                          D.5 What causes imperialism?

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

   While the rhetoric used for imperial adventures may be about
   self-defence, defending/exporting "democracy" and/or "humanitarian"
   interests, the reality is much more basic and grim. As Chomsky
   stresses, "deeds consistently accord with interests, and conflict with
   words -- discoveries that must not, however, weaken our faith in the
   sincerity of the declarations of our leaders." This is unsurprising as
   states are always "pursuing the strategic and economic interests of
   dominant sectors to the accompaniment of rhetorical flourishes about
   its exceptional dedication to the highest values" and so "the evidence
   for . . . the proclaimed messianic missions reduces to routine
   pronouncements" (faithfully repeated by the media) while
   "counter-evidence is mountainous." [Failed States, p. 171 and pp.
   203-4]

   We must stress that we are concentrating on the roots of imperialism
   here. We do not, and cannot, provide a detailed history of the horrors
   associated with it. For US imperialism, the works of Noam Chomsky are
   recommended. His books Turning the Tide and The Culture of Terrorism
   expose the evils of US intervention in Central America, for example,
   while Deterring Democracy, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World
   Affairs and Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on
   Democracy present a wider perspective. Killing Hope: US Military and
   CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the
   World's Only Superpower by William Blum are also worth reading. For
   post-1945 British imperialism, Mark Curtis's Web of Deceit: Britain's
   Real Role in the World and Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights
   Abuses are recommended.

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

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

     "we find wars of extermination, wars among races and nations; wars
     of conquest, wars to maintain equilibrium, political and religious
     wars, wars waged in the name of 'great ideas' . . . , patriotic wars
     for greater national unity . . . And what do we find beneath all
     that, beneath all the hypocritical phrases used in order to give
     these wars the appearance of humanity and right? Always the same
     economic phenomenon: the tendency on the part of some to live and
     prosper at the expense of others. All the rest is mere humbug. The
     ignorant and naive, and the fools are entrapped by it, but the
     strong men who direct the destinies of the State know only too well
     that underlying all those wars there is only one motive: pillage,
     the seizing of someone else's wealth and the enslavement of someone
     else's labour." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 170]

   However, while the economic motive for expansion is generally the same,
   the economic system which a nation is based on has a definite impact on
   what drives that motive as well as the specific nature of that
   imperialism. Thus the empire building of ancient Rome or Feudal England
   has a different economic base (and so driving need) than, say, the
   imperialism of nineteenth century Germany and Britain or twentieth and
   twenty-first century United States. Here we will focus mainly on modern
   capitalist imperialism as it is the most relevant one in the modern
   world.

   Capitalism, by its very nature, is growth-based and so is characterised
   by the accumulation and concentration of capital. Companies must expand
   in order to survive competition in the marketplace. This, inevitably,
   sees a rise in international activity and organisation as a result of
   competition over markets and resources within a given country. By
   expanding into new markets in new countries, a company can gain an
   advantage over its competitors as well as overcome limited markets and
   resources in the home nation. In Bakunin's words:

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

   Therefore, economically and politically, the imperialistic activities
   of both capitalist and state-capitalist (i.e. the Soviet Union and
   other "socialist" nations) comes as no surprise. Capitalism is
   inevitably imperialistic and so "[w]ar, capitalism and imperialism form
   a veritable trinity," to quote Dutch pacifist-syndicalist Bart de Ligt
   [The Conquest of Violence, p. 64] The growth of big business is such
   that it can no longer function purely within the national market and so
   they have to expand internationally to gain advantage in and survive.
   This, in turn, requires the home state of the corporations also to have
   global reach in order to defend them and to promote their interests.
   Hence the economic basis for modern imperialism, with "the capitalistic
   interests of the various countries fight[ing] for the foreign markets
   and compete with each other there" and when they "get into trouble
   about concessions and sources of profit," they "call upon their
   respective governments to defend their interests . . . to protect the
   privileges and dividends of some . . . capitalist in a foreign
   country." [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 31] Thus a
   capitalist class needs the power of nation states not only to create
   internal markets and infrastructure but also to secure and protect
   international markets and opportunities in a world of rivals and their
   states.

   As power depends on profits within capitalism, this means that modern
   imperialism is caused more by economic factors than purely political
   considerations (although, obviously, this factor does play a role).
   Imperialism serves capital by increasing the pool of profits available
   for the imperialistic country in the world market as well as reducing
   the number of potential competitors. As Kropotkin stressed, "capital
   knows no fatherland; and if high profits can be derived from the work
   of Indian coolies whose wages are only one-half of those of English
   workmen [or women], or even less, capital will migrate to India, as it
   has gone to Russian, although its migration may mean starvation for
   Lancashire." [Fields, Factories and Workshops, p. 57]

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

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

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

   This can be achieved in many ways. For example, allowing the import of
   cheaper raw materials and goods; the export of goods to markets
   sheltered from foreign competitors; the export of capital from
   capital-rich areas to capital-poor areas as the investing of capital in
   less industrially developed countries allows the capitalists in
   question to benefit from lower wages; relocating factories to countries
   with fewer (or no) social and environmental laws, controls or
   regulations. All these allow profits to be gathered at the expense of
   the working people of the oppressed nation (the rulers of these nations
   generally do well out of imperialism, as would be expected). The
   initial source of exported capital is, of course, the exploitation of
   labour at home but it is exported to less developed countries where
   capital is scarcer and the price of land, labour and raw materials
   cheaper. These factors all contribute to enlarging profit margins:

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

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

   In addition, imperialism allows big business to increase its strength
   with respect to its workforce in the imperialist nation by the threat
   of switching production to other countries or by using foreign
   investments to ride out strikes. This is required because, while the
   "home" working class are still exploited and oppressed, their continual
   attempts at organising and resisting their exploiters proved more and
   more successful. As such, "the opposition of the white working classes
   to the . . . capitalist class continually gain[ed] strength, and the
   workers . . . [won] increased wages, shorter hours, insurances,
   pensions, etc., the white exploiters found it profitable to obtain
   their labour from men [,women and children] of so-called inferior race
   . . . Capitalists can therefore make infinitely more out there than at
   home." [Bart de Ligt, Op. Cit., p. 49]

   As such, imperialism (like capitalism) is not only driven by the need
   to increase profits (important as this is, of course), it is also
   driven by the class struggle -- the need for capital to escape from the
   strength of the working class in a particular country. From this
   perspective, the export of capital can be seen in two ways. Firstly, as
   a means of disciplining rebellious workers at home by an "investment
   strike" (capital, in effect, runs away, so causing unemployment which
   disciplines the rebels). Secondly, as a way to increase the 'reserve
   army' of the unemployed facing working people in the imperialist
   nations by creating new competitors for their jobs (i.e. dividing, and
   so ruling, workers by playing one set of workers against another). Both
   are related, of course, and both seek to weaken working class power by
   the fear of unemployment. This process played a key role in the rise of
   globalisation -- see [1]section D.5.3 for details.

