Michael R. Krätke
Published in catalan and spanish. "Can democracy surbive to financiant capitalism". Abril 2009


1. Neoliberalism and democracy

Neoliberalism is on the defensive, even retreating, but not yet defeated. Obviously, the markets are not self-regulating at all, and they do not appear particularly bright either. In the moment of crisis – a crisis of legitimation – one should not forget that neoliberalism as a strategy and a political ideology either came to power by force or actually ruled by force. Hegemony came later.

Basically, the core political message of neoliberalism was plain enough: The end of polilitics has come and we should be pleased with it. Henceforth, we should put our faith and trust into the all powerful market. Politicians should obey the markets, at least fear and respect them because “the markets” were able and willing to punish anyone who would dare to resist them. Henceforth, politicians would have to be wise enough to execute the will of the markets and obey the allegedly “iron” and universal “laws of economics”. Even politicians on the left did not hesitate to declare their impotence before the “forces of the market”, the forces of the world market and the international financial markets in particular: “You cannot imagine to govern against the financial markets”.



Large minorities, sometimes majorities of the people in the democratic countries remained stubbornly opposed to many of the recipes of neoliberalism. They did not like the privatization of the public sector nor the dismantling of the welfare state. They certainly did not approve of the deregulation of the labour market nor like increasingly precarious work conditions and stagnant or falling real wages. Neoliberalism, however, gained mass support mainly by two devices: First it propagated the myth of several imminent catastrophes or catastrophes to come in the longer run. Mass unemployment as an inevitable consequence of intensified international competition from low-wage countries, the overburdening and ruin of taxpayers by the ever growing welfare state, the crippling burden of public debt, unsustainable in the longer run, the ageing society which would usher in a new form class struggle between the generations, the end of the nation state and the powerlessness of the state with respect to the omnipresent and omnipotent forces of the world market. Second, it has been blended its core message with a lot of simplistic, right wing prejudices about the social world, with rascism, ageism, sexism and abused them without hesitation. Not the immigrant worker as such but the coloured, muslim immigrant worker became the personification of the evil, closely followed by a new version of the Chinese or Asian threat.

Neoliberalism has changed the patterns of class rule in Western democracies. What was once the rule of enlightened gentlemen, then turned into the rule by professional, well trained technocrats during the brief era of social democratic supremacy (at least in Europe), has again been changed into the rule of “financial” and other “business communities”, supported by an army of intellectuals equipped with MBA’s and diploma’s, even doctorates in economics. Not “the markets” were in charge but the owners/managers of the biggest investmentbanks, investment funds, broker firms and financial markets (joint-stock companies today, no longer mere gentlemen’s clubs). The lords and overlords of Wall Street, of the City of London, of the financial district of Tokio and other financial market places have taken the lead. The traditional business elites and the political class uncritically and willingly subordinated themselves to the paragons of “new finance”.

2. The Crisis

Since the summer of 2007, the capitalist world is in turmoil. The international financial crisis, triggered off by the so called “subprime crisis”, a crisis in a relatively small segment of the US mortgage market, has rapidly spread all over the world. After a series of local and regional financial crises, a series without precedent in the history of capitalism, we are living through the first true world financial crisis which affects all the financial markets of the world, all the capitalist countries at the same time. For the first time since 1973, all the major industrial capitalist countries of the world are heading towards a deep depression at the same time. The BRIC countries and the rest of the world are about to follow.

The great crisis we are in already shows the features of a systemic crisis, if not of capitalism as whole, certainly of that kind of capitalism that has been established and propagated during the neoliberal era. The revered “model” of US-capitalism, the “model” of Wall Street and Big investment banking, the “model” of a capitalist world order under the dominance of international high finance, ruled by the international financial markets and their primary actors, the big, institutional investors and the big, institutional speculators, has already collapsed. The pattern of a prolonged boom, floating and thriving upon a series of speculative bubbles, both on the national and global level, has attained its limits. The capitalist world system as we knew it and as it had been shaped under the hegemony of neoliberalism, can only last longer if new speculative bubbles are inflated. That is a joke, of course, but a bloody serious one. Without a new wave of international speculation, without a new bubble, the capitalist world system as well as US- and European capitalism cannot survive without a fargoing transformation. By all historical standards this would be hour of reformism, of the social democracy European style or other reformist political forces able and willing to try a “revolution from above” and to enforce another round of “passive revolution” upon the mass of the working classes and middle classes in the advanced capitalist countries. But at this historical junction, reformists are without a clue what to do, the European social democracy is deeply divided and has been thoroughly compromised by embracing the neoliberal project.

Throughout the crisis, governments and central banks have played their traditional roles – very much at odds with the dominant neoliberal views and recipes. Governments of all denominations did not let the market forces do their job and purge the capitalist world from the burden of the weak, the inefficient or the losers. In all the previous financial crises, the US government has bailed out US-banks, US-pension funds and other financial institutions. Bankruptcies of major financial institutions have been avoided at all cost – at the taxpayers’ cost, that is. Today, the imminent threat of an implosion of the whole international monetary and financial world system is aptly used as an excuse for bail-outs on an unprecedented scale. The danger seems real enough to justify even the largest nationalization operations since the end of World War II.

True, capitalism has survived earlier crises, even the Great Crisis of the 1930s – but by what means? It might be useful to remember that the great crisis in Germany was only overcome by the overthrow of democracy, the establishment of the Nazi regime and the shift towards a national economic policy of “military Keynesianism” (debt financed military spending) on an ever increasing scale. In the USA, despite the efforts of the “New Deal”, the crisis was only overcome when the US joined the war efforts in 1940/41 and thanks to the large scale turn to a war economy. We should not forget that the economies of the great powers, the US economy in the first place, is a permanent war economy able and willing to shift the crippling economic costs of its ongoing wars in many parts of the world upon the rest of the capitalist world.
After the great crisis of the 1930s, liberalism was dead and buried for a long time. The ideologues and propagandists of neoliberalism had to work hard for decennia and wait for their historical change – until the economic turmoils of the 1970s – to come back in force. The infrastructure necessary for that sustained effort in the “war of ideas” is still intact and will be used against all and every criticism and opposition to the endangered faith.

In order to deal with the legitimation crisis of the present regime the search for culprits and scapegoats has been opened. Who is to blame for the mess we are in? Not capitalism as a world system, but individual capitalists. Not the banking system, but individual bankers, not the financial markets but individual speculators. Not hedge funds are wrong or to blame, but individual hedge funds managers who have just exaggerated a bit. Managers have been paid too much, bonuses were a little bit too generous. The rating agencies have messed up as have other regulatory agencies. That is what we can expect: Scapegoats will be sacrificed by the thousand, but the ruling “elites” will refuse to assume any responsibility, certainly no liability for the disaster they have created.

What is more, we are not just facing one crisis but a bunch of interrelated crises. Not only a crisis of the international financial markets and the banking sector but also a worldwide overproduction crisis which has already attained the leading high tech export industries of the capitalist world economy and will drag down the rest in the months to come. We are in the middle of a world ecological crisis with a rapidly shrinking time frame of only a few years left if we want to take decisive action on a world scale. We are confronted with a world famine crisis which is closely related to the present pattern of world agricultural production and trade that has turned some of the poorest third world countries into food importers and put an ever growing multitude of the rural, peasant population of the world at the mercy of some huge agro-industrial complexes in the North and a handful of commodity exchanges, also located in the North. We are confronted with a series of unsettled military conflicts and involved into another world war, the “war of terrorism” waged by the leading imperialist power of our day. That this power is in decline can provide no real comfort Last but not least, the epoch of neoliberalism has left us with an enduring crisis of democracy as we knew it. Thanks to neoliberal politics enacted by democratically elected governments again and again, and more often than not without the consent of the majority of the electorate, political democracy has been deeply discredited. Just to mention one fact that is carefully avoided by the official political science: The largest and fastest growing party in all Western parliamentary democracies is the party of the “non-voters”, Among voters, the general trust in and respect for the official political business is at an all time low.

The financial crisis as such has a specific meaning: the possibilities to create new bubbles are not unlimited, the strategy to overcome the intrinsic problems of industrial world capitalism by means of speculation are exhausted. Although we witness the demise of a model and an ideology, we are still from a real financial meltdown – for the main reason that we are halfway through the crisis, at best. The majority of the banks see their profits shrinking, not disappearing. Only a few, although major big banks suffer real losses – but then in the order of billions of dollar. The banks are reducing the volume of their trading activities – trading less shares, bonds, securities. It was as traders on the financial markets that the big banks have made most of their profits during the last decade. Now they are retreating. The concentration in the banking and financial sector continues at an unprecedented pace, supported and accelerated by many government rescue actions. The flight of capital is being redirected – away from real estate into raw materials, oil, gas and agricultural products, most recently into public debt. In world economic terms, capital is pulled out of investments in third world countries and carried back into the USA (that is why the dollar is, despite its intrinsic weaknesses as the currency of the largest deficit economy of the world, rising and doing rather well during the last months).


3. The Return of Politics - Neoliberalism and its Future(s)

The unfolding of subsequent waves of the world financial crisis has seen governments reacting – first very reluctantly, then in a frenzy of short term, ad hoc activism – to the predicaments of big finance. The financial markets have failed, some of them have collapsed or are bound to collapse, so politics is back, or so it seems. The business communities, as they are called, even the most powerful financial communities in the world, like Wall Street and the City of London, have immediately turned to their friends and allies in Washington, London, Tokio and elsewhere for help. Rescuing the banks, at least those banks and financial institutions that are crucial for the financial system (not every bank out of the 8500 officially registered in the US or the 8000 officially registered in the EU is), became a routine affair for the governments of the leading capitalist countries of the world. For many months, governments have stuck to their articles of faith and refused to intervene and to recapitalize banks – except in very few cases. Now, they seem to have accepted their role as “last resort” and have been bailing out individual banks and insurance companies in a series of adhoc attempts to “solve” the crisis. The fall of Lehman Brothers was the exception, not the rule. As a rule, governments did bail out tumbling banks and other financial firms, either subsidizing mergers and acquisitions, accelerating the process of concentration and centralization of finance capital that was already in full sway, or nationalizing them in one way or the other.

