                     D.1 Why does state intervention occur?

   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.

   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:

   1. To bolster the power of capital as a whole within society.
       2. To benefit certain sections of the capitalist class against
       others.
       3. To counteract the anti-social effects of capitalism.

   From our discussion of the state and its role in [1]section B.2, 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.

   State intervention has been a feature of capitalism from the start. As
   Kropotkin argued, "nowhere has the system of 'non-intervention of the
   State' ever existed. Everywhere the State has been, and still is, the
   main pillar and the creator, direct and indirect, of Capitalism and its
   powers over the masses. Nowhere, since States have grown up, have the
   masses had the freedom of resisting the oppression by capitalists. . .
   The state has always interfered in the economic life in favour of the
   capitalist exploiter. It has always granted him protection in robbery,
   given aid and support for further enrichment. And it could not be
   otherwise. To do so was one of the functions -- the chief mission -- of
   the State." [Evolution and Environment, pp. 97-8]

   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 "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." He gives the
   example of the railways, which were "built at a time when it was
   believed that market forces would reward the good and useful and
   eliminate the bad or socially useless." However, "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."
   [Freedom to Go, p. 7 and pp. 7-8]

   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.

   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 "has never practised" the idea of laissez faire.
   In fact, "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 never, nowhere 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." [Op. Cit.,
   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 [2]section D.1.4 for more discussion).

   Then there is the last reason, namely counteracting the destructive
   effects of capitalism itself. As Chomsky puts it, "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." [Chomsky on
   Anarchism, p. 111] This kind of intervention is required simply because
   "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." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 25]

   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 [3]section C.7), in
   practice the state can only try to postpone them and ameliorate their
   severity. Let's begin with the need for social intervention.

   Capitalism is based on turning both labour and land into commodities.
   As socialist Karl Polanyi points out, however, "labour and land are no
   other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists
   and the natural surroundings in which it exists; to include labour and
   land in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of
   society itself to the laws of the market." And this means that "human
   society has become an accessory to the economic system," with humanity
   placing itself fully in the hands of supply and demand. But such a
   situation "could not exist for any length of time without annihilating
   the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically
   destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness."
   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, "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."
   [The Great Transformation, p. 71, pp. 41-42 and pp. 149-150]

   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.

   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 "spontaneous reaction" 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.

   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 effects 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.

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

   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
   Governing the Market). In other "developing" countries which have had
   the misfortune to be subjected to "free-market reforms" (e.g.
   neo-liberal Structural Adjustment Programs) rather than following the
   interventionist Japanese and Korean models, the results have been
   devastating for the vast majority, with drastic increases in poverty,
   homelessness, malnutrition, etc. (for the elite, the results are
   somewhat different of course). In the nineteenth century, states only
   turned to laissez-faire once they could benefit from it and had a
   strong enough economy to survive it: "Only in the mid-nineteenth
   century, when it had become powerful enough to overcome any
   competition, did England [sic!] embrace free trade." [Chomsky, Op.
   Cit., p. 115] Before this, protectionism and other methods were used to
   nurture economic development. And once laissez-faire started to
   undermine a country's economy, it was quickly revoked. For example,
   protectionism is often used to protect a fragile economy and militarism
   has always been a favourite way for the ruling elite to help the
   economy, as is still the case, for example, in the "Pentagon System" in
   the USA (see [4]section D.8).

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

   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. "So long as capital is still weak," Marx wrote, "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."
   [quoted by Paul Mattick, Marx and Keynes, p. 96] Council Communist Paul
   Mattick comments that a "healthy" capitalism "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." [Op. Cit., p. 97]

   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,
   "[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." [Marxism, Anarchism, and
   Alternative Futures, p. 784] As Kropotkin put it:

     "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.

     "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?"
     [Op. Cit., pp. 97-8]

   In other words, while Marx was right to note that the "silent
   compulsion of economic relations sets the seal on the domination of the
   capitalist over the worker" he was wrong to state that "[d]irect
   extra-economic force is still of course used, but only in exceptional
   cases." The ruling class rarely lives up to its own rhetoric and while
   "rely[ing] on his [the workers'] dependence on capital" it always
   supplements that with state intervention. As such, Marx was wrong to
   state it was "otherwise during the historical genesis of capitalist
   production." It is not only the "rising bourgeoisie" which "needs the
   power of the state" nor is it just "an essential aspect of so-called
   primitive accumulation." [Capital, vol. 1, pp. 899-900]

   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 "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." They
   are "not going to survive without a massive state subsidy, so they want
   a powerful state." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 215]

   And neither should it be forgotten that state intervention was required
   to create the "free" market in the first place. To quote Polanyi again,
   "[f]or as long as [the market] system is not established, economic
   liberals must and will unhesitatingly call for the intervention of the
   state in order to establish it, and once established, in order to
   maintain it." [Op. Cit., p. 149] Protectionism and subsidy
   (mercantilism) -- along with the liberal use of state violence against
   the working class -- was required to create and protect capitalism and
   industry in the first place (see [5]section F.8 for details).

