           Section D - How do statism and capitalism affect society?

   This section of the FAQ indicates how both statism and capitalism
   affect the society they exist in. It is a continuation of sections B
   ([1]Why do anarchists oppose the current system?) and C ([2]What are
   the myths of capitalist economics?) and it discusses the impact of the
   underlying social and power relationships within the current system on
   society.

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

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

   It is important to remember that most supporters of capitalism refuse
   to do this. Yes, some of them point out some flaws and problems within
   society but they never relate them to the system as such. As Noam
   Chomsky points out, they "ignor[e] the catastrophes of capitalism or,
   on the rare occasions when some problem is noticed, attribut[e] them to
   any cause other than the system that consistently brings them about."
   [Deterring Democracy, p. 232] Thus we have people, say, attacking
   imperialist adventures while, at the same time, supporting the
   capitalist system which drives it. Or opposing state intervention in
   the name of "freedom" while supporting an economic system which by its
   working forces the state to intervene simply to keep it going and
   society together. The contradictions multiple, simply because the
   symptoms are addressed, never the roots of the problems.

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

   The thing to remember is that the political and economic spheres are
   not independent. They interact in many ways, with economic forces
   prompting political reactions and changes, and vice versa. Overall, as
   Kropotkin stressed, there are "intimate links . . . between the
   political regime and the economic regime." [Words of a Rebel, p. 118]
   These means that it is impossible to talk of, say, capitalism as if it
   could exist without shaping and being shaped by the state and society.
   Equally, to think that the state could intervene as it pleased in the
   economy fails to take into account the influence economic institutions
   and forces have on it. This has always been the case, as the state "is
   a hybridisation of political and social institutions, of coercive with
   distributive functions, of highly punitive with regulatory procedures,
   and finally of class with administrative needs -- this melding process
   has produced very real ideological and practical paradoxes that persist
   as major issues today." [Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 196]
   These paradoxes can only be solved, anarchists argue, by abolishing the
   state and the social hierarchies it either creates (the state
   bureaucracy) or defends (the economically dominant class). Until then,
   reforms of the system will be incomplete, be subject to reversals and
   have unintended consequences.

   These links and interaction between statism and capitalism are to be
   expected due to their similar nature. As anarchists have long argued,
   at root they are based on the same hierarchical principle. Proudhon,
   for example, regarded "the capitalist principle" and "the governmental
   principle" as "one and the same principle . . . abolition of the
   exploitation of man by man and the abolition of the government of man
   by man, are one and the same formula." [quoted by Wayne Thorpe, "The
   Workers Themselves", p. 279] This means that anarchists reject the
   notion that political reforms are enough in themselves and instead
   stress that they must be linked to (or, at least, take into account)
   economic change. This means, for example, while we oppose specific
   imperialist wars and occupation, we recognise that they will reoccur
   until such time as the economic forces which generate them are
   abolished. Similarly, we do not automatically think all attempts to
   reduce state intervention should be supported simply because they
   appear to reduce the state. Instead, we consider who is introducing the
   reforms, why they are doing so and what the results will be. If the
   "reforms" are simply a case of politicians redirecting state
   intervention away from the welfare state to bolster capitalist power
   and profits, we would not support the change. Anarchist opposition to
   neo-liberalism flows from our awareness of the existence of economic
   and social power and inequality and its impact on society and the
   political structure.

   In some ways, this section discusses class struggle from above, i.e.
   the attacks on the working class conducted by the ruling class by means
   of its state. While it appears that every generation has someone
   insisting that the "class war" is dead and/or obsolete (Tony Blair did
   just that in the late 1990s), what they mean is that class struggle
   from below is dead (or, at least, they wish it so). What is ignored is
   that the class struggle from above continues even if class struggle
   from the below appears to have disappeared (until it reappears in yet
   another form). This should be unsurprising as any ruling class will be
   seeking to extend its profits, powers and privileges, a task aided
   immensely by the reduced pressure from below associated with periods of
   apparent social calm (Blair's activities in office being a striking
   confirmation of this). Ultimately, while you may seek to ignore
   capitalism and the state, neither will ignore you. That this produces
   resistance should be obvious, as is the fact that demise of struggle
   from below have always been proven wrong.

   By necessity, this section will not (indeed, cannot) cover all aspects
   of how statism and capitalism interact to shape both the society we
   live in and ourselves as individuals. We will simply sketch the forces
   at work in certain important aspects of the current system and how
   anarchists view them. Thus our discussion of imperialism, for example,
   will not get into the details of specific wars and interventions but
   rather give a broad picture of why they happen and why they have
   changed over the years. However, we hope to present enough detail for
   further investigation as well as an understanding of how anarchists
   analyse the current system based on our anti-authoritarian principles
   and how the political and economic aspects of capitalism interact.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secBcon.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secCcon.html