   Thus imperialism, which is rooted in the search from surplus profits
   for big business, is also a response to working class power at home.
   The export of capital is done by emerging and established transnational
   companies to overcome a militant and class consciousness working class
   which is often too advanced for heavy exploitation, and finance capital
   can make easier and bigger profits by investing productive capital
   elsewhere. It aids the bargaining position of business by pitting the
   workers in one country against another, so while they are being
   exploited by the same set of bosses, those bosses can use this
   fictional "competition" of foreign workers to squeeze concessions from
   workers at home.

   Imperialism has another function, namely to hinder or control the
   industrialisation of other countries. Such industrialisation will, of
   course, mean the emergence of new capitalists, who will compete with
   the existing ones both in the "less developed" countries and in the
   world market as a whole. Imperialism, therefore, attempts to reduce
   competition on the world market. As we discuss in the [2]next section,
   the nineteenth century saw the industrialisation of many European
   nations as well as America, Japan and Russia by means of state
   intervention. However, this state-led industrialisation had a drawback,
   namely that it created more and more competitors on the world market.
   Moreover, as Kropotkin noted, they has the advantage that the "new
   manufacturers . . . begin where" the old have "arrived after a century
   of experiments and groupings" and so they "are built according to the
   newest and best models which have been worked out elsewhere." [Op.
   Cit., p. 32 and p. 49] Hence the need to stop new competitors and
   secure raw materials and markets, which was achieved by colonialism:

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

   Imperialism hinders industrialisation in two ways. The first way was
   direct colonisation, a system which has effectively ended. The second
   is by indirect means -- namely the extraction of profits by
   international big business. A directly dominated country can be stopped
   from developing industry and be forced to specialise as a provider of
   raw materials. This was the aim of "classic" imperialism, with its
   empires and colonial wars. By means of colonisation, the imperialist
   powers ensure that the less-developed nation stays that way -- so
   ensuring one less competitor as well as favourable access to raw
   materials and cheap labour. French anarchist Elisee Reclus rightly
   called this a process of creating "colonies of exploitation." [quoted
   by John P Clark and Camille Martin (eds.), Anarchy, Geography,
   Modernity, p. 92]

   This approach has been superseded by indirect means (see [3]next
   section). Globalisation can be seen as an intensification of this
   process. By codifying into international agreements the ability of
   corporations to sue nation states for violating "free trade," the
   possibility of new competitor nations developing is weakened.
   Industrialisation will be dependent on transnational corporations and
   so development will be hindered and directed to ensure corporate
   profits and power. Unsurprisingly, those nations which have
   industrialised over the last few decades (such as the East Asian Tiger
   economies) have done so by using the state to protect industry and
   control international finance.

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

   However, while imperialism is driven by the needs of capitalism it
   cannot end the contradictions inherent in that system. As Reclus put it
   in the late nineteenth century, "the theatre expands, since it now
   embraces the whole of the land and seas. But the forces that struggled
   against one another in each particularly state are precisely those that
   fight across the earth. In each country, capital seeks to subdue the
   workers. Similarly, on the level of the broadest world market, capital,
   which had grown enormously, disregards all the old borders and seeks to
   put the entire mass of producers to work on behalf of its profits, and
   to secure all the consumers in the world." [Reclus, quoted by Clark and
   Martin (eds.), Op. Cit., p. 97]

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

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

   In summary, current imperialism is caused by, and always serves, the
   needs and interests of Capital. If it did not, if imperialism were bad
   for business, the business class would oppose it. This partly explains
   why the colonialism of the 19th century is no more (the other reasons
   being social resistance to foreign domination, which obviously helped
   to make imperialism bad for business as well, and the need for US
   imperialism to gain access to these markets after the second world
   war). There are now more cost-effective means than direct colonialism
   to ensure that "underdeveloped" countries remain open to exploitation
   by foreign capital. Once the costs exceeded the benefits, colonialist
   imperialism changed into the neo-colonialism of multinationals,
   political influence, and the threat of force. Moreover, we must not
   forget that any change in imperialism relates to changes in the
   underlying economic system and so the changing nature of modern
   imperialism can be roughly linked to developments within the capitalist
   economy.

   Imperialism, then, is basically the ability of countries to globally
   and locally dictate trade relations and investments with other
   countries in such a way as to gain an advantage over the other
   countries. When capital is invested in foreign nations, the surplus
   value extracted from the workers in those nations are not re-invested
   in those nations. Rather a sizeable part of it returns to the base
   nation of the corporation (in the form of profits for that company).
   Indeed, that is to be expected as the whole reason for the investment
   of capital in the first place was to get more out of the country than
   the corporation put into it. Instead of this surplus value being
   re-invested into industry in the less-developed nation (as would be the
   case with home-grown exploiters, who are dependent on local markets and
   labour) it ends up in the hands of foreign exploiters who take them out
   of the dominated country. This means that industrial development as
   less resources to draw on, making the local ruling class dependent on
   foreign capital and its whims.

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

D.5.1 How has imperialism changed over time?

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

   Imperialism has important economic advantages for those who run the
   economy. As the needs of the business class change, the forms taken by
   imperialism also change. We can identify three main phases: classic
   imperialism (i.e. conquest), indirect (economic) imperialism, and
   globalisation. We will consider the first two in this section and
   globalisation in [4]section D.5.3. However, for all the talk of
   globalisation in recent years, it is important to remember that
   capitalism has always been an international system, that the changing
   forms of imperialism reflect this international nature and that the
   changes within imperialism are in response to developments within
   capitalism itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Within the industrialising country, the usual process of competition
   driving out competitors continued. More and more markets became
   dominated by big business (although, as Kropotkin stressed, without
   totally eliminating smaller workshops within an industry and even
   creating more around them). Indeed, as Russian anarchist G. P. Maximoff
   stressed, the "specific character of Imperialism is . . . the
   concentration and centralisation of capital in syndicates, trusts and
   cartels, which . . . have a decisive voice, not only in the economic
   and political life of their countries, but also in the life of the
   nations of the worlds a whole." [Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 10]
   The modern multi-national and transnational corporations are the latest
   expression of this process.