   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.

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

   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.

   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 do 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.

   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 "whoever says
   regulation says limitation: now, how conceive of limiting privilege
   before it existed?" It "would be an effect without a cause" and so
   "regulation was a corrective to privilege" and not vice versa. "In
   logic as well as in history, everything is appropriated and monopolised
   when laws and regulations arrive." [Proudhon, System of Economic
   Contradictions, p. 371] As economist Edward Herman notes:

     "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." [Edward Herman, Corporate Control, Corporate Power, pp.
     300-1]

   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.

   As Polanyi explains, the neo-liberal premise is false, because state
   intervention always "dealt with some problem arising out of modern
   industrial conditions or, at any rate, in the market method of dealing
   with them." In fact, most of these "collectivist" measures were carried
   out by "convinced supporters of laissez-faire . . . [and who] were as a
   rule uncompromising opponents of [state] socialism or any other form of
   collectivism." [Op. Cit., 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 not 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.

   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,
   "the attempt to establish pure economic liberalism, in the sense of
   free trade, a competitive labour market and the Gold Standard, did not
   last more than 40 years, and by the 1870s and 1880s, protectionist
   legislation was back . . . It was also significant. . . [that all major
   capitalist powers] passed through a period of free trade and
   laissez-faire, followed by a period of anti-liberal legislation." ["The
   Nation-state and the Market", pp. 37-80, Society and Nature, Vol. 2,
   No. 2, p. 48]

   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 "[a]t the beginning of the Depression, Europe had been in the
   heyday of free trade." [Polanyi, Op. Cit., p. 216] State intervention
   came about in response to the social disruptions resulting from
   laissez-faire. It did not cause them.

   Similarly, it is a fallacy to state, as Ludwig von Mises did, that "as
   long as unemployment benefit is paid, unemployment must exist." [quoted
   by Polanyi, Op. Cit., p. 283] This statement is not only ahistoric but
   ignores the existence of the involuntary 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:

     "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."
     [quoted by Elton Rayack, Not so Free to Choose, p. 130]

   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 "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." As Rayack notes, by "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." [Op. Cit., p. 130] But, of course, the likes of
   von Mises will dismiss Friedman as a "socialist" and no further thought
   is required.

   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.

   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: "a social calamity is primarily a cultural not an economic
   phenomenon that can be measured by income figures." [Op. Cit., p. 157]
   And it is the nature of capitalism to ignore or despise what cannot be
   measured.

   This does not mean that state intervention cannot have bad effects on
   the economy or society. Given the state's centralised, bureaucratic
   nature, it would be impossible for it not to have 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:

     "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." ["The Modern State", pp. 201-15,
     John P Clark and Camille Martin (eds.), Anarchy, Geography,
     Modernity, p. 207]

   As such, welfare within a bureaucratic system will have problems but
   getting rid of it will hardly reduce 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.

   Moreover, as Malatesta notes, "the practical evidence [is] that
   whatever governments do is always motivated by the desire to dominate,
   and is always geared to defending, extending and perpetuating its
   privileges and those of the class of which it is both the
   representative and defender." [Anarchy, p. 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 [6]section D.1.5, the
   anarchist approach to reforms and state intervention is based on this
   awareness.

D.1.2 Is state intervention the result of democracy?

   No. Social and economic intervention by the modern state began long
   before universal suffrage became widespread. 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).

   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, "often intervened on behalf
   of private and foreign business interests." 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, "[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.)" [Joseph Collins and John
   Lear, Chile's Free-Market Miracle: A Second Look, p. 254]

   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.

   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.

   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.

   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 "[t]he fact . . .that
   'business confidence' was at its lowest could go a long way in
   explaining the much more tolerant attitude of those controlling
   production towards measures encroaching on their economic power and
   profits. In fact, it was only when -- and as long as -- state
   interventionism had the approval of those actually controlling
   production that it was successful." ["The Nation-state and the Market",
   Op. Cit., p. 55] As anarchist Sam Dolgoff notes, the New Deal in
   America (and similar policies elsewhere) was introduced, in part,
   because the "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." [The American Labor
   Movement, 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: "If you
   do not give the people social reforms, they are going to give you
   revolution." Memories of the near revolutions across Europe after the
   First World War were obviously in many minds, on both sides.

