Back to main page, imperialism, misc., CV #23, how to order CV
Subheads:
It's not just the WTO...
Nor is it just neoliberalism...
And the world market didn't begin in the 1990s
Imperialism and reformism
"Third World" or "South" reformism
"Fair trade":
Worker rights:
Illusions about democracy
There is an alternative!
Full text:
. Thousands of people are pouring into Seattle streets to denounce the WTO. Rightly so! This is an organization of their enemies, the big capitalists of every land; an organization of those who grow fat through the exploitation of labor; an organization representing an economic system which by its very nature must wreck the environment. The protesters are also fed up with the neoliberal philosophy of the WTO, and its results. This set of ideas has dominated the thinking and economic policies of world capitalism since the time of Reagan and Thatcher. It sees a free-market society organized on the basis of individual self-interest as the natural state of humanity. Restrictions on the market are its enemy. Through market "self-regulation" all the problems facing humankind will allegedly be solved. Under this philosophy we've had 20 years of privatization, budget-cuts (except for police and prisons), and environmental wrecking. The gap between rich and poor has increased tremendously---within the powerful industrialized countries, and between these and the less developed and poor countries.And when confronted by the real effects of their policies the neoliberals can only mindlessly say:"T.I.N.A.(there is no alternative)".
It's not just the WTO...
. Of course the purpose of the WTO is to set and enforce the rules for world trade. And under the
neoliberal free-market fanatics this means tearing down barriers to trade, like tariffs, as well as
non-tariff barriers like environmental regulations and consumer protection laws. But the setting
up of the WTO represents more than just a neoliberal project. Like GATT before it, this
institution represents a further development of the attempts of the international bourgeoisie,
particularly the strongest among them, to avoid chaos in their world trading arrangements. The
unregulated regime of the early part of the century featured such things as trade wars leading up
to real wars; something they would prefer to avoid, but which they prepare for nonetheless. But
no matter what international institutions the present world governments set up, the capitalist
system which stands behind them will continue to exploit the masses and ruin the
earth.Capital---whether in the hands of individuals, groups, or even the state---must accumulate,
must grow, or the war with competitors on the market will be lost. The very nature of the
capitalist system forces it to bring ruin to the majority of humanity.
Nor is it just neoliberalism...
. New crises are building in the world economy which will inevitably explode again. And at some point the prevailing neoliberal ideas in the capitalist establishment may be abandoned for the idea that there should be more state regulation and intervention in economic matters. (With the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 tendencies in this direction immediately surfaced.) But the abandonment of neoliberalism would neither liberate the workers of the world nor save the environment...nor prevent further economic crises. For example, when Keynesian ideas dominated ruling-class thinking in the middle part of this century, state-intervention and planning in the world's economies were hailed as the path to ending their cyclical crises. "Managed economy" or "progressive capitalism" would result in a never-ending upward spiral with no more unemployment or other ills afflicting it. Under Keynesianism, deficit spending was undertaken, subsidies were made to targeted industries, and money poured into military build-ups. Various social reforms were also made (unemployment insurance, social security, etc., in the U.S.) which were seen by many as a way of expanding the market for consumer goods and providing a "safety net" in case the system "failed" in some individual cases. (And although today's neoliberals view Keynes as being a socialist, Keynes himself said that such social reforms had to be taken to prevent revolution and socialism.) But Keynesianism failed to cure capitalism of its crises and it crashed on the rocks of the recessions and galloping inflation in the 1970s.Neoliberalism was waiting in the wings.
. Today we have in the wings not only Keynesians, but also, a little farther back, those favoring versions of the social-democratic state capitalism which has been common in Europe most of this century, as well as those favoring state capitalism in its most developed form. The latter state capitalism was the system practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe before its collapse, and it is still to a great extent practiced in China and Cuba. Despite the banners it flies, this system is neither socialist nor communist. The workers are beaten down, exploited and oppressed by a new capitalist class rising on the basis of nationalized industry, other sectors of the economy, and the misnamed "communist" party. And, as evidenced by the Soviet Union, this new bourgeoisie is militarist and imperialist. More, as is also evidenced by the Soviet Union, the damage to the environment caused by this system was outrageous. Despite all this, in today's climate of neoliberalism and the disasters of market-capitalist Russia, there are some who fondly gaze on state capitalism and its planning as an alternative. They think that the problems shown by this system are just the result of the wrong people being in power and not allowing democracy, or of bureaucrats being stupid in their planning.The underlying economic system is good, they think, and with various political reforms (or a "political revolution" but not a "social revolution" a la the Trotskyists), and better economic planning, this system is the path to a better future.