For the time being, none of the neoliberal recipes as panaceas for every ailment of the capitalist world economy works. On the contrary. It is now obvious that neoliberal policies have enabled the turn to the bubble economy and seriously aggravated the predicaments we are in. Neoliberalism has no answer to the crisis, and the votaries of this belief have wasted their and our time by denying the crisis or trumpeting its end again and again. As the neoliberal dogma is discredited, its adversaries and critics enjoy a great opportunity to reclaim the public realm, to revive and reinvigorate public debates on economic, fiscal and social policies. It is, however, unlikely that neoliberalism will disappear over night, just like that. The neoliberal ideology is far too well entrenched to vanish into thin air. During the age of neoliberalism, capitalist societies have been thoroughly changed. Millions of people owe their jobs, their careers, their wealth to the rise of neoliberalism. Millions of people have been educated in this creed, hundreds of millions have spent most of their adolescent and adult life serving the neoliberal faith, and many have been faring well by that.

State intervention never disappeared during the neoliberal era, only changed its guise. Government interventions were geared towards enforcing the “laws of the market” and subsuming those parts of the national and international economy to “the market” which were not yet completely subordinated to its dire “logic”. Empowerment of some market actors in relation to others. Expanding the realm of the “markets” at the core of the public or non-market economy, and abolishing all restrictions that might be a burden for capital owners and financial market actos while enforcing strict “market discipline” upon everybody else, turning consumers into debtors, wage workers into petty “entrepreneurs” and manager of their own labour power - that was the rationale of state interventions throughout the neoliberal age. So it is the direction, the kind of “intervention” and the form it takes which count, not the frequency or scope of state actions as such.

The recent series of interventions, ill-conceived and even worse coordinated as they were, have not really changed the traditional patterns of class rule. It is still solidarity within one class of rather inimical “brothers”, the less costly variant for finance capital and capital at large because the mass of the taxpayers have to pay the bill. Central banks, in particular, have acted according to an age old false diagnosis of the crisis as being a “liquidity” crisis instead of a crisis of “solvency”. In more than half a dozen rounds of coordinated, joint international actions they have assumed the role of substitute lenders for the banks, replacing the interbank lending segment by a form of public credit. These operations have become more and more risky and costly as central banks, with the US Fed in the lead, have started to accept all sorts of second rate, even speculative securities, derivatives and shares, as collateral for their loans. Although several big banks and other financial institutions have now been nationalization, it was a nationalization with a lot of reserves and still hedged in by the prevailing neoliberal ideology: as series of temporary emergency measures which transferred the bad loans, losses and responsibility for them to the state but not full ownership. Public ownership without public control, the worst possible form of nationalization. In most cases, the intervening governments have committed themselves to reprivatize the rescued banks as quickly as possible, turning the financial aid into a mandatory gift from the large majority of the people to the banks.

None of the interventions so far has been conceived as radical reform and geared at a systemic change. The system paradigm of the neoliberal era has not yet been surpassed – for instance to restrict and control the power of bankers, brokers and other agencies of finance capital. Although politicians in the USA, in Great Britain, France and other capitalist countries have actually nationalized banks and insurance companies, they have no plans or ideas for the building of a public banking and credit sector. Nor can they imagine to nationalize the stock markets and commodity exchanges in order to put them under full public – potentially democratic – control. What comes to the fore, is good old “state socialism”, the socialization of the losses and risks at the cost of others who have not caused or taken them in the first place. If anything, politicians have tried to avoid to take any responsibility in the longer run for the financial markets, for the money and credit system as the core of the capitalist world system. Their goal is still to return to the status quo ante, to restore the power and glory of finance capital as we knew it. Dozens, hundreds of banks, of investment funds and insurers may go bankrupt, and they will, but the system of “free financial markets” will be restored.

Capitalism is in question again, so it will be defended – at all costs. We can expect a gradual retreat from neoliberalism. Capitalism and the strong state have always been close allies. In distress, neoliberal ideologues quickly forget about the myth of the “powerless state” which they have propagated for more than two decades, actively working at the undermining of state powers and the retrenchment of the (welfare) state by the same token. But the strong state is capital’s best friend only as long as it is under capital’s firm control. A democratic state is not, at least not under all circumstances, even if political democracy has been undermined, crippled and restricted in various ways during the neoliberal era. A strong state, a large public sector, a lively public realm remain a potential threat, as long as the base of democratic institutions and a democratic constitution are still intact. That is why neoliberal politics tried so hard to alter democratic constitutions all over the capitalist world – under the rallying cry of “new constitutionalism” – by inserting basic neoliberal dogma’s into the constitutions and turning them into something like indisputable norms of political life. For the time being, regarding the defeat of the EU-constitution and the urgency of the matter, that is not an option. But there are ample possibilities to defend capitalism as still the best possible economic system.

First, it is argued, that crises come and go and this one will pass over as the previous ones. After the crisis, the world will still be capitalist, but better than ever. Because the
elites will have learned the lessons of the crisis and reformed capitalism in the meantime, or so they promise. However, historical experience from several Great Crises and Depressions tells us that such crises can last for many years, even decades. Japan was more than ten years crippled by the great crisis of its banking system. As the mountains of bad loans today are incomparably higher than anything the Japanese banks had accumulated during Japan’s real estate boom of the late 1980s, a long protracted stagnation period in the international banking sector is likely to occur.

Second, regulation of the markets seems to be inevitable. Regulators have failed, some regulations were deficient. Hence the general cry for more and new regulation, even for market “transparency”, something that only exists in neoclassical economics textbooks. Neoliberalism was, of course, never opposed to regulation. Only to those regulations that might disturb the unfettered rule of capital and impair the free mobility of capital across borders. The outcry for new regulations is already now accompanied by loud warnings for “overregulation”. To reregulate the markets after several decades of “deregulation” is a tricky task which should be left in the safe hands of experts, carefully chosen. Some wise men, preferably economists, will reregulate the markets, create “transparency” – and the world of markets will function better than ever before.

Third, and maybe most effective so far, the hunt for individual culprits to blame for the crisis, has been opened, under the inspiring lead of the mass media. Not capitalism, not even “finance led capitalism”, not neoliberalism has caused the trouble, some capitalists, some managers have, and some bankers, some traders, some speculators have truly exaggerated. They should be blamed and punished, not capitalism as a system or the politics of neoliberalism.

4. How to control the financial markets

There are good reasons to go far beyond the policies of rescuing individual banks and changing individual rules of the game. As the whole of the economy is affected and badly damaged, as the mass of the people have to bear the losses and risks that a few wealthy individuals have incurred, it is legitimate to claim public authority and control over the financial markets as a whole. The financial market policies of the ECB and the EU Commission have been a disaster – always following the “model” of US finance capitalism. Integration of financial markets in the EU was only regarded as a means to reduce transactions costs. A radical change, a regime change is necessary and possible – and it should assume the form of a democratic transformation, both under democratic control and paving the way towards economic democracy.

First, in order to secure the basic functions of any monetary and financial system – as stable and reliable system of payments, deposits, of money and credit flows between all market participants – the European states should take over a large, a relevant part of the big, leading banks in their respective countries in order to create and / or enlarge a strong and permanent sector of public or semi-public banks. Nationalizing banks is just the first step towards a new financial regime. Nationalizing or better Europeanizing the clearing unions is another necessary step in order to put the EU-payments system under public control.

Creating a new regulatory framework is the second. There are quite a lot of harmful and risky practices which have accelerated and exacerbated the recent bubbles and crashs. Securitisation of loans and trade in loan packages should be prohibited – for European banks and on the European markets. Credit provision for leveraged take-overs, for mergers and acquisitions and similar financial investments should be severely restricted.and only allowed under special supervision. Hedge funds should no longer allowed in the EU, European financial institutions should not be allowed to invest in hedge funds or run such funds outside the EU. Stock options and similar incentives for managers to engage in short term speculation should be abolished, bonuses restricted and linked to performance in real term (f.i. employment stability). Offshore centres in the EU should be closed down, direct and indirect business relations with such centres prohibited for EU financial institutions.

Third, the European banking system and the European capital markets should be reformed. For instance by setting up an European credit register, for a start. Trading activities (trading in securities) should be restricted, trading on their own account forbidden for European banks. The major mistakes of the Basel II framework (pro-cyclical effect, far too low capital requirement rates, admission of internal risk models) should be corrected. EU capital markets can and should be decelerated by various measures, f.i. the strict limitation on the investments of pension funds (to EU government bonds, while investments in hedge or private equity funds, derivatives, equity, foreign exchange should be banned). The number and complexity of “structured products” and other derivatives and certificates should be substantially restricted. They should only be allowed in standardized form All financial transactions over the counter should be prohibited, trade in foreign exchange, equity and derivatives only allowed on strictly regulated and supervised exchanges. A uniform type of financial transactions tax on all financial market operations should be introduced, with a sufficiently high tax rate in order to slow down and reduce short-term speculative actions; the proceeds of such a tax should directly be assigned to the EU budget. Rating agencies should be either licensed and strictly supervised or turned into public, non-profit agencies, financed by contributions from all financial institutions.

Similar reform should be applied to international financial institutions (like IMF, Worldbank, BIS). Intermediary agencies on the national, European and international level should all be put under public, democratic control. In order to avoid a purely state-dominated system, many stakeholders in the financial markets, from the banks to the “consumers” or clients should be involved in the governing of these institutions.