   Simply put, the size of big business was such that it had to expand
   internationally as their original national markets were not sufficient
   and to gain further advantages over their competitors. Faced with high
   tariff barriers and rising international competition, industry
   responded by exporting capital as well as finished goods. This export
   of capital was an essential way of beating protectionism (and even reap
   benefits from it) and gain a foothold in foreign markets ("protective
   duties have no doubt contributed . . . towards attracting German and
   English manufacturers to Poland and Russia" [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p.
   41]). In addition, it allowed access to cheap labour and raw materials
   by placing capital in foreign lands As part of this process colonies
   were seized to increase the size of "friendly" markets and, of course,
   allow the easy export of capital into areas with cheap labour and raw
   materials. The increased concentration of capital this implies was
   essential to gain an advantage against foreign competitors and dominate
   the international market as well as the national one.

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

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

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

   This process of expansion into non-capitalist areas also helps Capital
   to weather both the subjective and objective economic pressures upon it
   which cause the business cycle (see [6]section C.7 for more details).
   As wealth looted from less industrially developed countries is exported
   back to the home country, profit levels can be protected both from
   working-class demands and from any relative decline in surplus-value
   production caused by increased capital investment (see [7]section C.2
   for more on surplus value). In fact, the working class of the
   imperialist country could receive improved wages and living conditions
   as the looted wealth was imported into the country and that meant that
   the workers could fight for, and win, improvements that otherwise would
   have provoked intense class conflict. And as the sons and daughters of
   the poor emigrated to the colonies to make a living for themselves on
   stolen land, the wealth extracted from those colonies helped to
   overcome the reduction in the supply of labour at home which would
   increase its market price. This loot also helps reduce competitive
   pressures on the nation's economy. Of course, these advantages of
   conquest cannot totally stop the business cycle nor eliminate
   competition, as the imperialistic nations soon discovered.

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

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

   However, this process had objective limitations. Firstly, the expansion
   of empires had the limitation that there were only so many potential
   colonies out there. This meant that conflicts over markets and colonies
   was inevitable (as the states involved knew, and so they embarked on a
   policy of building larger and larger armed forces). As Kropotkin argued
   before the First World War, the real cause of war at the time was "the
   competition for markets and the right to exploit nations backward in
   industry." [quoted by Martin Miller, Kropotkin, p. 225] Secondly, the
   creation of trusts, the export of goods and the import of cheap raw
   materials cannot stop the business cycle nor "buy-off" the working
   class indefinitely (i.e. the excess profits of imperialism will never
   be enough to grant more and more reforms and improvements to the
   working class in the industrialised world). Thus the need to overcome
   economic slumps propelled business to find new ways of dominating the
   market, up to and including the use of war to grab new markets and
   destroy rivals. Moreover, war was a good way of side tracking class
   conflict at home -- which, let us not forget, had been reaching
   increasingly larger, more militant and more radical levels in all the
   imperialist nations (see John Zerzan's "Origins and Meaning of WWI" in
   his Elements of Refusal).

   Thus this first phase of imperialism began as the growing capitalist
   economy started to reach the boundaries of the nationalised market
   created by the state within its own borders. Imperialism was then used
   to expand the area that could be colonised by the capital associated
   with a given nation-state. This stage ended, however, once the dominant
   powers had carved up the planet into different spheres of influence and
   there was nowhere left to expand into. In the competition for access to
   cheap raw materials and foreign markets, nation-states came into
   conflict with each other. As it was obvious that a conflict was
   brewing, the major European countries tried to organise a "balance of
   power." This meant that armies were built and navies created to
   frighten other countries and so deter war. Unfortunately, these
   measures were not enough to countermand the economic and power
   processes at play ("Armies equipped to the teeth with weapons, with
   highly developed instruments of murder and backed by military
   interests, have their own dynamic interests," as Goldman put it [Red
   Emma Speaks, p. 353]). War did break out, a war over empires and
   influence, a war, it was claimed, that would end all wars. As we now
   know, of course, it did not because it did not fight the root cause of
   modern wars, capitalism.

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

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

   After the Second World War, the European countries yielded to pressure
   from the USA and national liberation movements and grated many former
   countries "independence" (often after intense conflict). As Kropotkin
   predicted, such social movements were to be expected for with the
   growth of capitalism "the number of people with an interest in the
   capitulation of the capitalist state system also increases."
   ["Anarchism and Syndicalism", Op. Cit., p. 26] Unfortunately these
   "liberation" movements transformed mass struggle from a potential
   struggle against capitalism into movements aiming for independent
   capitalist nation states (see [8]section D.7). Not, we must stress,
   that the USA was being altruistic in its actions, independence for
   colonies weakened its rivals as well as allowing US capital access to
   those markets.

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

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

   So instead of direct rule over less developed nations (which generally
   proved to be too costly, both economically and politically), indirect
   forms of domination were now preferred. These are rooted in economic
   and political pressure rather than the automatic use of violence,
   although force is always an option and is resorted to if "business
   interests" are threatened. This is the reality of the expression "the
   international community" -- it is code for imperialist aims for Western
   governments, particularly the U.S. and its junior partner, the U.K. As
   discussed in [9]section D.2.1, economic power can be quite effective in
   pressuring governments to do what the capitalist class desire even in
   advanced industrial countries. This applies even more so to so-called
   developing nations.

   In addition to the stick of economic and political pressure, the
   imperialist countries also use the carrot of foreign aid and investment
   to ensure their aims. This can best be seen when Western governments
   provide lavish funds to "developing" states, particularly petty
   right-wing despots, under the pseudonym "foreign aid." Hence the all to
   common sight of US Presidents supporting authoritarian (indeed,
   dictatorial) regimes while at the same time mouthing nice platitudes
   about "liberty" and "progress." The purpose of this foreign aid,
   noble-sounding rhetoric about freedom and democracy aside, is to ensure
   that the existing world order remains intact and that US corporations
   have access to the raw materials and markets they need. Stability has
   become the watchword of modern imperialists, who see any indigenous
   popular movements as a threat to the existing world order. The U.S. and
   other Western powers provide much-needed war material and training for
   the military of these governments, so that they may continue to keep
   the business climate friendly to foreign investors (that means tacitly
   and overtly supporting fascism around the globe).

   Foreign aid also channels public funds to home based transnational
   companies via the ruling classes in Third World countries. It is, in
   other words, is a process where the poor people of rich countries give
   their money to the rich people of poor countries to ensure that the
   investments of the rich people of rich countries is safe from the poor
   people of poor countries! Needless to say, the owners of the companies
   providing this "aid" also do very well out of it. This has the
   advantage of securing markets as other countries are "encouraged" to
   buy imperialist countries' goods (often in exchange for "aid",
   typically military "aid") and open their markets to the dominant
   power's companies and their products.