. But they're wrong. They don't deal with the class structure underlying the state economy and therefore miss the forest for the trees. So what did the state-capitalist economy look like in the Soviet bloc? Under the veneer of state planning, anarchy of production reigned. Private interests ruled the ministries, enterprises, and entire state sector. They were driven to compete with each other for their "rightful" share of the wealth created by the working class. And like capitalists everywhere, this drove them to cheating each other, cooking their books, etc., etc. Thus the continual efforts to plan the economy for their common state-capitalist interests constantly were undermined by the struggle of private interests to accumulate capital and grab revenues. Crises arose everywhere.There were boom periods and periods of economic downturn and stagnation.No amount of state planning could overcome the laws of capitalist economy which were in operation. The Soviet bourgeoisie could only respond to its crises by shifting their burden to the backs of the workers and other toilers. Thus we saw, for example, the erosion of social services during the stagnant last years of Soviet rule. Moreover, in good part, the state-capitalist bourgeoisie itself turned toward a market-economy as the solution to its crises. For many years it had experimented with Western capitalist forms (as China and Cuba do today). Under Gorbachev this was taken further as steps were made to dismantle price controls, etc. The logic of anarchic competition between different state enterprises, ministries, and economic interests led state capitalism in this direction. By the late 1980's and early 90's the state-capitalist bourgeoisie, in the main, was willing to abandon the old form of exploitation altogether. And it did so. Thus today's free-market system in Russia, with all its disasters, was born out of the state capitalism which went before it. Real solutions to the problems facing humanity won't be found by resurrecting state capitalism, and its disasters, all over again.
And the world market didn't begin in the 1990s
. In the 19th-century era of competitive capitalism, the world market already existed. The 20th-century era of monopoly capitalism has brought about its vast expansion. Hundreds of millions of people have been forced off the land and into the capitalist relations of production.Hundreds of millions more remain on the land but are dependent on the market for their survival.Moreover, since the 1970's China has been opening its vast markets to the rest of world capitalism, and the late 1980's and early 1990's marked the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe and the late Soviet Union (thus further expanding the world market). Meanwhile yesterday's colonies and semi-colonies are industrializing at various rates and some have become imperialistic in their own right. In the 1990s this was reflected in motion among former colonies and other less developed countries to form blocs like ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) to push their interests. The European Union was formed to compete with the U.S. for markets, sources of raw materials, etc., and it wants to expand its tariff-free zone to create a larger home market for European goods.And Japan would like to rig up its own free-trade zone in Asia.Thus the American administrations of this last decade have been under the pressures of seeing dazzling new markets opening before their eyes but of also seeing rivals for the profits looming up. They therefore work to do such things as expand NAFTA to include the rest of the Americas, unite with Japan in APEC to cut Europe out of the Pacific Rim, etc. And to line up support for such endeavors they've suddenly "discovered" the all-new global market. In unison with the CEOs of the giant corporations they represent they can't stop talking about the need to "go global!" or be aced by competitors. They hysterically shout for everyone to get on board their free-trade train. Never mind that it's bound for increased exploitation and ruin of the workers and other oppressed people of the world. Never mind that it's a suicide train, bound toward ruining Earth as a habitat for human life. Just get on board as the conductor shouts: "There is no alternative!"