5. How to democratize the economy

The European and world economy in crisis needs more than just a financial market reform. A change of the whole macroeconomic regime, a new monetary and fiscal policy regime. Democratic societies will have to learn how to rule the economy instead of being ruled by the “blind forces” and alleged “laws” of an economic system. In order to rule the economy democratically, they will have to establish an economic democracy.

The idea of “economic democracy” is scandalous, even revolting to the liberal minds. What is at stake is power – the political and economic power of private property owners in relation to the powerlessness of the mass of the expropriated and propertiless (or only nominally propertied) classes. Thinking the unthinkable – the democratization of the economy – requires to overcome the radical divide between “economics” and “politics” which so deeply entrenched in liberal (mainstream) thought. The first being the realm of property and rational action, the second the realm of power. According to this worldview, democracy is a purely political concept and should forever remain confined to the realm of politics. Although (neo)liberals love the metaphor of the “democracy of the markets”, they are only happy with it as long as the tacit understanding prevails that markets (that is the lords of the markets) should rule instead of democracy. For a (neo)liberal, democracy is fine, as long as it remains confined to the realm of politics, as long as the realm of the “economy”, the markets and the firms, remain under the exclusive control of the right, that is the propertied economic actors.

Economic democracy is quite demanding both as a political concept and as a strategy. Inevitably, economic democracy begins at the level of the individual plant or firm but can never stop there. Workers’ co-determination, the right to interfere with the affairs of the firm to which they belong as employees, is indispensable for a democratic economy where all stakeholders should be given a voice. Under the regime of workers’ co-determination, managers can and should be elected by the all the stakeholders of a firm, including the private shareholders and /or private capital owners as well as the employees. In order to establish economic democracy beyond the borders of the individual plant or firm, “outsiders” like consumers and the state should be included and give a voice. Even if all the firms have been “democratized”, the “market” will still rule as long as democratic governance is not systematically extended to the meso-level (the interactions between firms and branches, or groups of firms) and to the macro-economic level (the whole regional or national economy and the interaction between such larger economic bodies on a world scale). Governing the markets is feasible and highly governed market economies can be very successful as the recent examples of prospering “developmental states” in Asian clearly show. Economic democracy on the macroeconomic level is only possible if new institutions are built or already existing ones, like the central banks, thoroughly reformed. As we are in urgent need of a large scale European Investment Programme not only to overcome the present crisis but also to stabilize and improve employment and the quality of work, to combat poverty and social exclusion, to enable a radical change towards sustainable development, the building of such institutions is both urgent and inevitable for joint, coordinated and long term efforts already on an EU level. In the process, democracy as we knew it, will be changed as well in most, if not all of its familiar aspects. The democratic transformation of the financial markets leads to the democratic transformation of the whole economy which leads, in turn, to the transformation, for the better we hope, of democracy itself. A reformed and tamed capitalism will be much better compatible with political democracy, but whether an expanded democracy that has learned to govern the markets and the macro-economy will still support capitalism remains to be seen.









Llegir més

Barcelona 12/12/08
Published in catalan ESPURNA 8

Today we have the privilege to count with Michael R. Krätke at Pere Ardiaca Foundation. He is a prestigious economist and social scientist working at the Amsterdam International Institute of Social History and recently has been appointed as the Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Lancaster University. He is involved in the project of editing the complete works of Marx and Engels (MEGA).

As a participant in this project, you are one of the best knowers of Marxs and Engels works. Indeed, it seems you have at the Amsterdam Social History International Institute around 80% of original handwritten texts of Marx i Engels. What should we keep of Marx and Engels thought today? Which part of their thought is more vigorously alive ?

First I would like to stress that both Marx and Engels are still largely unknown authors, misread and misrepresented for a lot which they never said or wrote and misinterpreted for the simple want of access to a lot of their writings, which were largely unpublished until very recently and of which there are still large parts unpublished until this very day. That is why I am working on this project together with many scholars from all over the world, in order to make their heritage accessible, a heritage which is much larger than most people know. Marx and Engels are also misrepresented, not only misinterpreted until this very day. Let me make a first brief point: Historical Materialism or Dialectical Materialism, terms that are usually associated with both Marx and Engels. Marx himself never used the term Materialism in order to characterize his own views, Engels used the term historical materialism much later as a shorthand expression. If ever they spoke of the materialist conception of history, or simply of their conception of history. If you look at the very short outlines that Marx himself gave for this conception – for instance in his preface to “A contribution to the critique of political economy” in 1859, today a hundred years ago, - you will find a brief sketch of what he regarded and called himself a result of his studies so far and as guiding central idea for further studies (a “Leitfaden” in German, let us say, a set of hypotheses which he regarded useful to organize his further research).



What he did outline there and elsewhere, normally very briefly, the main and core ideas of what was later called “historical materialism” (or the “materialist conception of history”) is today more or less standard common sense in the social sciences. Except for the votaries of postmodernism (who deny the possibility of any social science and dissolve it into a chaos of completely incoherent tiny stories – the worst sort of positivism, by the way), everyone today will in fact tacitly embrace a similar approach: Yes, the forms of material life are of the utmost importance, yes, production and reproduction of human life by labour (or work to use the broader term) is crucial for every society, yes productive capacities and their changes are at the core of any societal development, yes, societies change all the times and conflicts of interest between large social groups (class, estates, castes etc.) are the driving force. Ideas and ideologies matter, but they can be explained within the context of peculiar forms of material life. Most social scientists would agree today that there is a long term process of social evolution and that revolutions occur within it – societies sometimes make decisive big changes, societal conflict and struggle between its large constituent groups produce sudden changes that affect everything from the basic forms of material life to culture and science. Well, second, I should certainly mention Marx as a pioneer and a classic of the social sciences, he made some revolutions; if you take Capital, Marx’ masterpiece, although unfinished, it is a unique combination of History and Theory, and, by the same token, of positive and critical theory; It is at the same time mathematical and dialectical, it is an analysis of a big structure and of a long term development. In the social sciences, we have nothing comparable to that. Most people would still regard it as an example of a highly complex and carefully constructed theory, a model for the social sciences where everything is combined which is normally separated - action and structure, the general and the particular, the static and the dynamics. Third I would insist upon Marx’ criticism of modern capitalism. The subtitle of Marx’ Capital reads: “A Critique of Political Economy”. Critique has different meanings, we could also say that Marx intends to combine three kinds of criticism in his work: First, it means the critique of economic theories, the theories that the classical political economists and also some of their socialist critics. And second, it means the radical critique of modern capitalism as a very peculiar historical economic and social system. Last but not least, it means the critique of a peculiar way of thinking, the critique of the “economic categories” which do not only occupy the economists but pervade everyday thinking and are to be found everywhere, in everybody’s mind. That is basically what Marx calls “fetichism”; a peculiar way of thinking in which we systematically confuse the way in which economic relations appear to us – as overpowering “social things” (like money) with a movement and a force of their own – with the economic and relationships in which we are involved. That criticism comes very close to our present situation of a great world crisis because this term- coming from religious history – is just meant to grasp the way in which we are ruled in our heads by the world of economic appearances, believing in curious twisted facts that we regard as a economic realities. That is a crucial part of Marx critique of capitalism. He also criticises capitalism as a self-destructive and highly destructive system, he describes as a far from perfect self-reproductive system which is bound to produce crises continuously. These are some of the main points to which I certainly stick today and which are part of his heritage – the reasons why he remains a classic of social sciences, although he is obviously much more than that.


Which are the main interpretation mistakes as well as manipulations committed by the left regarding the use of Marx thought during the XX century?

A lot has been ascribed to Marx that he never wrote or said. Let me start again with one example referring to the great project of the MEGA, the Marx and Engels complete works (by the way the largest historical critical edition project in the social sciences at this moment). There are some classic works of Marxism, like the German Ideology, that are actually books that Marx and Engels have never written, at least not in the form in which they have been published. The generations of learned Marxists after Marx, starting with Karl Kautsky, have created a highly artificial figment of theories which has not much in common with original the writings of the original authors, many of which have been left unfinished. Engels already saw this as a danger, that Marx’ many ideas and many projects – with his great project of a “critique of politics” and a “critique of political economy” at its core, would be misunderstood and misrepresented as a closed system of thought, which is certainly not. Marx, as a matter of fact, rejected and criticized all systems, in particular the “socialist” systems of his contemporaries. Among other things, Marx was not expecting a bing bang or an automatic collapse of capitalism. His theory of the development of capitalism is much more differentiated. Marx has changed his views many times in the study of transformation of modern societies, so you cannot understand his work if you do not understand his self-criticism and the development of his work, his learning process and mistake him for a German professor of philosophy expounding a pre-fabricated “system” instead. What has been dubbed Marxism (or rather Marxisms) is clearly different from original theories of both Marx and Engels. Marx is not the author of any “ism”, he rejected all “systems”, he declared himself not to be a “Marxist” and he would certainly not have agreed with the later forms of “Marxism”.

So, which parts of his theory you think we should deepen in and which should we go throught to make it useful for the interpretation and transformation of world today?

I will answer in three steps: First, where Marx was right, second where he was wrong, third, where he was silent or relatively silent. Marx was right in many, many respects. Certainly he was right in his basic analysis of modern capitalist societies and economies. Even if you just focus upon the many things he said about the long term development of modern capitalism – the development towards a Great Industry, the development towards an automatic factory, the differentiation of wage labour, the concentration and centralization of big capital, the rise of social and economic inequalities, the predominance of an industrial business cycle, the rise and dominance of finance, just to mention a few – he has been proven right in an astonishing way. There are no other master thinkers of the 19th century who could boast a comparable record. In terms of the general outlook and the basic conceptions which have been proven right and useful in the social sciences, we are nearly all “historical materialists” today. And we all think that we should reunite what we have lost in the course of the development of the social sciences – history and theory, structure and action, the general and the particular – all of which we find still together in Marx’ work.

