The <i>"distribution of
power"</i> will become <i>"more unequal"</i> and so <i>"[h]owever strident the 
rhetoric of democracy and popular sovereignty may be, and despite the
'populist' overtones which politics must now incorporate, the trend is
toward the ever-greater appropriation of power at the top."</i> [<b>Divided
Societies</b>, p. 166 and p. 204] As such, this reduction in genuine 
liberty, democracy and growth in executive power does not flow simply 
from the intentions of a few bad apples. Rather, they reflect economic 
developments, the needs of the system as a whole plus the pressures 
associated with the way specific institutions are structured and 
operate as well as the need to exclude, control and marginalise the
general population. Thus while we can struggle and resist specific 
manifestations of this process, we need to fight and eliminate their 
root causes within capitalism and statism themselves if we want to 
turn them back and, eventually, end them.
</p><p>
This increase in centralised and authoritarian rule may not result in 
obvious elimination of such basic rights as freedom of speech. However,
this is due to the success of the project to reduce genuine freedom 
and democracy rather than its failure. If the general population are
successfully marginalised and excluded from the public sphere (i.e.
turned into Locke's system of being within but not part of a society)
then a legal framework which recognises civil liberties would still
be maintained. That most basic liberties would remain relatively intact 
and that most radicals will remain unmolested would be a testimony to 
the lack of power possessed by the public at large in the existing 
system. That is, countercultural movements need not be a concern to the 
government until they become broader-based and capable of challenging 
the existing socio-economic order -- only then is it "necessary" for 
the repressive, authoritarian forces to work on undermining the movement.
So long as there is no effective organising and no threat to the interests
of the ruling elite, people are permitted to say whatever they want. This 
creates the illusion that the system is open to all ideas, when, in fact, 
it is not. But, as the decimation of the Wobblies and anarchist movement
after the First World War first illustrated, the government will seek to 
eradicate any movement that poses a significant threat.
</p>

<h2><a name="secd91">D.9.1 What is the relationship between wealth polarisation 
and authoritarian government?</a></h2>

<p>
We have previously noted the recent increase in the rate of wealth
polarisation, with its erosion of working-class living standards (see
<a href="secB7.html">section B.7</a>). This process has been referred to by Noam Chomsky as 
"Third-Worldisation." It is appearing in a particularly acute form 
in the US -- the "richest" industrialised nation which also has the 
highest level of poverty, since it is the most polarised -- but the 
process can be seen in other "advanced" industrial nations as well, 
particularly in the UK. As neo-liberalism has spread, so has 
inequality soared.
</p><p>
Third World governments are typically authoritarian, since harsh 
measures are required to suppress rebellions among their impoverished 
and discontented masses. Hence "Third-Worldisation" implies not only 
economic polarisation but also increasingly authoritarian governments. 
As Philip Slater puts it, a large, educated, and alert "middle class" 
(i.e. average income earners) has always been the backbone of democracy, 
and anything that concentrates wealth tends to weaken democratic 
institutions. [<b>A Dream Deferred</b>, p. 68] This analysis is echoed 
by left-liberal economist James K. Galbraith:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"As polarisation of wages, incomes and wealth develops, the common
interests and common social programs of society fall into decline.
We have seen this too, in this country over thirty years, beginning
with the erosion of public services and public investments, 
particularly in the cities, with the assault on the poor and on 
immigrants and the disabled that led to the welfare bill of 1996, 
and continuing now manufactured crises of Medicare and the social 
security system. The haves are on the march. With growing inequality, 
so grows their power. And so also diminish the voices of solidarity 
and mutual reinforcement, the voices of civil society, the voices 
of a democratic and egalitarian middle class."</i> [<b>Created Unequal:
The Crisis in American Pay</b>, p. 265]
</blockquote></p><p>
If this is true, then along with increasing wealth polarisation in the 
US we should expect to see signs of growing authoritarianism. This
hypothesis is confirmed by numerous facts, including the following:
continuing growth of an <i>"imperial presidency"</i> (concentration of political
power); extralegal operations by the executive branch (e.g. the
Iran-Contra scandal, the Grenada and Panama invasions); skyrocketing
incarceration rates; more official secrecy and censorship; the rise of the
Far Right; more police and prisons; FBI requests for massive wiretapping
capability; and so on. Public support for draconian measures to deal with
crime reflect the increasingly authoritarian mood of citizens beginning to
panic in the face of an ongoing social breakdown, which has been brought
about, quite simply, by ruling-class greed that has gotten out of hand --
a fact that is carefully obscured by the media. The 911 attacks have been
used to bolster these authoritarian trends, as would be expected.