Imperialism and reformism
. The rise of monopoly capitalism hasn't meant the end of competition; it's only fueled it further,
and given rise to imperialist wars and permanent militarization. In fact the WTO's monopoly
capitalist framework makes it extremely difficult for this seeming monolith to even agree to an
agenda, let alone agree on matters like trade in agricultural products. The U.S., European Union
and Japan are its top dogs, with the U.S. and E.U. in particular being in disagreement on several
trade issues. There are also lesser imperialist powers (like Canada) which disagree with the U.S.,
E.U., or other imperialists on various issues. These powers are the homes of the multinational
corporations and their CEOs. It is to them that vast wealth garnered from logging in Patagonia,
mining in Indonesian-annexed West Papua, or sweatshop labor in Asia goes. It is they who push
free trade the hardest. And together, as well as separately, they use their economic might to force
their way in the poorer and less developed countries. They also keep in stock "extracurricular"
means (C.I.A.-sponsored destabilization or coups, private armies, imperialist troops) to use if a
government adopts policies which too far infringes on their economic prerogatives (governments
of Cuban-style state-capitalists or other national reformists).
"Third World" or "South" reformism
. Naturally the bourgeoisies of the poor or less developed countries chaff under this burden. (In the WTO, India and Malaysia have been quite vocal in this regard.) They press for various protective measures. They would like to direct some of the profits garnered from sale of agricultural products (for example) on their own market toward development of domestic industries rather than seeing the agricultural sector wiped out by European-North American-Australian agribusiness. (Or if it is to be wiped out, they want to collect duties) Thus, though they're limited by the economic and political force of the imperialists, they cry foul against the rich countries and press for reforms---especially where domestic capitalism has developed most. But these reform demands have to be judged by their actual content. They're being put forward by capitalist exploiters of the masses, after all. And they often involve such demands as that they be allowed to blatantly pollute or otherwise wreck the environment because they're too poor to produce or compete in any other way. And the big bourgeoisies of the imperialist powers are often only too happy to oblige them because pollution control is resented and viewed as an unnecessary expense.
. In these conditions the workers shouldn't leave their fates in the hands of the domestic bourgeois governments (or bourgeois and petty-bourgeois oppositions) and their demands. They need to develop their own class politics and organization. There's no question that the path to the final liberation of the workers and peasants in these countries lies through capitalist development.But there's capitalism and capitalism. The domestic exploiters tell the workers and peasants to accept sweatshop conditions, semi-slave labor in the fields, ruining of the environment, etc., for the common good---national development and ability to compete on the world market (which translates: accumulation of capital and revenues for the bourgeoisie). But the truth is that the struggles of the masses against these capitalist outrages---against the "race to the bottom"--- actually results in more development, and a development more beneficial to their class interests.This immediately raises the question mutual support between the workers in various regions, and international solidarity.
"Fair trade":
. In the imperialist countries this slogan is put forward from the angle that jobs will be saved if protective measures are taken against commodities produced in overseas sweatshops or by slave labor. Often it's premised on pure national chauvinism: "let the workers of other countries be damned!" But it's also argued with the idea that protective measures will assist the workers of other countries in fighting against their abominable conditions. This idea ignores the risk of retaliatory protective measures, which would shrink the export-market of the country first erecting barriers, and lead to loss of other domestic jobs. It also ignores that the foreign industries being protected against can just be wrecked---thereby eliminating jobs there altogether. Further, from another angle, what's fair to one can be foul to another. For example, the domestic capitalists of the less developed countries often see it as their right to erect barriers against their richer rivals who have all the advantages. (And the peasantry being ruined by the flooding of the market with agricultural products from the imperialist countries often demands this.) This is only fair in their eyes. They want to expand their national capital too. But from whatever angle it's put, the demand for "fair" trade points away from the essential thing: what's being bargained over by the capitalists is the fruit of the labor of the working people. Betterment of the conditions under which this fruit is produced must come through the class struggles of the toilers themselves.