There are some points where he was wrong and should be corrected: Some of his economic theories are at least not as general as he intended them to be – like, for instance, his famous “law” of the fall of the average rate of profit”. Some of his forecasts about the development of the modern class societies are clearly too general and incomplete, like his famous “general law” of accumulation which comprises a concept of the long term decline of wage levels and of relative wages. There some other points were Marx relatively silent, although the silence doesn't always mean that he was blind. For instance, looking at the present ecological predicaments we are in, Marx was certainly not blind to that, but he didn't develop a theory of the impact of modern capitalism on nature. He saw the general direction – capitalism as a world system was bound to destroy nature as the very material base of social life in the long run – but he did not know and he did not analyse this process in much detail. He did, though, study the process of the industrialization of agriculture in his days. Marx did not study the development of the middle classes in much detail, he remained rather ambiguous as to their ultimate fate in modern capitalism. So there are some points of his theory that should be updated and further developed, but he has provided for us an example for the integration of economic and social analysis, he has provided for us an example of an open social science which is not deterministic at all but able to deal with insecurities and the inpredictabilities of the future. In his view, capitalism came in many forms and it had several futures – although in the long run it was bound to create the basic prerequisites for a new and higher form of society. Marx was an Anti-Utopist, he criticized the socialist movements of his days and his fellow socialists, with good reasons. Today we have many experiences with socialist experiments - small ones and very big ones – and we cannot be silent about that. On the contrary, we should and we can criticize them and learn from them, following Marx’ example and making good use of the new social science he has invented.


You are also well known here because of your collaboration in the magazine Sin Permiso, as you were one of the first persons to foresee and propose a rigorous analysis of the present world crisis. So, we would like to ask you about it. Which changes produces financiarization?. Which are the keys of this crisis, could you explain us briefly?

Well, the financiarisation is a catch word, it means a lot of changes that have happened in recent years in the capitalist world system. Many structural changes in the income distribution – first and foremost the major shift from labour income to capital income, many structural changes in the relations between different types or categories of capital, and, accordingly, many changes in the relations between what Marx already called in his day monetary accumulation, real accumulation plus ficticious accumulation (accumulation of ficticious capital). It also has something to do with the changing world of credit, with the ongoing involvement of normal working class people into the debt and credit system – the rise of the “indebted” worker in the West who only seems to be “affluent” but is actually now completely subjugated to finance capital. And, of course, it has a lot to do with the development of a network of international financial markets and the tremendous growth of those markets, with the rise of a completely new form of finance capital (quite different from the form which Rudolf Hilferding has analyzed before World War I).
Regarding the present crisis, one should stress that is the first real world financial crisis. The lot of them preceding this crisis were local or regional. This is a crisis affecting all the major financial markets in the world, and all the major economies including the emerging economies and the third world countries – more or less at the very same time. It has very seldom occurred in the history of capitalism that the major industrial and exporting countries were in a big crisis at the same time. This world crisis has started in the USA, it has taken enormous proportions because of the world-wide expansion of the credit system and the high credit leverage that has been used in particular by investment banks. It has been produced by a greater new bubble after the Asian crisis of 1997/98 and the .com crisis and by particular financial institutions like hedge funds and private equity funds. This is where you have to start if you want to analyse the development of the present crisis. It has a lot to do with the famous financial innovations and new instruments, new sort of derivates which have been developed in recent years, the “structurated financial products” (also known as the “alphabet soup” in the financial jargon, because there are so many of them, normally indicated by three letter abbreviations). Basically, it means that you can turn every sort of loan, every sort of credit into a tradable commodity, you dispose of it, sell and resell it in a thriving market and gain from such transactions. You can bundle different sorts of loans, for instance mortgages of very different qualities, together and sell and resell a new, artificial, fictitious commodity with a completely fictitious price. As long as such a market thrives and the market prices of such derivatives rise, most of the participants can make a profit easily – just by selling, buying and reselling such papers. Whenever a bank has issued a loan, even a highly risky one, it will be able to transform and to sell it under the conditions of the system of financial markets which has emerged in recent years. This means, of course, that banks, even very normal and old-fashioned deposit banks, even public savings and loans banks, will start taking more and more risks, issuing more and more loans than they have ever done before. All the actors of the financial markets become speculators, speculation pervades all financial transactions.

Entonces crees que esta crisis puede llevar al fin del unilateralismo y la hegemonía de los EEUU y del dólar como divisa de intercambio internacional. ¿Podemos esperar a corto o medio plazo, en consecuencia, una mundo más multipolar?. ¿Y una mayor tendencia a la divergencia entre el desarrollo de los diferentes modelos de capitalismo?

We should realize that we are probably not even half the way, we are still in the beginning of the great world economic crisis which is now unfolding. It's difficult to say what would be the outcome. One thing is certain, capitalism as we knew it, will not come back in exactly the same guise and shape. There are certainly a lot of conflicts luring and some of them are exploding just now. The states in different parts of the world have come back to stage in force taking action on an unprecedented scale. We have seen the largest “nationalization” actions in the banking sector since the end of World War II. In a highly competitive world economy the states and the regions are rivals, they are not easily cooperating, on the contrary. We will probably see a a shift in the middle run- the next 20 years- a shift of the centre of gravity of the world economy away from the USA, although it seems that the world crisis is a major setback for the rise of the so-called “emerging economies” (the BRIC states at the forefront). The USA as a model of developed capitalism, of financial market capitalism, has lost its credibility, it is about to lose its legitimacy and its impact in the rest of the world. Capitalism in the US-style is no longer the undisputed and unrivalled model for the rest of the world. The belief system of Neoliberalism is clearly shattered. Whether the US- dollar will completely lose its position as world money, whether the present dollar-standard will be replaced by another standard, for instance an Euro-standard, is hard to say, I think that it will be seriously weakened and that it can be forced to make way for another international monetary system. At this very moment it doesn't look like that, because the international flight of mobile, finance and speculative capital changes directions all the time but the US-dollar is still regarded as a safe haven and the US-treasury bonds are still welcome all over the financial world. At the moment, capital is withdrawn on a large scale from third world an emerging countries and transferred back into the USA. World-wide, finance capital is seeking refuge in state debt while the public debts are soaring high due to the rescue actions taken by big government everywhere. This will not continue forever, so sooner or later would see a reaction against the dollar. Simply because the dollar is the currency of the largest deficit economy in the world and one of its main instruments to create ever larger debts and deficits. The dollar regime hinges upon the US public debt. The whole economic an financial world system is completely dependent upon an ever increasing public debt of the USA. In the long run this is not sustainable. We will see a currency war which has already started between dollar and its rivals, and the rivals of the dollar are stronger than they were say 10 years ago.

Would the adopted state mesures against the crisis, be able to provide a solution?. Are the bailing out measures along those to limit "excessive" financiarization, offshore financial centers or hedgefund enoguht?

Until now the state measures are rather conventional even if they have gone further than we have expected recently, including the nationalizations or half-nationalizations of major banks. What states are doing at this moment is unavoidable. They have to do something, including the joint action stated by the major central banks in the world, in order to avoid a complete breakdown of the national and international monetary system. They to overcome the credit crunch which the banks can not and will not do. That does, of course, not mean that every bank and every big corporation in trouble can or should be rescued. but it will only slow down the process of the crisis and don't present any solution. Still, a lot can be done, including some relatively simple and radical measures, like, for instance, the restriction of hedge funds or the prohibiting of certain highly speculative transactions and / or fictitions commodities. Short-selling, an ancient practice at the financial markets, has already been forbidden or restricted by several governments. At this moment, it looks like governments are seriously thinking about getting rid of the maze of offshore banking centres and tax havens which they have created themselves in their frenzy for competition. If that happens, even if a tax on international financial transactions is levied, it will not completely change the present system form of financial capitalism but it can slow it down. So we can imagine a lot of measures, still largely reformist measures, that go much further than anything that has been happen until today. Dont' forget states have intervened on a scale and scope that we never imagined possible several months ago. It's nearly a tenth of the world social product that has been mobilized in rescue action during the last months and not only in USA, but also in Europe and the other parts of the world including China. So we will see sustained governments and central banks action in the months to come, but until now none of these governments has really started taking any radical action. The battle is about how to distribute the burden and the cost of the crisis, how to shift the inevitable de-valuation of the huge amounts of fictitious capital around the world upon other people’s shoulders, first and foremost upon the shoulders of the workers of the world. This is where the Left comes in, in particular in Europe. If anything, the present crisis has clearly demonstrated that the treaties of Maastricht and Lissabon are a fetter, an artificial impediment to the kind of transnational cooperation we would need now – in particular within the European Union which is, after all, the most highly intergrated economic region in the world. Now, if ever, is the moment for radical reform of the way in which the European Union is run.

A crisis is always a catastrophic event but it provides an oportunity as well. It has been said it is an oportunity for the left. You have stated in one of your articles that "left requires a radical criticism of capitalism, a criticism it is not used to". Is it possible to leave behind the trade off between improductive criticism and extrem possibilism?. Which proposals should have the left in these moments to intervene and get the iniciative?.

First, I think the big opportunity that this crisis has created for the anti-capitalist left is quite remarkable. For the first time in more than twenty years, there is a open space for all sort of criticism of the existing economic and social system. The left itself is both in a strong and difficult position because everybody is now expecting a lot. Anti-capitalisms of all sorts are up and popular now but they can work in different political directions. They can also strengthen the right, as they have done before. What we can do in this moment is reclaim the public realm, reclaim a social space that has been damaged and nearly lost. We have to make clear what is presently at stake: Markets, money, credits and banks are also public goods, they should be treated as such, they should be reregulated and transformed, meaning a series of radical economic reforms. We could even think of another set of scandalous idea’s for which we will now find an audience, like the “democratization” of the economy, the “socialization” of the markets. We need to propagate and to develop, in particular to radicalize proposals that we already have, for instance coming from left economists working together in the Euro- Memorandum-Group (www.memo-europe.uni-bremen.de/euromemo/indexmem.htm). We have to show that ii is possible to take the economy under public control instead of being dominated by the alleged “iron laws” of a capitalist world economy unleashed. We will have to implement some radical changes, and something like that has happened during all Great Crises in the past. Radical reform action is possible at those junctions of time but, for the time being, I wouldn't expect a revolution. That is always possible and it can be triggered by a series of radical reforms. We never had a more favourable situation for that since 1968.