   Thus, the Third World sags beneath the weight of well-funded
   oppression, while its countries are sucked dry of their native wealth,
   in the name of "development" and in the spirit of "democracy" and
   "freedom". The United States leads the West in its global
   responsibility (another favourite buzzword) to ensure that this
   peculiar kind of "freedom" remains unchallenged by any indigenous
   movements. The actual form of the regime supported is irrelevant,
   although fascist states are often favoured due to their stability (i.e.
   lack of popular opposition movements). As long as the fascist regimes
   remain compliant and obedient to the West and capitalism thrives
   unchallenged then they can commit any crime against their own people
   while being praised for making progress towards "democracy." However,
   the moment they step out of line and act in ways which clash with the
   interests of the imperialist powers then their short-comings will used
   to justify intervention (the example of Saddam Hussein is the most
   obvious one to raise here). As for "democracy,"
   this can be tolerated by imperialism as long as its in "the traditional
   sense of 'top-down' rule by elites linked to US power, with democratic
   forms of little substance -- unless they are compelled to do so, by
   their own populations in particular." This applies "internally" as well
   as abroad, for "democracy is fine as long as it . . . does not risk
   popular interference with primary interests of power and wealth." Thus
   the aim is to ensure "an obedient client state is firmly in place, the
   general perferene of conquerors, leaving just military bases for future
   contingencies." [Failed States, p. 171, p. 204 and p. 148]

   In these ways, markets are kept open for corporations based in the
   advanced nations all without the apparent use of force or the need for
   colonies. However, this does not mean that war is not an option and,
   unsurprisingly, the post-1945 period has been marked by imperialist
   conflict. These include old-fashioned direct war by the imperialist
   nation (such as the Vietnam and Iraq wars) as well as new-style
   imperialistic wars by proxy (such as US support for the Contras in
   Nicaragua or support for military coups against reformist or
   nationalist governments). As such, if a regime becomes too independent,
   military force always remains an option. This can be seen from the 1990
   Gulf War, when Saddam invaded Kuwait (and all his past crimes,
   conducted with the support of the West, were dragged from the Memory
   Hole to justify war).

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

   This is to be expected, as imperialism is the only means of defending
   the foreign investments of a nation's capitalist class, and by allowing
   the extraction of profits and the creation of markets, it also
   safeguards the future of private capital.

   This process has not come to an end and imperialism is continuing to
   evolve based on changing political and economic developments. The most
   obvious political change is the end of the USSR. During the cold war,
   the competition between the USA and the USSR had an obvious impact on
   how imperialism worked. On the one hand, acts of imperial power could
   be justified in fighting "Communism" (for the USA) or "US imperialism"
   (for the USSR). On the other, fear of provoking a nuclear war or
   driving developing nations into the hands of the other side allowed
   more leeway for developing nations to pursue policies like import
   substitution. With the end of the cold-war, these options have
   decreased considerably for developing nations as US imperialism how
   has, effectively, no constraints beyond international public opinion
   and pressure from below. As the invasion of Iraq in 2003 shows, this
   power is still weak but sufficient to limit some of the excesses of
   imperial power (for example, the US could not carpet bomb Iraq as it
   had Vietnam).

   The most obvious economic change is the increased global nature of
   capitalism. Capital investments in developing nations have increased
   steadily over the years, with profits from the exploitation of cheap
   labour flowing back into the pockets of the corporate elite in the
   imperialist nation, not to its citizens as a whole (though there are
   sometimes temporary benefits to other classes, as discussed in
   [10]section D.5.4). With the increasing globalisation of big business
   and markets, capitalism (and so imperialism) is on the threshold of a
   new transformation. Just as direct imperialism transformed into
   in-direct imperialism, so in-direct imperialism is transforming into a
   global system of government which aims to codify the domination of
   corporations over governments. This process is often called
   "globalisation" and we discuss it in [11]section D.5.3. First, however,
   we need to discuss non-private capitalist forms of imperialism
   associated with the Stalinist regimes and we do that in the [12]next
   section.

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

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

   In the words of libertarian socialist Cornelius Castoriadis:

     "But if imperialist expansion is the necessary expression of an
     economy in which the process of capital concentration has arrived at
     the stage of monopoly domination, this is true a fortiori for an
     economy in which this process of concentration has arrived at its
     natural limit . . . In other words, imperialist expansion is even
     more necessary for a totally concentrated economy . . . That they
     are realised through different modes (for example, capital
     exportation play a much more restricted role and acts in a different
     way than is the case with monopoly domination) is the result of the
     differences separating bureaucratic capitalism from monopoly
     capitalism, but at bottom this changes nothing.

     "We must strongly emphasise that the imperialistic features of
     capital are not tied to 'private' or 'State' ownership of the means
     of production . . . the same process takes place if, instead of
     monopolies, there is an exploiting bureaucracy; in other words, this
     bureaucracy also can exploit, but only on the condition that it
     dominates."
     [Political and Social Writings, vol. 1, p. 159]

   Given this, it comes as no surprise that the state-capitalist countries
   also participated in imperialist activities, adventures and wars,
   although on a lesser scale and for slightly different reasons than
   those associated with private capitalism. However, regardless of the
   exact cause the USSR "has always pursued an imperialist foreign policy,
   that it is the state and not the workers which owns and controls the
   whole life of the country." Given this, it is unsurprising that "world
   revolution was abandoned in favour of alliances with capitalist
   countries. Like the bourgeois states the USSR took part in the
   manoeuvrings to establish a balance of power in Europe." This has its
   roots in its internal class structure, as "it is obvious that a state
   which pursues an imperialist foreign policy cannot itself by
   revolutionary" and this is shown in "the internal life of the USSR"
   where "the means of wealth production" are "owned by the state which
   represents, as always, a privileged class -- the bureaucracy." ["USSR
   -- Anarchist Position," pp. 21-24, Vernon Richards (ed.), The Left and
   World War II, p. 22 and p. 23]

   This process became obvious after the defeat of Nazi Germany and the
   creation of Stalinist states in Eastern Europe. As anarchists at the
   time noted, this was "the consolidation of Russian imperialist power"
   and their "incorporation . . . within the structure of the Soviet
   Union." As such, "all these countries behind the Iron Curtain are
   better regarded as what they really [were] -- satellite states of
   Russia." ["Russia's Grip Tightens", pp. 283-5, Vernon Richards (ed.),
   World War - Cold War, p. 285 and p. 284] Of course, the creation of
   these satellite states was based on the inter-imperialist agreements
   reached at the Yalta conference of February 1945.