Worker Rights:
. The Clinton administration has been talking up the issue of workers' rights. Talk's cheap and much of Clinton's is for domestic consumption. The Democrats want to keep the mass of American workers in their fold. There's more to this talk than just political grand-standing however. The globalization of capital has meant a vast expansion of the working class (globalization of labor). Legally and illegally workers are organizing trade unions and conducting strikes in countries where a working class barely existed a few decades ago. Clinton and his monopoly capitalist sponsors know this is going to continue and would like to steer these movements in directions least harmful to capital overall if they can't just smash them. Such steering may involve legalizing unionization while at the same time tying the unions down with a thousand legal threads. And if there are to be unions in these countries, what ideas will dominate in them? Will they be organized around the theory of common interest between labor and capital or under slogans like "abolition of the wages system!" (as was often done in the 19th century U.S.)? Here the capitalists relied on their great wealth and organization to bribe and beat the workers out of the latter tendency, or to set up competing unions, etc. They're famous for their victories in exporting this "Made in America" brand of tamed trade unionism too, i.e., in Latin America (using the C.I.A and a department of the AFL-CIO). In the WTO there are reactionary regimes who don't agree with the wisdom coming from Washington however (including friendly regimes like Suharto's was). They have neither the money to toss around nor the experience the U.S. ruling class has in taming the workers' movement.
. We 100% support the struggles of workers slaving under repressive regimes to win the legal right to form unions of their choice, as well as other rights (including in China). This will be to their advantage, and to the advantage of the workers of all countries. Decisive in these struggles is the activity of the workers themselves. But Clinton wants to ensure that the workers gain the least advantage from their sacrifices. And when all is said and done the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney ends up in Clinton's camp. He "criticizes" Clinton by emphasizing that the AFL-CIO wants enforceable rules, and this sounds nice. But remember that such rules would be enforced by the exploiters of the workers in the dominant imperialist countries, countries where the rights of the working class are under constant attack. (Try to go on strike if you're a U.S. postal or railway worker and see how many rights you have. Ditto re:support strikes.) Moreover, Sweeney says he's for internationalism. That sounds nice too.But he also wants the workers of the world to take up the American brand of trade-unionism, including its theory of common interest between labor and capital. In times of crisis or war this theory tells the workers they must line up behind "their" capitalists and join in slaughtering or starving the workers of other countries.Sweeney's internationalism is ultimately imperialist internationalism.
Illusions about democracy
. The exploiters and plunderers who make up the WTO conduct their sordid dealings in secret and many reformist forces are raising the secrecy issue above all others. We too would like to see the WTO be more transparent. And world-wide pressures for this may result in a few steps being taken. But we have no illusion that the WTO won't open one window only to move into another closed room to conduct the dealings of real import.
. And talk about illusions....
. The Naderites (i.e., "Public Citizen") say that the WTO has organized a "coup against democracy".They say that corporate globalism is the source of this coup, and there's a certain truth to it. The rule of monopoly capitalism means the rule of reaction. Democracy for the masses is very restricted under it, and the ruling bourgeoisie is constantly attacking even this limited democracy. But from a small-capitalist (petty-bourgeois) standpoint the Naderites raise utopian "pure" democracy as the ultimate goal. This will allegedly resolve all the problems confronting the masses. They infer that something like this was once practiced, before the monopolies came along, etc. But even in the most democratic countries of the era of competitive capitalism money still talked and money still ruled. The workers and poor had neither the money nor the time for much participation in politics. More, if today's monopoly corporations were utterly destroyed, but capitalism remained, its built-in laws of competition would only give rise to new monopolies.
. So yes, we must build the democratic movements: against sexism and racism, for the national liberation of peoples rising in struggle, the movements to defend or extend workers' rights, and others. But in doing so we shouldn't mystify the fact that democracy always has a class content, is always a method by which one class enforces its rule over others. In our era it's the method by which the monopoly-capitalist class enforces its rule---while hypocritically proclaiming all people have equal rights, etc. When the working class raises itself to being the ruling class it too will exercise democracy, democracy for the masses---while being totally honest. We will say that this is our democracy, the democracy of those who were yesterday exploited and oppressed. It's the method by which we exercise our political dictatorship over all those who fight to bring back the bourgeois order.