</p><p>
One might think that representative democracy and constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms would make an authoritarian government impossible 
in the United States and other liberal democratic nations with similar
constitutional "protections" for civil rights. In reality, however, the
declaration of a "national emergency" would allow the central government
to ignore constitutional guarantees with impunity and set up what Hannah
Arendt calls <i>"invisible government"</i> -- mechanisms allowing an
administration to circumvent constitutional structures while leaving
them nominally in place. The erosion of civil liberties and increase 
in state powers post-911 in both the US and UK should show that such
concerns are extremely valid.
</p><p>
In response to social breakdown or "terrorism," voters may turn to 
martial-style leaders (aided by the media). Once elected, and with 
the support of willing legislatures and courts, administrations could 
easily create much more extensive mechanisms of authoritarian government 
than already exist, giving the executive branch virtually dictatorial 
powers. Such administrations could escalate foreign militarism, further 
expand the funding and scope of the police, national guard units, secret 
police and foreign intelligence agencies, and authorise more widespread 
surveillance of citizens as well as the infiltration of dissident 
political groups (all of which happened in post-911 America). There 
would be a corresponding rise of government secrecy (as <i>"popular 
understanding of the workings of government is not conducive to 
instilling proper reverence for powerful leaders and their nobility."</i> 
[Chomsky, <b>Failed States</b>, p.238]). These developments would not occur 
all at once, but so gradually, imperceptibly, and logically -- given 
the need to maintain "law and order" -- that most people would not 
even be aware that an authoritarian take-over was underway. Indeed, 
there is substantial evidence that this is already underway in the US 
(see <b>Friendly Fascism</b> by Bertram Gross for details).
</p><p>
We will examine some of the symptoms of growing authoritarianism listed 
above, again referring primarily to the example of the United States. 
The general trend has been a hollowing out of even the limited 
democratic structures associated with representative states in favour 
of a purely formal appearance of elections which are used to justify 
ignoring the popular will, authoritarianism and "top-down" rule by 
the executive. While these have always been a feature of the state
(and must be, if it is to do its function as we discussed in 
<a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>) the tendencies are 
increasing and should be of concern for all 
those who seek to protect, never mind, expand what human rights and 
civil liberties we have. While anarchists have no illusions about the
nature of even so-called democratic states, we are not indifferent
to the form of state we have to endure and how it changes. As 
Malatesta put it:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"there is no doubt that the worst of democracies is always preferable, 
if only from an educational point of view, than the best of dictatorships. 
Of course democracy, so-called government of the people, is a lie; but 
the lie always slightly binds the liar and limits the extent of his 
arbitrary power . . . Democracy is a lie, it is oppression and is in 
reality, oligarchy; that is, government by the few to the advantage 
of a privileged class. But we can still fight it in the name of 
freedom and equality, unlike those who have replaced it or want to 
replace it with something worse."</i> [<b>The Anarchist Revolution</b>, p. 77]
</blockquote></p><p>
We must stress that as long as governments exist, then this struggle
against authoritarianism will continue. As Kropotkin argued, these
tendencies <i>"do not depend on individuals; they are inherent in the 
institution."</i> We must always remember that <i>"[o]f its own accord, 
representative government does not offer real liberties, and it 
can accommodate itself remarkably well to despotism. Freedoms have 
to be seized from it, as much as they do from absolute kings; and 
once they have been gained they must be defended against parliament 
as much as they were against a king."</i> [<b>Words of a Rebel</b>, p. 137
and p. 123]
</p><p>
So we cannot assume that legal rights against and restrictions 
on state or economic power are enough in themselves. Liberty needs 
to be continually defended by the mass of the population who cannot
leave it to others to act for them. <i>"If we want . . . to leave 
the gates wide open to reaction,"</i> Kropotkin put it, <i>"we have 
only to confide our affairs to a representative government."</i> Only 
<i>"extra-parliamentary agitation"</i> will stop the state <i>"imping[ing]
continually on the country's political rights"</i> or <i>"suppress[ing] 
them with a strike of the pen."</i> The state must always <i>"find itself 
faced by a mass of people ready to rebel."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b> p. 129 and 
p. 124]
</p>