Regarding this crisis, do you think workers are going to pay the adjustment crisis requires if anything further in the direction you have indicated is done?

At this moment that is actually what is happening. Working class people have already paid the largest parts of the price for the structural adjustments that have led to this whole situation. They have suffered from the major shifts in income distribution, including the shift of the tax burden following from various “tax reforms”, they have suffered from the so-called “flexibilisation” of the labour markets and from the retrenchments of the welfare states in recent times. At this very moment the standard technique is bailing out banks and other financial institutions which is normally done on a large scale by public money - tax money. What nearly all economists are expecting now is a much larger and if possible joint action by the governments of the major capitalist countries in order to avoid a very big and very long lasting depression. If governments do that, it inevitable means that the public debt will increase. Japan give us a good example: In order to overcome its long lasting banking crisis, the Japanese governments have raised the level of the public debt to a staggering 180% of GDP. The USA, even China, are now going in the same direction. To get rid of those mountains of debt, they will have to impose all sorts of austerity policies, of tax polices upon the broad majority of the population, which still is working class. Regarding the tax systems as they exist in the major capitalist countries, the working class as the majority of the taxpayers will have pay the bill again for the fight against the depression. The only alternative would be - wait and see the depression unfold with all its consequences. The government and the central bank of USA demonstrated something like this just some months ago- in September 2008. They tried an experiment: they let Lehman's Brothers, one of the bigger investment banks in Wall Street, go bankrupt, because they expected that that would not have big repercussions and would be a good lesson to the rest of the world. They were wrong, the repercussions of the downfall of Lehman's Brothers were enormous and could be felt throughout the financial world. The US government has swiftly corrected its course and has avoided any further large scale bankruptcy of a major bank ever since - because they are afraid of the very massive consequences that this had not only in one country but in many countries at the same time.

About Globalization. Of course neoliberal globalization has widen diferences inside and among countries but has also increased the productive forces, Should we fight against Globalization or there is something positive that might be preserved, what is your position upon this issue?

Well, there is one big difference between this crisis and the great depression of the 1930s. We are always making this comparison now, and for good reasons. The great depression of the 1930s meant the end of globalization as it was at that time, meant really the collapse of world market, the collapse of world trade, the resurgence of a very vicious form of protectionism, even the downfall and the breaking apart of the world monetary financial system. Everybody is aware of that now, and most people agree that something like that, the breaking apart of the world economy, should not happen again. Regarding the crisis that we have, and the crisis that we are going to have, because it is just about to unfold in real economy of the major high-tech export countries of the world, we are now confronted with the fact that there is no longer a real solution within the national frame. So we have in Europe a unique opportunity, and to some degree we even have the possibility to act on a larger transnational scale, the only large obstacle being the neoliberal beliefs of the elites and the neoliberal regulations that have been imposed upon us in recent years. As Marx saw it, the development of a world economy, the integration of many people, regions, tribes and nations into one world economy and society, is a major achievement, we might call it progress. If we can change the deeply entrenched unjust and unfair, exploitative structures built into it. What the Chinese have achieved during the last decades is quite remarkable, an enormous improvement for the population of this countries. They are now confronted with the consequences of their own “capitalist road to market socialism” and, maybe, forced to think again about what they want to achieve in the end. We have no reasons to turn back at all. On the contrary we should use the relative openness of the world economy to cooperate fairly in a world scale. That can be done, as the powers of capital are in disarray and have been severely weakened by what is probably to become the largest of the crises of capitalism.

Llegir més

John P.Neelsen
University of Tübingen
Rosa-Luxemburg Foundation

Roundtable Barcelona 1.12.08

Published in catalan. ESPURNA 8


1. Actions for «Peace» or the Militarization of Europe

At present the EU is with 70.000 troops engaged in different war theaters or conflict zones around the world ranging from the coast of Somalia and the Congo over Libanon, the Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina to Afghanistan. Some are direct missions of the UN, others -involving the major contingents- have only a UN mandate, occasionally obtained after a one-sided military intervention.
• The Kosovo is a major example: it was a war of aggression, eventually leading to the illegal dismemberment of and establishment of an 'independent' state under EU tutelage together with an important American military base. Despite being presented as «humanitarian intervention» which has no basis in international law, and causing considerable «collateral damages», a semblance of justification was acquired by the UN mandated KFOR. As in the case of Iraq, where the US-led intervention and occupation eventually became somehow sanctioned by a UN mandate, it reflects more on the increasing instrumentalization of the UN by Western powers rather than on necessary 'developments' of international law.
• There is a close relationship between NATO and the EU. Not only are most countries of the EU simultaneously members of NATO, membership in the later has mostly been prior to the EU. From the outset anything but an organization of defence, NATO has been retained even after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the socialist bloc. Moreover, NATO doctrin has changed since from territorial to «forward» defence, i.e. free access to the markets and resources of the world as vital interests. Viewed from outside, the NATO expansion to the East, including former republics of the USSR together with an EU that on purpose has no defined territorial boundaries (Ukraine and Georgia trying to get in next) is preceived as a threat.
• NATO (the US) and the EU are the countries with by far the biggest 'defense' outlays, the most modern weapons arsenals and (except Russia) the biggest arms merchants while at the same time denouncing 'inflated' military budgets in other countries and insisting on 'anything but arms' programs. The Lisbon Treaty not only makes increased military outlays by member-states obligatory, it is argued that it represents an attempt at greater political integration by way of the military.

In sum, far from being a model of peace and reconciliation, the EU is well on the way of becoming a major military force to reckon with, which naturally does not exclude an occasional truly justified intervention at peace enforcing and peace keeping.




2. The EU in the (emerging multipolar) international political System/the UN

The dissolution of the Warsaw pact and the implosion of real socialism prepared the ground for a unipolar world system dominated by the USA which strove to impose its ideas of peace, security and order on the other states remodelling in turn the rôle of NATO as much as international institutions, incl. the UN (Security Council, UNCTAD). However, the attempt to prolong its overall hegemony into the foreseeable future proved illusionary in view of the ill-fated and costly two on-going wars in the Middle East accompanied by the profound loss of moral leadership (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib) as well as the financio-economic crisis of neoliberalism originating in and especially affecting the USA themselves. This relative decline has been accompanied by the simultaneous rise of emerging economies, not least the BRICs (Brasil, Russia, India, China). Historically, such tectonic shifts in the international balance of power have lead to violent power struggles. Already, global military expenses have reached record levels with the BRICs showing particularly high growth rates (SIPRI 2008). In this on-going reconfiguration of the global system to greater multipolarity, the EU has a potentially decisive rôle to play given its economic clout (its GDP of 13 Bill. $ is comparable to the US, it's share in world trade is by far the biggest: 43%, North-America 15%) and the global political influence of its 27 members at the UN, the G8, etc. For quite some time, it will remain greatly superior to even the weight of the BRICs combined (e.g. China GNP 2.6 or India 1.1 Bill. $). By actively working in favour of a multipolar system, the EU could facilitate the transition preventing violent confrontations, help by eliminating the hegemony of a single nation to reempower the state and reinstitute sovereignty as a precondition for a world governed more by international law than the rule of the mighty. While in line with the EU's self-proclaimed goals, it won't be easy to adjust and adapt to a world where the dominant rôle it has played for over 250 years will dramatically decline in the coming decades (acc. to some prognoses its share in global production will be more than halved by the middle of the century) at least relative to the people from the South, esp. Asia (many countries of the region being their former colonies) as the new centre of gravity, representing different cultures.

The chances of such a basic reorientation of the EU, especially the necessary long-term distancing from the US, appear slim indeed. With Eurasia the future epicentre of growth, and security (energy supply, Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, proliferation), it is much more likely that the EU will, despite conflicting views and interests in individual areas, continue to principally ally itself with the USA and its imperial designs. The reshaping of the international system may even result in a greater rôle for Europe and a more balanced trans-atlantic partnership, while forming an essentially common front against the upstarts from the East and the South (with possibly different roles, e.g. soft power for the EU, the big stick and outright military threat reserved for the US). Thus, the nascent triple alliance Paris-Berlin-Moscow formed against the US-led armed intervention in Iraq proved short-lived, while other members of the EU, starting from the UK, and Spain to practically all new Eastern European governments, actively supported the war. Moreover, quite a number of the same states are principally opposed to a politically more integrated Europe fearing for their autonomy, while relying on the US as final guarantee of their security. The increasing economic ties, and inter-penetration of capital across the Atlantic, the ideology of shared values of democracy, secularism, liberalism and human rights, have pushed the movement for a Europe independent, if not in opposition to the US not only in France ever more into a minority position (Sarkozy and Merkel versus de Gaulle, Mitterrand and Chirac, Schröder respectively). Furthermore, there are material constraints with the US having acquired a permanent hold and decisive say in European affairs through NATO and the OSCE, which they have repeatedly exploited to further their particular geopolitical interests if need be at the expense of a greater political and military independence of the EU (in accordance with their doctrin of «full spectrum dominance» that includes the prevention of the rise of a rival power, may this be an ally.)


3. The EU – metropolitan capitalism and structural violence

Neoliberal globalisation is characterized (a) by the emergence of Transnational Companies (TNC), more powerful than most states, which control as much as two thirds of international trade (b) a very high concentration of capital leading to global oligopolies in practically all important branches of economic activity (from aviation/aerospace (Boeing and EADS) over distribution chaines (Wal Mart, Carrefour, etc) to foreign trade (OECD countries as much as the exports of emerging economies, e.g.China).