. Lastly, on the right we have ultra-reactionaries like Pat Buchanan who also send up a cry for
democracy. Buchanan, for example, is complaining that the transnational corporations and WTO
are violating his precious U.S. national sovereignty. Of course, national chauvinist and racist that
he is, he cares nothing about the national sovereignty of others. Under the banner of defense of
national sovereignty (or national interest) Pat's U.S. government haughtily holds itself above all
international laws, no matter how piddling. But on the left we also have those who are raising the
issue of violation of national sovereignty. This includes well-meaning people who may be trying
to defend the sovereignty of all nations, but they leave something out of the equation: uneven
capitalist development and competition inevitably leads to violations of national sovereignty, and
these can't be judged abstractly. The member-states of the European Union, for example, gave up
certain previous sovereign rights when they formed the E.U. Why? To be in a better position to
compete with the U.S. and Japan in violating the sovereign rights of others, especially the weaker
states. If the U.S. ruling class gives up certain sovereign rights in the WTO it's only because it
finds this useful in its drive to violate even more the rights of others (its drive to remain top world
sovereign), and it provides another angle from which to gut domestic reforms like environmental
or public health legislation, i.e., to shout "the WTO is making us do it!". No, the struggle against
imperialism and its outrages has to be mounted on a class basis and not get lost trying to uphold
two-edged principles like defence of national sovereignty. When Buchanan worries about the
sovereignty of the most powerful country on earth it's putrid national chauvinism. But the right of
self-determination (right to have a sovereign state) for peoples who are truly nationally oppressed
is another issue. We uphold this right. This is the only way that mutual trust and international
solidarity among the workers of the world can be built.
There is an alternative!
. This alternative lies in further building the struggles against all the negative effects of the policies of the WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc., which are negative effects of expanding world capitalism.These struggles repeatedly boil up on every continent, and in various forms, in rich country and poor country alike. Many representatives of them have come to Seattle to demonstrate these days and this is an exciting development. The old idea "workers of all countries, unite!" is never far beneath the surface.But there's more to it. We say that the capitalist system has to be overthrown...and that the alternative to capitalism is communism, the communism of Marx, Engels and Lenin. This communism holds that besides helping organize today's struggles, and making them more militant, we must work to build up a consciously revolutionary political trend in the working class---a trend which deeply believes that only when the huge productive apparatus of society is directed by those who run it will all of the people achieve a better life and environmental issues be effectively dealt with. This then is the path forward.
. And building a revolutionary trend must involve theoretical struggle---over issues that arise in the present mass struggles, and issues concerning the socialist alternative. If communism (or socialism) is identified with state capitalism, for example, then no worker in their right mind is going to fight for it. Yes, it's obviously absurd to think that on the morrow of a revolution the masses are going to be able to nationalize the economy of an entire country or region and control and run it on a planned basis. Measured steps will have to be taken. Sectors of the economy which temporarily remain in the hands of private interests and produce for profit, etc., will have to be regulated through state-capitalist forms, etc. It's also absurd to think that the workers won't need their own state: a revolutionary state with the armed working class as its backbone and which pays officials the wages of an average worker (and subjects them to instant recall); a state made necessary by the fact that the overthrown bourgeoisie will inevitably attempt to regain power; and a state organized to lead the mass effort to plan and carry out production in concert with other mass organizations. Hence between capitalism and communism a transitional period is needed. A transitional state and a transitional economy. The latter will entail new productive relations in fierce struggle against the old exploitative ones. And the crucial question will be whether a true social control of production is coming about. The revolutionary task of the time will be to ensure that it is.
. We urge all those wanting an alternative to capitalism to look into what Marx, Engels and Lenin
themselves had to say on this alternative (not just what others say they said). We also urge you
read the anti-revisionist Communist Voice journal and correspond with us. In Communist
Voiceyou will find many articles critiquing state capitalism and defending Marxist-Leninist ideas
on the transition from capitalism to communism. We believe that theoretical clarity on these
issues must be developed and spread if the working class is to confidently raise its fist in the air
and lead all the oppressed in shouting there is an alternative!
---Seattle members of the Communist Voice Organization (CVO)
November 24, 1999
.
Back to main page, imperialism, misc., CV #23, how to order CV
Last changed on December 11, 1999.
http://www. flash.net/~comvoice
e-mail:comvoice@flash. net