<h2><a name="secd92">D.9.2 Why is government surveillance of citizens on the increase?</a></h2> 

<p>
Authoritarian governments are characterised by fully developed secret
police forces, extensive government surveillance of civilians, a high
level of official secrecy and censorship, and an elaborate system of 
state coercion to intimidate and silence dissenters. All of these 
phenomena have existed in the US since suppression of the anarchist 
inspired No-Conscription League and the IWW for its unionising
and anti-war activity. The post-World War I Red Scare and Palmer 
raids continued this process of wartime jailings and intimidation,
combined with the deportation of aliens (the arrest, trial and
subsequent deportation of Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman 
is but one example of this war on radicals). [Howard Zinn, <b>A 
People's History of America</b>, pp. 363-7]
</p><p>
However, since World War II these systems have taken more extreme forms, 
especially during the 1980s and 2000s. Indeed, one of the most disturbing 
revelations to emerge from the Iran-Contra affair was the Reagan 
administration's contingency plan for imposing martial law. Alfonso 
Chardy, a reporter for the Miami Herald, revealed in July 1987 that 
Lt. Col. Oliver North, while serving on the National Security Council's 
staff, had worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency on a plan 
to suspend the Bill of Rights by imposing martial law in the event of 
<i>"national opposition to a US military invasion abroad."</i> [Richard O. 
Curry (ed.), <b>Freedom at Risk: Secrecy, Censorship, and Repression 
in the 1980s</b>] However, this rise in authoritarian-style government 
policies is not limited to just possibilities and so in this section 
we will examine the operations of the secret police in the USA since
the 1950s. First, however, we must stress that these tendencies are 
hardly US specific. For example, the secret services in the UK have 
regularly spied on left-wing groups as well as being heavily involved 
in undermining the 1984-5 Miners strike. [S. Milne, <b>The Enemy Within</b>]
</p><p>
The creation of an elaborate US "national security" apparatus has come
about gradually since 1945 through congressional enactments, numerous
executive orders and national security directives, and a series of Supreme
Court decisions that have eroded First Amendment rights. The policies of
the Reagan administration, however, reflected radical departures from the
past, as revealed not only by their comprehensive scope but by their
institutionalisation of secrecy, censorship, and repression in ways that
will be difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. As Richard Curry
points out, the Reagan administration's success stems <i>"from major
structural and technological changes that have occurred in American
society during the twentieth century -- especially the emergence of the
modern bureaucratic State and the invention of sophisticated electronic
devices that make surveillance possible in new and insidious ways."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 4]
</p><p>
The FBI has used <i>"countersubversive"</i> surveillance techniques and kept
lists of people and groups judged to be potential national security
threats since the days of the Red Scare in the 1920s. Such activities
were expanded in the late 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt instructed the 
FBI to gather information about Fascist and Communist activities in 
the US and to conduct investigations into possible espionage and 
sabotage (although for most of the 1920s and 1930s, fascists and fascist 
sympathisers were, at best, ignored and, at worse, publicly praised 
while anti-fascists like anarchist Carol Tresca were spied on and
harassed by the authorities. [Nunzio Pernicone, <b>Carlo Tresca</b>]). FBI 
chief J. Edgar Hoover interpreted these directives as authorising 
open-ended inquiries into a very broad category of potential "subversives"; 
and by repeatedly misinforming a succession of careless or indifferent 
presidents and attorneys general about the precise scope of Roosevelt's 
directives, Hoover managed for more than 30 years to elicit tacit 
executive approval for continuous FBI investigations into an 
ever-expanding class of political dissidents. [Geoffrey R. Stone, 
<i>"The Reagan Administration, the First Amendment, and FBI Domestic 
Security Investigations,"</i> Curry (ed.), <b>Op. Cit.</b>]
</p><p>
The advent of the Cold War, ongoing conflicts with the Soviet Union, and
fears of the "international Communist conspiracy" provided justification
not only for covert CIA operations and American military intervention in
countries all over the globe, but also contributed to the FBI's rationale
for expanding its domestic surveillance activities. Thus in 1957, without 
authorisation from Congress or any president, Hoover launched a highly 
secret operation called COINTELPRO: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"From 1957 to 1974, the bureau opened investigative files on more than 
half a million 'subversive' Americans. In the course of these investigations, 
the bureau, in the name of 'national security,' engaged in widespread 