• Started in the anglo-saxian countries almost 30 years ago, neoliberal globalisation is a political project that has been adopted by practically the politico-economic elites the world over. In many countries of the South, the accompanying triple strategy of deregulation, privatisation and world market integration were first put into place under pressure of the IMF and the World Bank (structural adjustment programmes; credit and aid projects). It became extended in reach and reinforced since 1995 through the World Trade Organisation which applies the principles of free trade not only to the exchange of goods, but also to services (TRIMS), and intellectual property (TRIPS). Endowed with a tribunal that is empowered to levy punitive sanctions against deviant countries, the WTO has served to transform the prevailing relation between the state and private capital in favour of the later, and to subordinate the national interests to those of the transnational bourgeoisie and the exigencies of the world market with Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) serving as most important weapon of choice. By creating a level playing field for transnational capital among countries of very different levels of development a new specialization of producers and countries and an international division of labour has come into existence. While potentially yielding high growth rates of the GNP over prolonged periods, allowing substantial sections of the middle and upper classes a high level of income and consumption, in reverse new and even more serious forms of inequalities between countries, regions and social classes worldwide have emerged.
• Spreading from the centre countries, contemporary capitalism has universalized in form and content the conditions of capitalist accumulation of the metropolitan countries, reflecting a very high degree of concentration, of capital- and research intensity. As a result, and quite in contrast to modernization theory or Marx' predictions (cf. The Future Results of British Rule in India), a type of capitalism specific to the periphery of the word system became established. It is characterized by a perennial process of primitive accumulation and transition based on permanently heterogenous social formations juxtaposing pre-, semi- and real capitalist production relations(e.g. India: less than 10% in organized sector; a rural society (72%), a pre-capitalist sectoral distribution of the labour force: 60/12/28% with a majority 'self-employed). Bound together by the formal subordination under capital and market mechanisms, they operate in support of the capitalist sector, while ever larger parts of the population, increasingly also in the North, are impoverished, marginalized, excluded («Global South»). While globally, productivity and wealth have so far increased largely beyond demographic growth, the number of people starving to death and/or living in absolute poverty has grown rather than diminished. In fact, day by day, the victims of such «structural violence» are more numerous than the dead produced in times of war .
• The EU is together with the US the major protagonist of neoliberal globalisation (indicative are that the IMF (Strauss-Kahn, its director, and over 1/3 of board members) as well as the WTO (director P.Lamy) are Europeans). More important, since the 1970s, i.e.long before the Lisbon treaty, it has made adherence to neoliberal principles a cornerstone of its commercial and aid policies with the Third World (Cotonou accords [good governance] with 78 countries in Africa, the Carribean and the Pacific). While providing privileged, non-reciprocal access to the EU market, these former colonies still have remained poor; and while formally independent, the privileges tie them (or rather their elites) economically, if not also politically to the EU. Against this background, its claim to champion human rights worldwide, its insistence on democracy ring hollow, for its policies effectively deny the right to life to millions of people, augment social and regional inequalities, and marginalize the majority of people, thereby contributing to social conflict, to anomy and eventually to state failure(disintegration of states).


4. The EU a source of peace and progress

If the EU were a genuin source of international peace and development, it would indeed submit itself first of all to international law and strive to realize it everywhere.

• As an example, it would refrain from all unilateral military intervention that has no prior authorization of the Security Council, and implement article 43 of the UN Charter stipulating the permanent commitment of troops (and finances) to the UN, a call renewed by Boutros Boutros Ghali in his «Agenda for Peace»; it would moreover actively strive for a democratization of the UN, i.e. empower the General Assemby, give up the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council, and restructure that organ's membership heavily skewed in favour of white, Christian, developed countries.
• Instead of the typical double standards, it would fulfill its treaty obligations to destroy its own weapons of mass destruction, esp. nuclear weapons, before pursuing a policy of non-proliferation of such weapons that is discriminatory (Israel vs Iran/Iraq) and illegally (acc. UN Charter) threatens other states with war and regime change.
• It would recognize the three generations of human rights, their interdependence and universality, incl. the collective rights of peoples and nations for self-determination/ sovereignty as a precondition for democracy, international peace, and development.
• It would revisit the demands of the Third World for a New International Economic Order, put (national) politics back into the driver's seat and regulate capital flows, and the operations of the TNCs. Acknowledging that formal equality among unequal partners ciments inequality, it would ideologically and practically do away with neoliberalism, not least the WTO. Finally, in view of the looming global ecological crisis it would reexamine its civilizational model and in view of the social crisis of absolute poverty, massive and persistent unemployment and underdevelopment the capitalist mode of production that it seeks to spread world-wide.
• Internationally, the EU would in the short and medium term dissociate itself on the one hand from the US, not least in military affairs with its global network of 1000 bases abroad, and on the other strengthen relations with the emerging powers, not least the BRICs, and here especially Russia (Eastern expansion of NATO yesterday, tomorrow inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia; missiles in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic). Adressing the question of rarefied strategic resources, esp. fossil fuels and water, which threaten to be the future principal sources of conflict, it would commit itself to a global strategy of equitable sharing, transfer of latest technology, and joined research for sustainable alternatives as supreme guidelines.

All this, however, implies a EU, different from the policies and class interests that dominate it today.

In conclusion: If modern imperialism is characterized (a) by a globalized capitalism whose primary mode of accumulation is based on the private appropriation of formerly common goods (Harvey) in place of extended accumulation; (b) neo-colonialism, i.e. the subjugation and expropriation of less developed countries and peoples through market mechanisms (without prior territorial occupation) (c) external politics of violence, including structural violence; and (c) internal repression, the EU is an imperialist metropolitan centre. Its peace activities are primarily designed to further its particularistic objectives, if necessary by armed means, in order to secure worldwide access to markets and resources, not least energy; and to install in the name of good governance political and economic regimes compatible with its perceived self-interests. In the name of democracy, and human rights one deduces the right for humanitarian armed intervention, instead of fighting systemic anomic states leading to failing states and increased incidence of civil strife essentially resulting from peripheral capitalism and accentuated in its neoliberal mode. This EU is no progressive historical force; it has to be fought, another, post-capitalist order put into its place.

Llegir més

Michel Collon
Published in catalan. ESPURNA 8


When Bush goes, everyone will be hoping for a change – or fearing the worst. McCain or Obama ? What will that change for Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Africa, Caucasia, Cuba and Venezuela ? And for US relationships with the big powers : Europe, Japan, Russia, China ?

We don’t believe that US foreign policy is decided at the White House. In fact, at the moment the US elite is hesitating about the strategy to follow in the coming years. This text analyzes the two possible options. The question of how does United States think to remain the super power dominating the world becomes even more burning in view of the economic crisis.

This text is extracted from our book The 7 sins of Hugo Chávez (Chapter 11 : [The United States] Black gold and the wars of tomorrow), shortly to be published. The preceding pages explained the reason for the rise and then decline of the United States. Investig’Action felt it was urgent to publish this extract to shed more light on the discussions under way during the elections in the United States of America.



Bush’s Failure

What would be the balance sheet of this global war on terror led by the Bush administration as from 11 September ? Negative. Virtually everywhere.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has launched two wars which they are unable to win and which they will never win. Bush wanted to launch a third war against Iran but, the US being seriously weakened, he has had to renounce it. The aim of this war was to have been to ensure Washington’s control over oil. In five years, it has risen from 25 dollars to over 100 dollars [per barrel], with very negative consequences for the US and world economy.

In South America, the United States has lost, entirely or partially, control over almost all their colonies : Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. All that remains to them, at the time of writing, are Peru, Chile and Colombia.

In Africa, too, resistance has made some advances. Kabila of the Congo refused to go on his knees. And when Washington tried to find somewhere to set up their new military command, AFRICOM, all countries politely refused.

Also in South Asia, there has been an increase in resistance over the whole region which has alarmed US strategists, who propose reinforcing the US’s ‘projection capacity’ in South Asia. In their jargon, that means organizing military landings and bombardments, and supporting coups d’etat. But the group emphasize that, given the unpopularity of the United States in this region it will be impossible to find a country that will accept the headquarters of such a US force.

Bush’s policy has aroused resistance even among their European allies. Thus, at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April, George Bush demanded further expansion of the organization, this time to integrate Ukraine and George – which was like pointing a couple of cannons at Russia. But there were firm and open refusals from Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg, none of them wishing to make troubles with Moscow which provides them with gas. Steve Erlanger and Steven Lee Myers, two analysts close to the Pentagon, saw in this « a manifest failure of US policy in an alliance normally dominated by Washington ».

Indeed Russia’s attitude is hardening. Moscow rejects the installation on the European continent of arms that the United States call an anti-missile shield :
« If part of the US nuclear potential is in Europe (…) we have to have targets in Europe .» Moreover, in May 2008, Russia tested a new, multi-head intercontinental missile « in response to unilateral and groundless acts by our partners » declared Putin. Washington however stated that the anti-missile shield was not directed against Russia, only against states like Iran. But Putin replied : « There is no Iranian missile that has a sufficient range. It is therefore evident that this news concerns us Russians too . »

Like Russia, China has also refused to back down when confronted by numerous campaigns and pressures exercised by Washington.

The US elite is divided

Ten years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter and the leading strategist in the United States, published his book]The Great Chessboard. More or less « How to remain the superpower dominating the world » . He explained, with the brutal frankness of someone no longer in official position, that Washington must absolutely weaken its rivals : Russia and China, but also Europe and Japan, and prevent them from allying with each other. Divide and rule.

Today, what is the balance sheet from George Bush using Brzezinski’ criteria ? Has he managed to weaken the great power rivals ? We would say : fairly well as concerns Japan, fairly well (for the moment) as concerns Europe, but badly as concerns Russia and very badly as concerns China.