   As can be seen by Russia's ruthless policy towards her satellite
   regimes, Soviet imperialism was more inclined to the defence of what
   she already had and the creation of a buffer zone between herself and
   the West. This is not to deny that the ruling elite of the Soviet Union
   did not try to exploit the countries under its influence. For example,
   in the years after the end of the Second World War, the Eastern Block
   countries paid the USSR millions of dollars in reparations. As in
   private capitalism, the "satellite states were regarded as a source of
   raw materials and of cheap manufactured goods. Russia secured the
   satellites exports at below world prices. And it exported to them at
   above world prices." Thus trade "was based on the old imperialist
   principle of buying cheap and selling dear -- very, very dear!" [Andy
   Anderson, Hungary '56, pp. 25-6 and p. 25] However, the nature of the
   imperialist regime was such that it discouraged too much expansionism
   as "Russian imperialism [had] to rely on armies of occupation, utterly
   subservient quisling governments, or a highly organised and loyal
   political police (or all three). In such circumstances considerable
   dilution of Russian power occur[red] with each acquisition of
   territory." ["Russian Imperialism", pp. 270-1, Vernon Richards (ed.),
   Op. Cit., p. 270]

   Needless to say, the form and content of the state capitalist
   domination of its satellite countries was dependent on its own economic
   and political structure and needs, just as traditional capitalist
   imperialism reflected its needs and structures. While direct
   exploitation declined over time, the satellite states were still
   expected to develop their economies in accordance with the needs of the
   Soviet Bloc as a whole (i.e., in the interests of the Russian elite).
   This meant the forcing down of living standards to accelerate
   industrialisation in conformity with the requirements of the Russian
   ruling class. This was because these regimes served not as outlets for
   excess Soviet products but rather as a means of "plugging holes in the
   Russian economy, which [was] in a chronic state of underproduction in
   comparison to its needs." As such, the "form and content" of this
   regimes' "domination over its satellite countries are determined
   fundamentally by its own economic structure" and so it would be
   "completely incorrect to consider these relations identical to the
   relations of classical colonialism." [Castoriadis, Op. Cit., p. 187] So
   part of the difference between private and state capitalist was drive
   by the need to plunder these countries of commodities to make up for
   shortages caused by central planning (in contrast, capitalist
   imperialism tended to export goods). As would be expected, within this
   overall imperialist agenda the local bureaucrats and elites feathered
   their own nests, as with any form of imperialism.

   As well as physical expansionism, the state-capitalist elites also
   aided "anti-imperialist" movements when it served their interests. The
   aim of this was to placed such movements and any regimes they created
   within the Soviet or Chinese sphere of influence. Ironically, this
   process was aided by imperialist rivalries with US imperialism as
   American pressure often closed off other options in an attempt to
   demonise such movements and states as "communist" in order to justify
   supporting their repression or for intervening itself. This is not to
   suggest that Soviet regime was encouraging "world revolution" by this
   support. Far from it, given the Stalinist betrayals and attacks on
   genuine revolutionary movements and struggles (the example of the
   Spanish Revolution is the obvious one to mention here). Soviet aid was
   limited to those parties which were willing to subjugate themselves and
   any popular movements they influenced to the needs of the Russian
   ruling class. Once the Stalinist parties had replaced the local ruling
   class, trade relations were formalised between the so-called
   "socialist" nations for the benefit of both the local and Russian
   rulers. In a similar way, and for identical needs, the Western
   Imperialist powers supported murderous local capitalist and feudal
   elites in their struggle against their own working classes, arguing
   that it was supporting "freedom" and "democracy" against Soviet
   aggression.

   The turning of Communist Parties into conduits of Soviet elite
   interests became obvious under Stalin, when the twists and turns of the
   party line were staggering. However, it actually started under Lenin
   and Trotsky and "almost from the beginning" the Communist International
   (Comintern) "served primarily not as an instrument for World
   Revolution, but as an instrument of Russian Foreign Policy." This
   explains "the most bewildering changes of policy and political
   somersaults" it imposed on its member parties. Ultimately, "the
   allegedly revolutionary aims of the Comintern stood in contrast to the
   diplomatic relations of the Soviet Union with other countries."
   [Marie-Louise Berneri, Neither East Nor West, p. 64 and p. 63] As early
   as 1920, the Dutch Council Communist Anton Pannekoek was arguing that
   the Comintern opposition to anti-parliamentarianism was rooted "in the
   needs of the Soviet Republic" for "peaceful trade with the rest of the
   world." This meant that the Comintern's policies were driven "by the
   political needs of Soviet Russia." ["Afterword to World Revolution and
   Communist Tactics," D.A. Smart (ed.), Pannekoek and Gorter's Marxism,
   p. 143 and p. 144] This is to be expected, as the regime had always
   been state capitalist and so the policies of the Comintern were based
   on the interests of a (state) capitalist regime.

   Therefore, imperialism is not limited to states based on private
   capitalism -- the state capitalist regimes have also been guilty of it.
   This is to be expected, as both are based on minority rule, the
   exploitation and oppression of labour and the need to expand the
   resources available to it. This means that anarchists oppose all forms
   of capitalist imperialism and raise the slogan "Neither East nor West."
   We "cannot alter our views about Russia [or any other state capitalist
   regime] simply because, for imperialist reasons, American and British
   spokesmen now denounce Russia totalitarianism. We know that their
   indignation is hypocritical and that they may become friendly to Russia
   again if it suits their interests." [Marie-Louise Berneri, Op. Cit., p.
   187] In the clash of imperialism, anarchists support neither side as
   both are rooted in the exploitation and oppression of the working
   class.

   Finally, it is worthwhile to refute two common myths about state
   capitalist imperialism. The first myth is that state-capitalist
   imperialism results in a non-capitalist regimes and that is why it is
   so opposed to by Western interests. From this position, held by many
   Trotskyists, it is argued that we should support such regimes against
   the West (for example, that socialists should have supported the
   Russian invasion of Afghanistan). This position is based on a fallacy
   rooted in the false Trotskyist notion that state ownership of the means
   of production is inherently socialist.

   Just as capitalist domination saw the transformation of the satellite's
   countries social relations from pre-capitalist forms in favour of
   capitalist ones, the domination of "socialist" nations meant the
   elimination of traditional bourgeois social relations in favour of
   state capitalist ones. As such, the nature and form of imperialism was
   fundamentally identical and served the interests of the appropriate
   ruling class in each case. This transformation of one kind of class
   system into another explains the root of the West's very public attacks
   on Soviet imperialism. It had nothing to do with the USSR being
   considered a "workers' state" as Trotsky, for example, argued.
   "Expropriation of the capitalist class," argued one anarchist in 1940,
   "is naturally terrifying" to the capitalist class "but that does not
   prove anything about a workers' state . . . In Stalinist Russia
   expropriation is carried out . . . by, and ultimately for the benefit
   of, the bureaucracy, not by the workers at all. The bourgeoisie are
   afraid of expropriation, of power passing out of their hands, whoever
   seizes it from them. They will defend their property against any class
   or clique. The fact that they are indignant [about Soviet imperialism]
   proves their fear -- it tells us nothing at all about the agents
   inspiring that fear." [J.H., "The Fourth International", pp. 37-43,
   Vernon Richards (ed.), Op. Cit., pp. 41-2] This elimination of
   tradition forms of class rule and their replacement with new forms is
   required as these are the only economic forms compatible with the needs
   of the state capitalist regimes to exploit these countries on a regular
   basis.