   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.

   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 "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." [Errico
   Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 196]

   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."

   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.

   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:

     "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." [Apostles of Greed, p. 104]

   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: "Whenever the law has
   attempted to regulate the wages of workmen, it has always been rather
   to lower them than to raise them." [The Wealth of Nations, 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:

     "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." [Op. Cit., p. 129]

   The interest of merchants and master manufacturers, Smith stressed, "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."
   [Op. Cit., pp. 231-2] These days Smith would have likely argued that
   this position applies equally to attempts by big business to revoke
   laws and regulations!

   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, "the markets") 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.

   The defenders of "free market" capitalism appear oblivious as to the
   reasons why the state has approved regulations and nationalisations as
   well as why 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.

   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 "the grounds and limits of
   the laissez-faire and non-interference principle" in his Principles of
   Political Economy 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).

   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, preserved 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.

   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
   "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" is right, but in the exact opposite way he
   intended. [Law, Legislation and Liberty, 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
   [7]section D.2 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.

   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 "revealed that
   popular attitudes are virtually the inverse of policy." In general,
   there is a "dramatic divide between public opinion and public policy,"
   but public opinion has little impact on state officials.
   Unsurprisingly, the general population "do not feel that the government
   is responsive to the public will." The key to evaluating whether a
   state is a functioning democracy is dependent on "what public opinion
   is on major issues" and "how it relates to public policy." In the case
   of the US, business interests are supreme and, as such, "[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." The state "pursues
   the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the
   domestic population," unless forced otherwise by the people (for
   "rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent authorities" but
   rather by "education and organising"). In summary, governments
   implement policies which benefit "the short-term interests of narrow
   sectors of power and wealth . . . It takes wilful blindness not to see
   how these commitments guide . . . policy." [Chomsky, Failed States, 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.

   Von Hayek showed his grasp of reality by stating that the real problem
   is "not the selfish action of individual firms but the selfishness of
   organised groups" and so "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." [Op. Cit., 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, "organised groups" and based around "collective
   action". 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
   [8]section J.4.2) 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).

   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).

   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 reductio ad absurdum 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).

D.1.3 Is state intervention socialistic?

   No. Libertarian socialism is about self-liberation and self-management
   of one's activities. Getting the state to act for us is the opposite of
   these ideals. In addition, the question implies that socialism is
   connected with its nemesis, statism, and that socialism means even more
   bureaucratic control and centralisation ("socialism is the contrary of
   governmentalism." [Proudhon, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]). As
   Kropotkin stressed: "State bureaucracy and centralisation are as
   irreconcilable with socialism as was autocracy with capitalist rule."
   [Evolution and Environment, 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.

   The identification of socialism with the state is something that social
   democrats, Stalinists and capitalist apologists all agree upon.
   However, as we'll see in [9]section H.3.13, "state socialism" is in
   reality just state capitalism -- the turning of the world into "one
   office and one factory" (to use Lenin's expression). Little wonder that
   most sane people join with anarchists in rejecting it. Who wants to
   work under a system in which, if one does not like the boss (i.e. the
   state), one cannot even quit?

   The theory that state intervention is "creeping socialism" takes the
   laissez-faire ideology of capitalism at its face value, not realising
   that it is ideology rather than reality. Capitalism is a dynamic system
   and evolves over time, but this does not mean that by moving away from
   its theoretical starting point it is negating its essential nature and
   becoming socialistic. Capitalism was born from state intervention, and
   except for a very short period of laissez-faire which ended in
   depression has always depended on state intervention for its existence.
   As such, while there "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." [Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, p. 185]

   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:

     "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." [The Conservative
     Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get
     Richer, p. v]

   He stresses, that "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." They "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." Dean discusses numerous examples of
   right-wing forms of state action, and notes that "[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." It seems redundant to note that
   "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." [Op. Cit., p. 1 and p. 2]

   This, it should be stressed, is unexpected. As we explained in
   [10]section B.2, 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.