wire-tapping, bugging, mail-openings, and break-ins. Even more insidious 
was the bureau's extensive use of informers and undercover operative to
infiltrate and report on the activities and membership of 'subversive' 
political associations ranging from the Socialist Workers Party to the 
NAACP to the Medical Committee for Human Rights to a Milwaukee Boy Scout 
troop."</i> [Stone, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 274]
</blockquote></p><p>
But COINTELPRO involved much more than just investigation and
surveillance. As Chomsky notes, it was <i>"one of its major programs of
repression"</i> and was used to discredit, weaken, and ultimately destroy 
the New Left and Black radical movements of the sixties and early seventies,
i.e. to silence the major sources of political dissent and opposition. It's
aim was to <i>"disrupt"</i> a wide range of popular movements <i>"by instigating 
violence in the ghetto, direct participation in police assassination of
a Black Panther organiser, burglaries and harassment of the Socialist
Workers Party over many years, and other methods of defamation and
disruption."</i> [<b>Necessary Illusions</b>, p. 189]
</p><p>
The FBI fomented violence through the use of agents provocateurs and 
destroyed the credibility of movement leaders by framing them, bringing 
false charges against them, distributing offensive materials published in 
their name, spreading false rumours, sabotaging equipment, stealing money, 
and other dirty tricks. By such means the Bureau exacerbated internal
frictions within movements, turning members against each other as 
well as other groups. For example, during the civil rights movement, 
while the government was making concessions and verbally supporting the
movement, the FBI was harassing and breaking up black groups. Between 
1956 and 1971, the FBI took 295 actions against black groups as part 
of COLINTELPRO. [Zinn, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 455]
</p><p>
Government documents show the FBI and police involved in creating
acrimonious disputes which ultimately led to the break-up of such groups
as Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panther Party, and the
Liberation News Service. The Bureau also played a part in the failure of
such groups to form alliances across racial, class, and regional lines. 
The FBI is implicated in the assassination of Malcolm X, who was killed in
a "factional dispute" that the Bureau bragged of having "developed" in the
Nation of Islam. Martin Luther King, Jr., was the target of an elaborate 
FBI plot to drive him to suicide before he was conveniently killed by a 
lone sniper. Other radicals were portrayed as "Communists", criminals, 
adulterers, or government agents, while still others were murdered in 
phoney "shoot-outs" where the only shooting was done by the police.
</p><p>
These activities finally came to public attention because of the Watergate
investigations, congressional hearings, and information obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In response to the revelations of FBI
abuse, Attorney General Edward Levi in 1976 set forth a set of public
guidelines governing the initiation and scope of the bureau's domestic
security investigations, severely restricting its ability to investigate
political dissidents. 
</p><p>
The Levi guidelines, however, proved to be only a temporary reversal of
the trend. Although throughout his presidency Ronald Reagan professed to
be against the increase of state power in regard to domestic policy, he 
in fact expanded the power of the national bureaucracy for "national
security" purposes in systematic and unprecedented ways. One of the most
significant of these was his immediate elimination of the safeguards
against FBI abuse that the Levi guidelines had been designed to prevent. 
This was accomplished through two interrelated executive branch
initiatives: Executive Order 12333, issued in 1981, and Attorney General
William French Smith's guidelines, which replaced Levi's in 1983.
The Smith guidelines permitted the FBI to launch domestic security
investigations if the facts <i>"reasonably indicated"</i> that groups or
individuals were involved in criminal activity. More importantly,
however, the new guidelines also authorised the FBI to <i>"anticipate or
prevent crime."</i> As a result, the FBI could now investigate groups or
individuals whose statements <i>"advocated"</i> criminal activity or indicated 
an <b>apparent intent</b> to engage in crime, particularly crimes of violence.
</p><p>
As Curry notes, the language of the Smith guidelines provided FBI
officials with sufficient interpretative latitude to investigate virtually
any group or individual it chose to target, including political activists
who opposed the administration's foreign policy. Not surprisingly, under
the new guidelines the Bureau immediately began investigating a wide
variety of political dissidents, quickly making up for the time it had
lost since 1976. Congressional sources show that in 1985 alone the FBI
conducted 96 investigations of groups and individuals opposed to the
Reagan Administration's Central American policies, including religious
organisations who expressed solidarity with Central American refugees.