   The second myth is the notion that opposition to state-capitalist
   imperialism by its subject peoples meant support for Western
   capitalism. In fact, the revolts and revolutions which repeatedly
   flared up under Stalinism almost always raised genuine socialist
   demands. For example, the 1956 Hungarian revolution "was a social
   revolution in the fullest sense of the term. Its object was a
   fundamental change in the relations of production, and in the relations
   between ruler and ruled in factories, pits and on the land." Given
   this, unsurprisingly Western political commentary "was centred upon the
   nationalistic aspects of the Revolution, no matter how trivial." This
   was unsurprising, as the West was "opposed both to its methods and to
   its aims . . . What capitalist government could genuinely support a
   people demanding 'workers' management of industry' and already
   beginning to implement this on an increasing scale?" The revolution
   "showed every sign of making both them and their bureaucratic
   counterparts in the East redundant." The revolt itself was rooted
   "[n]ew organs of struggle," workers' councils "which embodied, in
   embryo, the new society they were seeking to achieve." [Anderson, Op.
   Cit., p.6, p. 106 and p. 107]

   The ending of state capitalism in Eastern Europe in 1989 has ended its
   imperialist domination of those countries. However, it has simply
   opened the door for private-capitalist imperialism as the revolts
   themselves remained fundamentally at the political level. The ruling
   bureaucracy was faced with both popular pressure from the streets and
   economic stagnation flowing from its state-run capitalism. Being unable
   to continue as before and unwilling, for obvious reasons, to encourage
   economic and political participation, it opted for the top-down
   transformation of state to private capitalism. Representative democracy
   was implemented and state assets were privatised into the hands of a
   new class of capitalists (often made up of the old bureaucrats) rather
   than the workers themselves. In other words, the post-Stalinist regimes
   are still class systems and now subject to a different form of
   imperialism -- namely, globalisation.

D.5.3 Does globalisation mean the end of imperialism?

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

   Therefore, as Howard Zinn stresses, "it's very important to point out
   that globalisation is in fact imperialism and that there is a
   disadvantage to simply using the term 'globalisation' in a way that
   plays into the thinking of people at the World Bank and journalists . .
   . who are agog at globalisation. They just can't contain their joy at
   the spread of American economic and corporate power all over the world.
   . . it would be very good to puncture that balloon and say 'This is
   imperialism.'" [Bush Drives us into Bakunin's Arms] Globalisation is,
   like the forms of imperialism that preceded it, a response to both
   objective economic forces and the class struggle. Moreover, like the
   forms that came before, it is rooted in the economic power of
   corporations based in a few developed nations and political power of
   the states that are the home base of these corporations. These powers
   influence international institutions and individual countries to pursue
   neo-liberal policies, the so-called "Washington Consensus" of free
   market reforms, associated with globalisation.

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

   For the ruling class, the squeeze on profits and authority from
   ever-increasing wage demands, strikes, stoppages, boycotts, squatting,
   protests and other struggles meant that a solution had to be found and
   the working class disciplined (and profits regained). One part of the
   solution was to "run away" and so capital flooded into certain areas of
   the "developing" world. This increased the trends towards
   globalisation. Another solution was the embrace of Monetarism and tight
   money (i.e. credit) policies. It is a moot point whether those who
   applied Monetarism actually knew it was nonsense and, consequently,
   sought an economic crisis or whether they were simply incompetent
   ideologues who knew little about economics and mismanaged the economy
   by imposing its recommendations, the outcome was the same. It resulted
   in increases in the interest rate, which helped deepen the recessions
   of the early 1980s which broke the back of working class resistance in
   the U.K. and U.S.A. High unemployment helped to discipline a rebellious
   working class and the new mobility of capital meant a virtual
   "investment strike" against nations which had a "poor industrial
   record" (i.e. workers who were not obedient wage slaves). Moreover, as
   in any economic crisis, the "degree of monopoly" (i.e. the dominance of
   large firms) in the market increased as weaker firms went under and
   others merged to survive. This enhancing the tendencies toward
   concentration and centralisation which always exist in capitalism, so
   ensuring an extra thrust towards global operations as the size and
   position of the surviving firms required wider and larger markets to
   operate in.

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

   Before this, as noted in [13]section D.5.1, many countries had followed
   a policy of "import substitution." This tended to create new
   competitors who could deny transnational corporations both markets and
   cheap raw materials. With the debt crisis, the imperialist powers could
   end this policy but instead of military force, the governments of the
   west sent in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB).
   The loans required by "developing" nations in the face of recession and
   rising debt repayments meant that they had little choice but to agree
   to an IMF-designed economic reform programme. If they refused, not only
   were they denied IMF funds, but also WB loans. Private banks and
   lending agencies would also pull out, as they lent under the cover of
   the IMF -- the only body with the power to both underpin loans and
   squeeze repayment from debtors. These policies meant introducing
   austerity programmes which, in turn, meant cutting public spending,
   freezing wages, restricting credit, allowing foreign multinational
   companies to cherry pick assets at bargain prices, and passing laws to
   liberalise the flow of capital into and out of the country. Not
   surprisingly, the result was disastrous for the working population, but
   the debts were repaid and both local and international elites did very
   well out of it. So while workers in the West suffered repression and
   hardship, the fate of the working class in the "developing" world was
   considerably worse.

   Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz worked in the World Bank and
   described some of dire consequences of these policies. He notes how the
   neo-liberalism the IMF and WB imposed has, "too often, not been
   followed by the promised growth, but by increased misery" and workers
   "lost their jobs [being] forced into poverty" or "been hit by a
   heightened sense of insecurity" if they remained in work. For many "it
   seems closer to an unmitigated disaster." He argues that part of the
   problem is that the IMF and WB have been taken over by true believers
   in capitalism and apply market fundamentalism in all cases. Thus, they
   "became the new missionary institutions" of "free market ideology"
   through which "these ideas were pushed on reluctant poor countries."
   Their policies were "based on an ideology -- market fundamentalism --
   that required little, if any, consideration of a country's particular
   circumstances and immediate problems. IMF economists could ignore the
   short-term effects their policies might have on [a] country, content in
   the belief in the long run the country would be better off" -- a
   position which many working class people there rejected by rioting and
   protest. In summary, globalisation "as it has been practised has not
   lived up to what its advocates promised it would accomplish . . . In
   some cases it has not even resulted in growth, but when it has, it has
   not brought benefits to all; the net effect of the policies set by the
   Washington Consensus had all too often been to benefit the few at the
   expense of the many, the well-off at the expense of the poor."
   [Globalisation and Its Discontents, p. 17, p. 20, p. 13, p. 36 and p.
   20]

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

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

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

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

   This mobility is a useful tool in the class war. There has been "a
   significant impact of NAFTA on strikebreaking. About half of union
   organising efforts are disrupted by employer threats to transfer
   production abroad, for example . . . The threats are not idle. When
   such organising drives succeed, employers close the plant in whole or
   in part at triple the pre-NAFTA rate (about 15 percent of the time).
   Plant-closing threats are almost twice as high in more mobile
   industries (e.g. manufacturing vs. construction)." [Rogue States, pp.
   139-40] This process is hardly unique to America, and takes place all
   across the world (including in the "developing" world itself). This
   process has increased the bargaining power of employers and has helped
   to hold wages down (while productivity has increased). In the US, the
   share of national income going to corporate profits increased by 3.2
   percentage points between 1989 and 1998. This represents a significant
   redistribution of the economic pie. [Mark Weisbrot, Op. Cit.] Hence the
   need for international workers' organisation and solidarity (as
   anarchists have been arguing since Bakunin [The Political Philosophy of
   Bakunin, pp. 305-8]).

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

   The ability of corporations to sue governments was enshrined in chapter
   11 of NAFTA. In a small town in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi, a
   California firm -- Metalclad -- a commercial purveyor of hazardous
   wastes, bought an abandoned dump site nearby. It proposed to expand on
   the dumpsite and use it to dump toxic waste material. The people in the
   neighbourhood of the dump site protested. The municipality, using
   powers delegated to it by the state, rezoned the site and forbid
   Metalclad to extend its land holdings. Metalclad, under Chapter 11 of
   NAFTA, then sued the Mexican government for damage to its profit
   margins and balance sheet as a result of being treated unequally by the
   people of San Luis Potosi. A trade panel, convened in Washington,
   agreed with the company. [Naomi Klein, Fences and Windows, pp. 56-59]
   In Canada, the Ethyl corporation sued when the government banned its
   gasoline additive as a health hazard. The government settled "out of
   court" to prevent a public spectacle of a corporation overruling the
   nation's Parliament.

   NAFTA and other Free Trade agreements are designed for corporations and
   corporate rule. Chapter 11 was not enshrined in the NAFTA in order to
   make a better world for the people of Canada, any more than for the
   people of San Luis Potosi but, instead, for the capitalist elite. This
   is an inherently imperialist situation, which will "justify" further
   intervention in the "developing" nations by the US and other
   imperialist nations, either through indirect military aid to client
   regimes or through outright invasion, depending on the nature of the
   "crisis of democracy" (a term used by the Trilateral Commission to
   characterise popular uprisings and a politicising of the general
   public).

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

   It makes sense for corporations to pick and choose between states for
   the best protection, blackmailing their citizens to pay for the armed
   forces via taxes. It is, in other words, similar to the process at work
   within the US when companies moved to states which promised the most
   favourable laws. For example, New Jersey repealed its anti-trust law in
   1891-2 and amended its corporation law in 1896 to allow companies to be
   as large as they liked, to operate anywhere and to own other
   corporations. This drew corporations to it until Delaware offered even
   more freedoms to corporate power until other states offered similar
   laws. In other words, competed for revenue by writing laws to sell to
   corporations and the mobility of corporations meant that they bargained
   from a superior position. Globalisation is simply this process on a
   larger scale, as capital will move to countries whose governments
   supply what it demands (and punish those which do not). Therefore, far
   from ending imperialism, globalisation will see it continue, but with
   one major difference: the citizens in the imperialist countries will
   see even fewer benefits from imperialism than before, while, as ever,
   still having to carry the costs.

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

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

   As such, it would be a mistake (as many in the anti-globalisation
   movement do) to contrast the market to the state. State and capital are
   not opposed to each other -- in fact, the opposite is the case. The
   modern state exists to protect capitalist rule, just as every state
   exists to defend minority rule, and it is essential for nation states
   to attract and retain capital within their borders to ensure their
   revenue by having a suitably strong economy to tax. Globalisation is a
   state-led initiative whose primary aim is to keep the economically
   dominant happy. The states which are being "undermined" by
   globalisation are not horrified by this process as certain protestors
   are, which should give pause for thought. States are complicit in the
   process of globalisation -- unsurprisingly, as they represent the
   ruling elites who favour and benefit from globalisation. Moreover, with
   the advent of a "global market" under GATT, corporations still need
   politicians to act for them in creating a "free" market which best
   suits their interests. Therefore, by backing powerful states, corporate
   elites can increase their bargaining powers and help shape the "New
   World Order" in their own image.

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

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

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

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

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

   The two main classes within capitalist society are, as we indicated in
   [14]section B.7, the ruling class and the working class. The grey area
   between these two classes is sometimes called the middle class. As
   would be expected, different classes have different positions in
   society and, therefore, different relationships with imperialism.
   Moreover, we have to also take into account the differences resulting
   from the relative positions of the nations in question in the world
   economic and political systems. The ruling class in imperialist nations
   will not have identical interests as those in the dominated ones, for
   example. As such, our discussion will have indicate these differences
   as well.

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

   There are strong economic forces at work as well. Due to capital's need
   to grow in order to survive and compete on the market, find new markets
   and raw materials, it needs to expand (as we discussed in [15]section
   D.5). Consequently, it needs to conquer foreign markets and gain access
   to cheap raw materials and labour. As such, a nation with a powerful
   capitalist economy will need an aggressive and expansionist foreign
   policy, which it achieves by buying politicians, initiating media
   propaganda campaigns, funding right-wing think tanks, and so on, as
   previously described.

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

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

   Many of the post-war imperialist conflicts were of this nature, with
   local elites trying to disentangle themselves from an imperialist
   power. Similarly, many conflicts (either fought directly by imperialist
   powers or funded indirectly by them) were the direct result of ensuring
   that a nation trying to free itself from imperialist domination did not
   serve as a positive example for other satellite nations. Which means
   that local ruling classes can come into conflict with imperialist ones.
   These can express themselves as wars of national liberation, for
   example, or just as normal conflicts (such as the first Gulf War). As
   competition is at the heart of capitalism, we should not be surprised
   that sections of the international ruling class disagree and fight each
   other.