   So the state and its institutions can "challenge the use of authority
   by other institutions, such as cruel parents, greedy landlords, brutal
   bosses, violent criminals" as well as "promot[ing] desirable social
   activities, such as public works, disaster relief, communications and
   transport systems, poor relief, education and broadcasting." Anarchists
   argue, though, the state remains "primarily . . . oppressive" and its
   "main function is in fact to hold down the people, to limit freedom"
   and that "all the benevolent functions of the state can be exercised
   and often have been exercised by voluntary associations." Moreover,
   "the essential function of the state is to maintain the existing
   inequality" and so "cannot redistribute wealth fairly because it is the
   main agency of the unfair distribution." This is because it is "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." [Walters, About Anarchism, p. 36 and p. 37]

   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]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." [Op. Cit., p. 184] The notion that
   "welfare equals socialism" is nonsense, although it can reduce poverty
   and economic inequality somewhat. As Colin Ward notes, "when socialists
   have achieved power" they have produced nothing more than "[m]onopoly
   capitalism with a veneer of social welfare as a substitute for social
   justice." [Anarchy in Action, p. 18]

   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, "the real
   opinions of capitalists can be seen from Stock Exchange conditions and
   statements of industrialists [rather] than the Tory Front bench . . .
   [and from these we] see that the owning class is not at all displeased
   with the record and tendency of the Labour Party." [Vernon Richards
   (ed.), Neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation -- Selections from
   Freedom 1945-1950, p. 9]

   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 "really
   consolidating the old individual capitalist class into a new and
   efficient class of managers to run . . . state capitalism" by
   "installing the really creative industrialists in dictatorial
   managerial positions." [Vernon Richards (ed.), Op. Cit., p. 10] Thus,
   in practice, the real examples of nationalisation confirmed Kropotkin's
   prediction that it would be "an exchange of present capitalism for
   state-capitalism" and simply be "nothing but a new, perhaps improved,
   but still undesirable form of the wage system." [Evolution and
   Environment, p. 193 and p. 171] The nationalised industries were
   expected, of course, to make a profit, partly for "repaying the
   generous compensation plus interest to the former owners of the mainly
   bankrupt industries that the Labour government had taken over."
   [Richards, Op. Cit., p. 7]

   Ultimately, state ownership at local or national level is hardly
   socialistic in principle or in practice. As Kropotkin stressed, "no
   reasonable man [or woman] will expect that Municipal Socialism, any
   more than Co-operation, could solve to any extent the Social problem."
   This was because it was "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." [Act for
   Yourselves, 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.

   While state intervention is hardly socialistic, what can be said is
   that "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." [Colin
   Ward, Talking Anarchy, p. 79] For anarchists, while "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."
   [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 95-6] As British anarchists stressed during
   the first post-war Labour Government:

     "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."

     "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."
     [Vernon Richards (ed.), World War - Cold War, p. 347]

   In reality, rather than genuine socialism we had reformists "operating
   capitalism while trying to give it a socialist gloss." [Op. Cit., 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.

D.1.4 Is laissez-faire capitalism actually without state intervention?

   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.

   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
   whose 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 has 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.

   As Kropotkin argued, the "major portion" of laws have "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." This means that all modern states "all
   serve one God -- capital; all have but one object -- to facilitate the
   exploitation of the worker by the capitalist." [Anarchism, p. 210]

   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:

     "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
     gendarme the property owner could not exist, indeed the government's
     powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition
     results in more discord and inequality." [Anarchy, p. 46]

   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.

   This is unsurprising, as laissez-faire capitalism being "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." [Proudhon, quoted by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of
   Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 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.

   In summary, all 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 "is called the freedom of transactions but
   it is more truly called the freedom of exploitation." [Words of a
   Rebel, p. 119]

   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 has to
   interfere to counteract the negative impacts of capitalism. Moreover,
   as we discussed in [11]section C.7, 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, "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." [Wall
   Street, 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 [12]section C.9 on this and as we
   indicated in [13]section C.6, this has been very enriching for the
   ruling class since 1980).

   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 "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," namely
   capitalist firms and corporations which are "private totalitarian
   organisations." [Chomsky on Anarchism, 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.

D.1.5 Do anarchists support state intervention?

   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 "maintain order 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." [The General Idea of
   the Revolution, 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."

   In the long term, of course, the real solution is to abolish capitalism
   "and both citizens and communities will have no need of the
   intervention of the State." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., 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 [14]section I).

   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, not 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 "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." [Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, Anarchism and the Black Revolution,
   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 "Anarchism vs. Right-Wing 'Anti-Statism'"
   [Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, no. 31, Spring 2001]). Chomsky puts it
   well:

     "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." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 193 and p. 194]

   There is, of course, a tension in this position. The state may be
   influenced by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of
   capitalist 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 "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" and so implemented policies "solicited
   by big industry, high officials, and above all, by international
   finance." [Elisee Reclus, The Modern State, p. 208 and pp. 208-9]

   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 is an evil).