Globally, Bush has provoked so much resistance that United States’ domination has been weakened. The business interests that had brought him to power – armaments, oil, automobiles, defence, pharmaceutical companies – have seen that Bush’s wars have not brought great profits, or new areas for exploitation. In fact, they have cost more than they have gained. And the Bush administration has been shown up as being a small, restricted circle whose members thought a lot about filling their own pockets but who were incable of tactical finesse and genuine long-term vision.

Once the failure had become obvious, the divisions among the US elite, and even in the Bush administration, became exacerbated. As from 2006 the neocons had to cede territory. They had to accept replacing the War Minister, Donald Rumsfeld, by Robert Gates, a Trilateral man belonging to the Brzezinski tendency. The new minister had to some extent admitted the weakness of US militarism in a speech he gave to the cadets at the West Point Military Academy : « Don’t fight unless you have to. Never fight alone. And don’t fight for long. » Then the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Commission condemned the effort of Bush to reshape the ‘Great Middle East’ as being unrealistic. They advocated, on the contrary, a more tactical approach towards Syria and Iran.

Even within the secret services and the army there are a number of revolts. In December 2007, when Bush wanted to prepare an attack against Iran under the classic pretext of it having weapons of mass destruction, sixteen US intelligence services surprised everyone by publishing a report stating that Iran had suspended its military nuclear programme since at least 2003.

« The decline of the United States is inevitable »
(Zbigniew Brzezinski)

Brzezinski, in his book, proposed an agressive and machiavellian strategy to save the US Empire. But even he, did he really believe it would work ? Strange as it may seem, it appears not.

« In the long term, global politics are destined to become less and less favourable to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of only one state. America is thus not only the first global super power, it is very probably the last one. » (CH – p. 267)

The reason for this is the evolution of the economy : « Economic power also risks becoming dispersed. In the coming years, no country will be likely to attain some 30 per cent of the world GNP, a figure that the United States has maintained during most of the 20th century – not to mention the high point of 50 per cent that they reached in 1945. According to certain estimates, America could still hold 20 per cent of the world GNP at the end of this decade, which would then fall to 10 – 15 per cent from now to the year 2020. The figures for other powers – Europe, China, Japan – are expected to increase to reach the approximate level of the United States … Once the decline of the American leadership has set in, the supremacy that the country now enjoys cannot be taken over by any single state. » (CH – p. 267-8)

« Once the decline of the American leadership has set in ». Brzezinski is therefore not talking about a possibility, but a certitude. He wrote that in 1997. Today it has become clear that the decline is well on its way. The world is becoming multipolar.

But perhaps Brzezinski is an isolated pessimist ? Perhaps the neocons who inspired Bush are more ‘optimist’, if one can use that word ? In fact, they are not much more optimistic. In the founding text of the administration’s whole policy, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), drawn up in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and his friends, the whole ideology of a new militarist crusade is evident, but there is also a remark worthy of note : « At the moment, the United States has no world rival. The overall strategy of America must aim at preserving and extending this advantageous position as long as possible (…) Preserving this desirable strategic situation in which the United States finds itself at the present time requires predominant military capacities at the world level. » (CH)

« As long as possible » : here, too, there is no belief that the United States can remain the masters of the world for ever. It is a real paradox. The whole world fears the United States. But the rulers of the country themselves know that they are at the controls of the Titanic. And to save the Empire as long as possible, they are divided between two options.

Two options for saving the Empire

What will be the foreign policy of the United States in the years to come ? The choice of president will certainly give some idea. But it is not decisive. We should remember that, during the presidential campaign of 2000, George Bush had promised a much milder foreign policy and less interventionist than its precedessor ! And the other candidate, Al Gore, had proposed a bigger military budget than that of Bush. We believe that the general orientations of foreign policy are not decided by presidents but by the multinationals, in function of their requirements of the moment and their evaluation of world power relationships.

And, in fact, after the balance sheet of the Bush years that we have just described, the US elite seems quite divided about the line to follow. How to resolve this delicate situation ?

The first possible option is the military one. Bush’s neocons embodied this the last few years with the Wolfowitz strategy, one of aggression and intimidation. Multiply the wars, inflate to the maximum the orders to the military-industrial complex to promote growth and the domination of the US multinationals, and also to intimidate allies and rivals.

The other option, which is defended by Brzezinski, is what he likes to call ‘soft power’. Others call it ‘intelligent imperialism’. In fact it aims at the same objectives, but through forms of violence that are less direct, less visible. It would count less on very expensive US military interventions and more on secret services, destabilization manœuvres and proxy wars, as well as corruption.


Five NATO generals prepare a world government …

The first option consists of militarizing political life still further and increasing the number of wars. Bush squared, in fact.

In January 2008, five former NATO generals presented a preparatory document for the NATO summit meeting at Bucharest. Their proposals reflect a terrifying tendency. And what gives weight to their document is that, up until recently, all of them held very high positions. General John Shalikashvili was US Chief of Staff and Commander in Chief of NATO in Europe, General Klaus Naumann ran the German army and was president of the military committe of NATO in Europe, General Henk van den Breemen was chief of the Dutch Chief of Staff and Admiral Jacques Lanxade held the same post in France, while Lord Inge ran the General Staff and was also Chief of the Defence Staff of Great Britain. This is just the big shots – and very aggressive they are too, as we shall see.

Page 6 : « [The authors] propose ways how to overcome possible rivalry with the EU and also how to enable NATO to have access to non-military instruments. » Two observations :
• in fact, this rivalry is not only possible, it is completely real. In what way do they want to overcome it ?;
• what does NATO mean by having « access to non-military instruments » ?

Is it a question of having more control over civil society in western countries ?

Page 7 : « In order to start off the process, they propose establishing a directorate bringing together the United States, the European Union and NATO. Its mission would be to coordinate all operations in the Atlantic sphere. » For what objectives ?

The Five explain this on page 42 : « What the Western allies expect is the pro-active defence of their societies and their way of life maintaind over the long term. »
« Defending our way of life » has already been used as an argument by Bush senior to launch the first war against Iraq. In fact, « way of life » is a hypocritical term that means the domination of the multinationals over economic life : it is a domination that keeps half of humanity in poverty. The aim of the Five is in fact to use military means to maintain the gap between the rich and the poor. Anyone who doubts this should read, on page 92 : « The objectives of our strategy are to preserve the peace, our values, economic liberalism and stability. »

It is, therefore, to preserve the stability of the multinationals. Against what enemies ? The authors give some examples of what is not to be tolerated in the Third World. Page 52 : « We have less important examples of non-desirable aid, from Venezuela to the Cuban regime. » The world gendarme takes upon itself the right to intervene everywhere against countries that do things that the multinationals don’t like.

But among the undesirables, who is the main enemy ? The answer is on page 44 :
« China is in a situation to wreak great harm on the US and the world economies, based on its enormous reserves in dollars. » And, on page 52 : « China is in a position to use finance to impose itself on Africa and acquire the capacity to utilize it on a much greater scale – if it so decides. »

So here we have, well-defined, the good and the bad. Liberalism needs NATO to impose itself on the whole world. And to carry out this economic war, what means does NATO require ?


International law and the United Nations thrown overboard

In fact, the five generals feel frustrated. On page 76 : « One of the chief problems in the current strategic conception of the Atlantic alliance is that its actions remain reactive rather than preventive, and are limited to military means. On page 91 : « An ambitious strategy must include the well-integrated use of all accessible means, political, economic, military, cultural, social, moral, spiritual and psychological. »

So there we are ! The Gang of Five wants to move beyond its military tasks and exercise control over the functioning of civil society. But will the law be respected at least by this new world government ? It is very doubtful. On pages 94-95 : « Another principle to be respected is legality. All action must be legitimate, authorized and respect international law. That can be a considerable handicap when the adversary has no respect at all for any law whatsoever, but to act differently would mean, in the end, applying the law of the jungle and undermine our own credibility. Nevertheless this principle does not prevent adapting existing international law in an international context that is constant evolution. »

In this quote, the first sentences serve as window dressing and the real content comes at the end. « Adapting » the law means, in effect, violating it, denying the principles proclaimed up until now. After Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, torture, the assassination of heads of states, the extraordinary rendition flights and secret prisons of the CIA : are they proposing to combat these violations of the law ? No, they propose to legalize them, ‘adapting’ the law.

Already two wars against Iraq and the one against Yugoslavia have violated international law, the UN Charter and even NATO’s own Charter. But it is precisely international legality that the Five want to get rid of. Pages 104-105 : « The approval of the United Nations may not be necessary according to Article 51 of the UN Charter (legitimate defence) and it is perhaps possible to renounce it on the basis of the Convention on Genocide. »


« Long live preventive war ! » Even if it is nuclear

Page 96 makes for reading that is just as disturbing : « What we need is a form of dissuasion through pro-active refusal, in which the preemption is a form of imminent reaction and prevention an attempt to take back the initiative and put an end to the conflict. »

« Pro-active defence » in military jargon, means preventive war. The term is constantly repeated in the document of the Five. George W. Bush had already invoked a ‘preventive war’ against terrorism. As did Hitler in his time. Aggressors often take refuge in the pretext of preventing danger. In actual fact, international law explicitly forbids wars claiming to be preventive.

But our fears don’t end there. On page 94 : « At first sight, the nuclear weapon might seem disproportionate, but if one takes into account the damage that it prevents, it may be reasonable. » Here the immorality of these five Gangits bursts out into the open. Nuclear war is an atrocity and humanity has constantly demanded the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction. Here it is claimed that they are justified. The hypocrisy is flagrant : « to prevent damage ». This is completely vague and, without doubt, racist. The lives of adversary peoples are not worth anything.

The truth is that these criminal generals, observing that classic bombardments are not enough to break resistance, and that wars on land are expensive and dangerous for the invaders, propose the nuclear weapon as a solution to the problem of the world hegemony of the multinationals.