   The relationship between the working class and imperialism is more
   complex. In traditional imperialism, foreign trade and the export of
   capital often make it possible to import cheap goods from abroad and
   increase profits for the capitalist class, and in this sense, workers
   can gain because they can improve their standard of living without
   necessarily coming into system threatening conflict with their
   employers (i.e. struggle can win reforms which otherwise would be
   strongly resisted by the capitalist class). Thus living standard may be
   improved by low wage imports while rising profits may mean rising wages
   for some key workers (CEOs giving themselves higher wages because they
   control their own pay rises does not, of course, count!). Therefore, in
   imperialistic nations during economic boom times, one finds a tendency
   among the working class (particularly the unorganised sector) to
   support foreign military adventurism and an aggressive foreign policy.
   This is part of what is often called the "embourgeoisement" of the
   proletariat, or the co-optation of labour by capitalist ideology and
   "patriotic" propaganda. Needless to say, those workers made redundant
   by these cheap imports may not consider this as a benefit and, by
   increasing the pool of unemployment and the threat of companies
   outsourcing work and moving plants to other countries, help hold or
   drive down wages for most of the working population (as has happened in
   various degrees in Western countries since the 1970s).

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

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

     "No doubt some small comforts may sometimes fall to the share of the
     workers when the bourgeoisie of their country attain some advantage
     over that of another country; but this always happens at the cost of
     their own freedom and the economic oppression of other peoples. The
     worker . . . participates to some extent in the profits which,
     without effort on their part, fall into the laps of the bourgeoisie
     of his country from the unrestrained exploitation of colonial
     peoples; but sooner or later there comes the time when these people
     too, wake up, and he has to pay all the more dearly for the small
     advantages he has enjoyed. . . . Small gains arising from increased
     opportunity of employment and higher wages may accrue to the workers
     in a successful state from the carving out of new markets at the
     cost of others; but at the same time their brothers on the other
     side of the border have to pay for them by unemployment and the
     lowering of the standards of labour. The result is an ever widening
     rift in the international labour movement . . . By this rift the
     liberation of the workers from the yoke of wage-slavery is pushed
     further and further into the distance. As long as the worker ties up
     his interests with those of the bourgeoisie of his country instead
     of with his class, he must logically also take in his stride all the
     results of that relationship. He must stand ready to fight the wars
     of the possessing classes for the retention and extension of their
     markets, and to defend any injustice they may perpetrate on other
     people . . . Only when the workers in every country shall come to
     understand clearly that their interests are everywhere the same, and
     out of this understanding learn to act together, will the effective
     basis be laid for the international liberation of the working
     class." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 71]

   Ultimately, any "collaboration of workers and employers . . . can only
   result in the workers being condemned to . . . eat the crumbs that fall
   from the rich man's table." [Rocker, Op. Cit., pp. 70-1] This applies
   to both the imperialist and the satellite state, of course. Moreover,
   as imperialism needs to have a strong military force available for it
   and as a consequence it required militarism at home. This has an impact
   at home in that resources which could be used to improve the quality of
   life for all are funnelled towards producing weapons (and profits for
   corporations). Moreover, militarism is directed not only at external
   enemies, but also against those who threaten elite role at home. We
   discuss militarism in more detail in [16]section D.8.

   However, under globalisation things are somewhat different. With the
   increase in world trade and the signing of "free trade" agreements like
   NAFTA, the position of workers in the imperialist nations need not
   improve. For example, since the 1970s, the wages -- adjusted for
   inflation -- of the typical American employee have actually fallen,
   even as the economy has grown. In other words, the majority of
   Americans are no longer sharing in the gains from economic growth. This
   is very different from the previous era, for example 1946-73, when the
   real wages of the typical worker rose by about 80 percent. Not that
   this globalisation has aided the working class in the "developing"
   nations. In Latin America, for example, GDP per capita grew by 75
   percent from 1960-1980, whereas between 1981 and 1998 it has only risen
   6 percent. [Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Robert Naiman, and Gila Neta,
   Growth May Be Good for the Poor-- But are IMF and World Bank Policies
   Good for Growth?]

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

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

   This reversal has had much to do with changes in the global "rules of
   the game," which have greatly favoured corporations and weakened
   labour. Unsurprisingly, the North American union movement has opposed
   NAFTA and other treaties which empower business over labour. Therefore,
   the position of labour within both imperialist and dominated nations
   can be harmed under globalisation, so ensuring international solidarity
   and organisation have a stronger reason to be embraced by both sides.
   This should not come as a surprise, however, as the process towards
   globalisation was accelerated by intensive class struggle across the
   world and was used as a tool against the working class (see [17]last
   section).

   It is difficult to generalise about the effects of imperialism on the
   "middle class" (i.e. professionals, self-employed, small business
   people, peasants and so on -- not middle income groups, who are usually
   working class). Some groups within this strata stand to gain, others to
   lose (in particular, peasants who are impoverished by cheap imports of
   food). This lack of common interests and a common organisational base
   makes the middle class unstable and susceptible to patriotic
   sloganeering, vague theories of national or racial superiority, or
   fascist scapegoating of minorities for society's problems. For this
   reason, the ruling class finds it relatively easy to recruit large
   sectors of the middle class to an aggressive and expansionist foreign
   policy, through media propaganda campaigns. Since many in organised
   labour tends to perceive imperialism as being against its overall best
   interests, and thus usually opposes it, the ruling class is able to
   intensify the hostility of the middle class to the organised working
   class by portraying the latter as "unpatriotic" and "unwilling to
   sacrifice" for the "national interest." Sadly, the trade union
   bureaucracy usually accepts the "patriotic" message, particularly at
   times of war, and often collaborates with the state to further
   imperialistic interests. This eventually brings them into conflict with
   the rank-and-file, whose interests are ignored even more than usual
   when this occurs.

   To summarise, the ruling class is usually pro-imperialism -- as long as
   it is in their interests (i.e. the benefits outweigh the costs). The
   working class, regardless of any short term benefit its members may
   gain, end up paying the costs of imperialism by having to fight its
   wars and pay for the militarism it produces. So, under imperialism,
   like any form of capitalism, the working class will pay the bill
   required to maintain it. This means that we have a real interest in
   ending it -- particularly as under globalisation the few benefits that
   used to accrue to us are much less.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd53
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd51
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd51
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd53
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secF8.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC7.html
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secC2.html
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD7.html
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD2.html#secd21
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd54
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd53
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd52
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd51
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB7.html
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD8.html
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html#secd53