</p><p>
Since the 1980s, the state has used the threat of "terrorism" (both
domestic and international) to bolster its means of repression. The
aim has been to allow the President, on his own initiative and by
his own definition, to declare any person or organisation "terrorist" 
and so eliminate any rights they may, in theory, have. The 911 attacks
were used to pass in effect a "wish-list" (in the form of the PATRIOT 
act) of measures long sought by both the secret state and the right
but which they had difficulty in passing previously due to public 
scrutiny. Post-911, as after the Oklahoma bombing, much opposition was 
muted while those that did raise their voices were dismissed as, at 
best, naive or, at worse, pro-terrorist.
</p><p>
Post-911, presidential rulings are considered as conclusive while the 
Attorney General was handed new enforcement powers, e.g. suspects 
would be considered guilty unless proven innocent, and the source or 
nature of the evidence brought against suspects would not have to be 
revealed if the Justice Department claimed a <i>"national security"</i> 
interest in suppressing such facts, as of course it would. Security
agencies were given massive new powers to gather information on and 
act against suspected "terrorists" (i.e., any enemy of the state,
dissident or critic of capitalism). As intended, the ability to 
abuse these powers is staggering. They greatly increased the 
size and funding of the FBI and gave it the power to engage in 
"anti-terrorist" activities all over the country, without judicial 
oversight. Unsurprisingly, during the run-up to the Iraq invasion 
of 2003, the anti-war movement was targeted with these new powers 
of surveillance. That the secret state, for example, seriously argued 
that potential "terrorists" could exist within Quaker peace groups 
says it all. Unsurprisingly, given the history of the secret state 
the new measures were turned against the Left, as COINTELPRO and 
similar laws were in the past. 
</p><p>
If, as the Bush Administration continually asserted, the terrorists 
hate the west for our freedoms (rather than their self-proclaimed 
hatred of US foreign policy) then that government is the greatest 
appeaser the world has ever seen (not to mention the greatest 
recruiting agent they ever had). It has done more to undermine 
freedom and increase state power (along with the threat of 
terrorism) that the terrorists ever dreamed. However, it would
be a mistake to draw the conclusion that it is simply incompetence,
arrogance and ignorance which was at work (tempting as that may be). 
Rather, there are institutional factors at work as well (a fact 
that becomes obvious when looking at the history of the secret 
state and its activities). The fact that such draconian measures 
were even considered says volumes about the direction in which the 
US -- and by implication the other "advanced" capitalist states -- 
are headed.
</p>

<h2><a name="secd93">D.9.3 What causes justifications for racism to appear?</a></h2>

<p>
The tendency toward social breakdown which is inherent in the growth of
wealth polarisation, as discussed above, is also producing a growth 
in racism in the countries affected. As we have seen, social breakdown 
leads to the increasingly authoritarian government prompted by the need 
of the ruling class to contain protest and civil unrest among those at 
the bottom of the wealth pyramid. In the US those in the lowest economic 
strata belong mostly to racial minorities, while in several European 
countries there are growing populations of impoverished minorities 
from the Third World, often from former colonies. The desire of the 
more affluent strata to justify their superior economic positions
is, as one would expect, causing racially based theories of privilege 
to become more popular. 
</p><p>
That racist feelings are gaining strength in America is evidenced by 
the increasing political influence of the right, whose thinly disguised
racism reflects the darkening vision of a growing segment of the
conservative community. Further evidence can be seen in the growth of
ultraconservative extremist groups preaching avowedly racist philosophies,
such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, the White Aryan Resistance,
and others (see James Ridgeway's <b>Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan,
Aryan Nations, Nazi Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture</b>). 
Much the same can be said of Europe, with the growth of parties like
the BNP in Britain, the FN in France and similar organisations elsewhere.
</p><p>
Most conservative politicians have taken pains to distance themselves
officially from the extreme right. Yet they are dependent on getting 
votes of those influenced by the right-wing media personalities and
the extreme right. This means that this racism cannot help seep into 
their election campaigns and, unsurprisingly, mainstream conservative 
politicians have used, and continue to use, code words and innuendo 
("welfare queens," "quotas," etc.) to convey a thinly veiled racist 
message. This allows mainstream right-wingers to exploit the budding 
racism of lower- and middle-class white youths, who must compete for 
increasingly scarce jobs with desperate minorities who are willing 
to work at very low wages. As Lorenzo Lom'boa Ervin notes: 
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"Basing themselves on alienated white social forces, the Nazis and
Klan are trying to build a mass movement which can hire itself out 
to the Capitalists at the proper moment and assume state power . . . 