   Taking the issue of privatisation of state owned and run industry, the
   anarchist position is opposition to both. As we noted in [15]section
   D.1.3, the anarchist prediction that if you substitute government
   ownership for private ownership, "nothing is changed but the
   stockholders and the management; beyond that, there is not the least
   difference in the position of the workers." [Proudhon, quoted by
   Ritter, Op. Cit., pp. 167-8] However, privatisation is a rip-off of the
   general public for the benefit of the wealthy:

     "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." [Gregor Kerr, "Privatisation: the rip-off of
     public resources", pp. 14-18, Black and Red Revolution, no. 11, p.
     16]

   In response to such "reforms", anarchists propose an alternatives to
   both options. Anarchists aim not at state ownership but to "transfer
   all that is needed for production . . . from the hands of the
   individual capitalists into those of the communities of producers and
   consumers." [Kropotkin, Environment and Evolution, pp. 169-70] In other
   words, while "[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." [Kerr, Op. Cit., p. 18] This is based on a
   common-sense conclusion from the analysis of the state as an instrument
   of the ruling class:

     "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.

     "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."
     [Kerr, Opt. Cit., pp. 16-7 and p. 17]

   Thus an anarchist approach to this issue would be to reject both
   privatisation and 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:

     "It is true that government takes over the control of certain
     necessary social functions. It does not follow that only 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.

     "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."
     [The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 148-149]

   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 "workers' control by all the people involved" in
   an institution, in other words "the extension of the principle of
   freedom from the economic to the political side of the health [and
   education] system[s]." [Nicholas Walters, About Anarchism, p. 76] The
   aim is to create "new forms of organisation for the social functions
   that the state fulfils through the bureaucracy." [Colin Ward, Anarchy
   in Action, p. 19] This means that anarchists, as part of the wider
   socialist, labour and social movements seek "to counterbalance as much
   as we [can] the centralistic, bureaucratic ambitions of Social
   Democracy." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 120] This applies both
   to the organisation and tactics of popular movements as well as the
   proposed reforms and how they are implemented.

   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.

   This means that the decision of what aspects of statism to dismantle
   first should never 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
   as a system. 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 "naive appeal to the legislators and high
   officials, waiting for salvation through their deliberations and
   decrees." In reality "freedom does not come begging, but rather must be
   conquered." [Reclus, Op. Cit., p. 210] This is not done, then the
   results will simply confirm Voltairine de Cleyre's insight:

     "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."
     [The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, p. 59]

   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.

   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 our desires and interests. We have
   seen how vulnerable state welfare is to pressures from the capitalist
   class to see that this is a truism.

   This is not to deny that in many ways such state "support" can be used
   as a means of regaining some of the power and labour stolen from us by
   capitalists in the first place. State intervention can give working
   people more options than they otherwise would have. If state action
   could not be used in this way, it is doubtful that capitalists and
   their hired "experts" would spend so much time trying to undermine and
   limit it. As the capitalist class happily uses the state to enforce its
   power and property rights, working people making whatever use they can
   of it is to be expected. Be that as it may, this does not blind
   anarchists to the negative aspects of the welfare state and other forms
   of state intervention (see [16]section J.5.15 for anarchist
   perspectives on the welfare state).

   One problem with state intervention, as Kropotkin saw, is that the
   state's absorption of social functions "necessarily favoured the
   development of an unbridled, narrow-minded individualism. In proportion
   as the obligations towards the State grew in numbers, the citizens were
   evidently relieved from their obligations towards each other." [Mutual
   Aid, p. 183] In the case of state "social functions," such as the
   British National Health Service, although they were created as a result
   of the social atomisation caused by capitalism, they have tended to
   reinforce the individualism and lack of personal and social
   responsibility that produced the need for such action in the first
   place. The pressing need, therefore, is for working class people need
   "independent control . . . of their own welfare programs. Mutual aid
   and welfare arrangements are necessary." [Sam Dolgoff, The American
   Labour Movement, p. 26] Specific forms of community and social
   self-help and their historical precedents are discussed in [17]section
   J.5.16.

   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:

     "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." [Rudolf Rocker,
     London Years, pp. 25-6]

   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 "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." [Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, 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.

   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 [18]section J.2) for the "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." [Jose Peirats, The CNT in the
   Spanish Revolution, vol. 2, p. 150]

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD1.html#secd14
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD8.html
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD1.html#secd15
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD2.html
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ4.html#secj42
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech313
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC9.html
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC6.html
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secIcon.html
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD1.html#secd13
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj515
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ5.html#secj516
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