Fascism is the ultimate authoritarian society when in power, even 
though it has changed its face to a mixture of crude racism and 
smoother racism in the modern  democratic state. 
</p><p>
"So in addition to the Nazis and the Klan, there are other Right-Wing
forces that have been on the rise . . . They include ultra-conservative
rightist politicians and Christian fundamentalist preachers, along
with the extreme right section of the Capitalist ruling class itself,
small business owners, talk show hosts . . . along with the professors,
economists, philosophers and others in academia who are providing the
ideological weapons for the Capitalist offensive against the workers
and oppresses people. So not all racists wear sheets. These are the 
'respectable' racists, the New Right conservatives . . . The Capitalist
class has already shown their willingness to use this conservative 
movement as a smoke screen for an attack on the Labor movement, Black
struggle, and the entire working class."</i> [<b>Anarchism and the Black
Revolution</b>, p. 18]
</blockquote></p><p>
The expanding popularity of such racist groups in the US is matched 
by a similar phenomenon in Europe, where xenophobia and a weak economy 
have propelled extreme right-wing politicians into the limelight 
on promises to deport foreigners. This poisons the whole mainstream
political spectrum, with centre and centre-left politicians pandering
to racism and introducing aspects of the right's agenda under the 
rhetoric of "addressing concerns" and raising the prospect that
by not doing what the right wants, the right will expand in influence.
How legitimising the right by implementing its ideas is meant to 
undercut their support is never explained, but the "greater evil"
argument does have its utility for every opportunistic politician
(particularly one under pressure from the right-wing media whipping
up scare stories about immigration and such like to advance the
interests of their wealthy backers).
</p><p>
What easier way is there to divert people's anger than onto scapegoats? 
Anger about bad housing, no housing, boring work, no work, bad wages and 
conditions, job insecurity, no future, and so on. Instead of attacking the 
real causes of these (and other) problems, people are encouraged to direct 
their anger against people who face the same problems just because they
have a different skin colour or come from a different part of the world!
Little wonder politicians and their rich backers like to play the racist
card -- it diverts attention away from them and the system they run (i.e.
the <b>real</b> causes of our problems).
</p><p>
Racism, in other words, tries to turn <b>class</b> issues into "race" issues.
Little wonder that sections of the ruling elite will turn to it, as
and when required. Their class interests (and, often, their personal
bigotry) requires them to do so -- a divided working class will never
challenge their position in society. This means that justifications 
for racism appear for two reasons. Firstly, to try and justify the 
existing inequalities within society (for example, the infamous -- 
and highly inaccurate -- <i>"Bell Curve"</i> and related works). Secondly, 
to divide the working class and divert anger about living conditions 
and social problems away from the ruling elite and their system onto 
scapegoats in our own class. After all, <i>"for the past fifty years
American business has been organising a major class war, and they
needed troops -- there <b>are</b> votes after all, and you can't just 
come before the electorate and say, 'Vote for me, I'm trying to 
screw you.' So what they've had to do is appeal to the population 
on some other grounds. Well, there aren't a lot of other grounds, 
and everybody picks the same ones . . . -- jingoism, racism, fear,
religious fundamentalism: These are ways of appealing to people if
you're trying to organise a mass base of support for policies that
are really intended to crush them."</i> [Chomsky, <b>Understanding Power</b>,
pp. 294-5]
</p><p>
Part of the right-wing resurgence in the US and elsewhere has been
the institutionalisation of the Reagan-Bush brand of conservatism, 
whose hallmark was the reinstatement, to some degree, of laissez-faire 
economic policies (and, to an even larger degree, of laissez-faire 
rhetoric). A "free market," Reagan's economic "experts" argued, 
necessarily produced inequality; but by allowing unhindered market 
forces to select the economically fittest and to weed out the unfit, 
the economy would become healthy again. The wealth of those who survived 
and prospered in the harsh new climate would ultimately benefit the 
less fortunate, through a "trickle-down" effect which was supposed 
to create millions of new high-paying jobs. 
</p><p>
All this would be accomplished by deregulating business, reducing taxes 
on the wealthy, and dismantling or drastically cutting back federal 
programmes designed to promote social equality, fairness, and compassion. 
The aptly named Laffer Curve (although invented without the burden of 
any empirical research or evidence) alleged to illustrate how cutting 
taxes actually <b>raises</b> government revenue. When this program of 
pro-business policies was applied the results were, unsurprisingly, 
the opposite of that proclaimed, with wealth flooding upwards and the 
creation of low-paying, dead-end jobs (the biggest "Laffers" in this 
scenario were the ruling class, who saw unprecedented gains in wealth 
at the expense of the rest of us).
</p><p>
The Reaganites' doctrine of inequality gave the official seal of approval
to ideas of racial superiority that right-wing extremists had used for
years to rationalise the exploitation of minorities. If, on average, 
blacks and Hispanics earn only about half as much as whites; if more 
than a third of all blacks and a quarter of all Hispanics lived below 
the poverty line; if the economic gap between whites and non-whites was 
growing -- well, that just proved that there was a racial component in 
the Social-Darwinian selection process, showing that minorities "deserved"
their poverty and lower social status because they were "less fit." By
focusing on individuals, laissez-faire economics hides the social roots
of inequality and the effect that economic institutions and social 
attitudes have on inequality. In the words of left-liberal economist 
James K. Galbraith:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"What the economists did, in effect, was to reason backward, from the
troublesome effect to a cause that would rationalise and justify it 
. . . [I]t is the work of the efficient market [they argued], and the
fundamental legitimacy of the outcome is not supposed to be questioned.
</p><p>
"The <b>apologia</b> is a dreadful thing. It has distorted our understanding,
twisted our perspective, and crabbed our politics. On the right, as one
might expect, the winners on the expanded scale of wealth and incomes are
given a reason for self-satisfaction and an excuse for gloating. Their
gains are due to personal merit, the application of high intelligence,
and the smiles of fortune. Those on the loosing side are guilty of sloth,
self-indulgence, and whining. Perhaps they have bad culture. Or perhaps
they have bad genes. While no serious economist would make that last
leap into racist fantasy, the underlying structure of the economists'
argument has undoubtedly helped to legitimise, before a larger public,
those who promote such ideas."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 264]
</blockquote></p><p>
The logical corollary of this social Darwinism is that whites who are
"less fit" (i.e., poor) also deserve their poverty. But philosophies of
racial hatred are not necessarily consistent. Thus the ranks of white
supremacist organisations have been swollen in recent years by
undereducated and underemployed white youths frustrated by a declining
industrial labour market and a noticeably eroding social status. 
[Ridgeway, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p.186] Rather than drawing the logical Social-Darwinian
conclusion -- that they, too, are "inferior" -- they have instead blamed
blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews for "unfairly" taking their jobs. 
Thus the neo-Nazi skinheads, for example, have been mostly recruited from
disgruntled working-class whites below the age of 30. This has provided
leaders of right-wing extremist groups with a growing base of potential
storm troopers.
</p><p>
Therefore, laissez-faire ideology helps create a social environment in 
which racist tendencies can increase. Firstly, it does so by increasing
poverty, job insecurity, inequality and so on which right-wing groups
can use to gather support by creating scapegoats in our own class to
blame (for example, by blaming poverty on blacks "taking our jobs" rather 
than capitalists moving their capital to other, more profitable, countries
or them cutting wages and conditions for <b>all</b> workers -- and as we 
point out in <a href="secB1.html#secb14">section B.1.4</a>, racism, by dividing the working class, 
makes poverty and inequality <b>worse</b> and so is self-defeating). Secondly, 
it abets racists by legitimising the notions that inequalities in pay 
and wealth are due to racial differences rather than a hierarchical system 
which harms <b>all</b> working class people (and uses racism to divide, and
so weaken, the oppressed). By pointing to individuals rather than to 
institutions, organisations, customs, history and above all power -- the 
relative power between workers and capitalists, citizens and the state, 
the market power of big business, etc. -- laissez-faire ideology points 
analysis into a dead-end as well as apologetics for the wealthy, apologetics 
which can be, and are, utilised by racists to justify their evil politics.
</p>

</body>
</html>