Preparing peoples’ minds

As can be seen, the goods that the Gang of Five wish to sell us are completely rotten and poisonous. This is the reason why they count on manipulating public opinion through long-term propaganda campaigns. On page 104 : « These measures must be accompnied by pro-active and coordinated efforts of communication through the media (,,,) Furthermore, such a media campaign can prepare peoples’ minds for an armed intervention. »

« Prepare peoples’ minds » ! Of course, this is nothing new. Drawing up the balance sheet of the war against Yugoslavia, which was the most successful example of organized disinformation, a NATO general admitted, after the war ended, that false information had been systematically issued while embarrassing information was eliminated or marginalized in order to « anaesthetize opinions ». He thus acted upon NATO’s philosophy that « Opinion can be worked upon, like other things. » In each war, Western generals commission spin doctors to sell their war and manipulate public opinion. But this time, this is taken much further : there is to be a long-term campaign to condition opinion.

Page 129 : « Therefore NATO must develop an information strategy that serves three objectives simultaneously. It must persuade the world that NATO is a force for good. It must move before its adversaries start to disseminate their information : that is, NATO must impose its domination in public relations. It must win the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of the NATO countries (convince them that the Atlantic alliance’s position is a correct one), but also the hearts and minds of the populations where the armed intervention is taking place. »

« Impose its domination in public relations .» Information is seen as a war that is won by eliminating the forces of the adversary. This is no idle accusation. The US army bombed and imprisoned Al Jazeera journalists, NATO bombed Belgrade television station (17 killed), the Pentagon has prepared plans to eliminate embarrassing information on the Internet, whose democratic character is upsetting it considerably.

A plan for world dictatorship

At the beginning of their document, the five generals announced « ways how to overcome possible rivalry with the EU » How are they going to do that ?
In effect, they use the framework of NATO to organize the submission of the EU to Washington’s will :

Page 137 : « We consider that multinational forces are the key for a rapid and inexpensive modernization of NATO’s force, but we stress that this is not possible unless member states accept without reserve that these forces will be at the disposal of NATO for all operations authorized by the NATO Council. » Translation : the European armies will be obliged to obey NATO decisions (currently unanimity is required).

The Five’s plan would give three advantages to the United States : it would integrate European forces into their own wars ; it would share the costs among the allies ; and it would also share the unpopularity.

The antidemocratic character of the Five is shown clearly on page 139 : « We are not formulating proposals for the reform of the EU in such detail as we have for NATO for two reasons : first, a new ‘smooth’ treaty, that has just replaced the ‘constitution’ that had been condemned, has now been adopted so as to avoid consulting the populations. »

Their plan will make it impossible to carry out any opposition. Page 144 : « In order to avoid all sources of inconvenience, it could be decided that first of all an issue will be treated inside NATO and then the NATO members who are also members of the EU will undertake not to depart from the vote taken at NATO when the issue is brought up in the European bodies. » Thus, once NATO has decided, no European country will have the right to oppose its decision.

In conclusion, this plan of the Gang of Five, prepared by people who have been at the top of world military power, exposes a significant tendency among the elite. Their plan for a super world government by the three blocs (effectively dominated by the United States) would relegate all vestiges of international law to the dustbin, legitimize preventive war and nuclear weapons andorganize systematic manipulation of public opinion. The plan is nothing if not fascist.

This is one of the two options that the elite in the United States are currently considering for resolving their problems. The other is embodied by Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom we spoke about earlier.

« Intelligent imperialism » ?

The US military strategists distinguish three types of war that they could launch :
high intensity wars between big powers such as the two world wars ; medium intensity wars involving also the US military directly, but against much weaker powers, as in Iraq and Yugoslavia ; low-intensity wars, in which there is not a direct US military involvement but which are organized to defeat others. They provoke conflicts between neighbouring countries, or through paramilitary and terrrorist movements.

The term ‘low intensity’ is misleading, as it could give the impression that there are fewer damages. In fact there are fewer only for the United States. Thus the so-called « low intensity » war that Washington launched against the Congo (through the armies of neighbouring Rwanda and Uganda, and various militias) resulted in five million deaths and it has paralyzed the development of the Congo.

Brzezinski’s strategy is different from that of Bush in that it favours low-intensity wars. In no way, therefore, is it more moral, but it claims to being more intelligent.

But Brzezinski also proposes other forms of intervention. We often think of military intervention by the United States as the most visible form of aggression. But in fact they dispose of a wide range of forms of aggression.. To establish a complete typology, it would look like this, in order of ascending intensity :

• corruption of local leaders ;
• blackmail of local leaders ;
• demonization media campaigns ;
• various destabilization actions ;
• embargos and commercial blockades ;
• coups d’état ;
• provoking separatist movements ;
• war by proxy ;
• bombardments ;
• territorial occupation.

As can be seen there is a wide variety of methods which, evidently, can be combined. But they are all aggressions. Of course all US governments have had recourse to all these methods, and not only certain ones. But the dosage and financing vary.

After the crimes committed by Bush, it is tempting to think that there will be a change of method. However, if Washington decides to changes its tactics they will not be more pacific but only less visible. Brzezinski, it should be remembered, was the man who financed bin Laden in Afghanistan to tie the Soviet Union down in a long and costly war and to break its alliance with the Muslim world. Brzezinski is very proud of his success and never loses an opportunity to refer to it.

If the United States decide to apply the Brezinski strategy there will certainly be fewer direct wars. And they will be carried out as often as possible in conjunction with allies. This will help to take care of their media image and the manipulation of the public. And above all the CIA will be more active : efforts will be made to replace wars carried out directly by the United States by indirect wars, making neighbouring countries fight each other, supporting ‘the good war’ and using all kinds of appropriate pretexts. This was the method used successfully by Clinton against Yugoslavia.

The Brzezinski method has two advantages for the United States. They would regain a more presentable image and re-establish their moral authority. And by paying less money to the military-industrial complex the US economy would reinforce its competitive position vis-à-vis Europe, China, India, etc.

In order to economize on wars the Brzezinski strategy would make more use of blackmail as well as of clandestine activities. Blackmail, especially, can be channelled through world economic organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. These are multilateral institutions but dominated by the United States, who can dictate their wishes for the Third World in an apparently more objective manner. But this will not be easy because the World Bank and the IMF have created such antagonism among the countries they have dealt with that the latter are looking for alternatives. The idea of a Bank of the South, launched by Chávez is making progress …

More use would also be made of clandestine activities – in other words, the CIA. This makes it possible to get rid of obstreperous governments at a lower cost.

That is why those who support Brzezinski’s strategy call themselves partisans of ‘soft power’ or ‘intelligent imperialism’. But the danger with this soft power is that the Left will be so glad that Bush has gone that they will reduce their vigilance because – for a certain time – there will be fewer direct wars. Thus the international anti-war movement, which is going through an evident crisis, will react even less strongly when confronted by the more discreet strategies of the Empire.

At any rate, the Empire will not become more peaceful. Sooner or later it will launch more Bush-type wars. This is because the US elite in fact practise the two options alternately.

Presidents come and go, the multinationals remain

These two options, militarist or ‘intelligent’ are not new. And it is not a question of the opposition between republicans and democrats. These two parties do not represent ‘war’ or ‘peace’ but only different electorates, different tactics, and are always at the service of the multinationals. Hence it is not a republican but a democrat, Harry Truman, who launched the war in 1950 against Korea and China. It was not a republican, but a democrat, John Kennedy, who started the war against Vietnam in 1961.

And it is not a popular vote either, against the bourgeois vote. The US multinationals always finance both candidates, putting their eggs in both baskets. But their preferences can be judged by the amounts they contribute. At the beginning of the 1990s the multinationals invested in both candidates, but gave 59 pour cent more to Clinton and the democrats. Instead, from 1996 onwards they gave greater support to the republicans by 67 per cent. In the presidential elections of 2000 it was Bush who was massively financed. And he was declared elected in spite of the fact that the ballots had given his rival Gore the victory. On the other hand, in the presidential elections of 2008 the multinationals have changed sides again and finance Obama more than his rival McCain.

However, the same president can change his own policy. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Bill Clinton reduced the military budget and the orders to the military-industrial complex – for a while. By so doing, he had hoped to relaunch the US economic machine in general. But, although the decision was almost unnoticed, at the end of his mandate the same Clinton made a U-turn : « The military budget of the United States must be increased by 70 per cent. » This just confirms what was said previously : the great political decisions do not depend on the character of one president or another, but on strategies decided higher up. Presidents come and go, the multinationals remain.

US policy alternates its methods

So we shall talk about alternative US policies. After each important setback, there is a – temporary – return to ‘soft power’.

After the defeat of Vietnam and the moral condemnation of the dictatorships installed by Washington in Latin America, the US multinationals brought the nice pastor Jimmy Carter to power, with his wonderful speeches on human rights. After the Cold War and the first war against Iraq, President Clinton tried to involve the Europeans in his wars and gave special attention to media presentation. In fact, the US bourgeoisie was in fact always hesitating between the two options to solve its problems. Or, rather, it alternated between them : a bit more stick, a bit more carrot. But its choices became increasingly difficult. Neither method really solved the problems.

Now, after the disastrous results of the Bush regime, the US bourgeoisie is hesitating between the two options. Either the headlong plunge into more wars or a tactical withdrawal, moving back in order to get a better run-up. The question is not what president they are going to choose, but rather what strategy.

At all events, it is not sure that the Brzezinski strategy is, when all’s said and done, less brutal than that of Bush. It is true that in 2008 he publicly criticized the president, saying that he was stupid to want to attack Iran, because he could not win and that a war would harm the situation of Israel and affect the price of oil, hence the US economy. Certain analysts think that Brzezinski wants to domesticate Iran because he hopes to turn the country around and make it participate one day in the encirclement of Russia. This is the power that remains his bête noire, the obsession of the author of The Great Chessboard. Some think that Brzezinski wants to completely encircle and weaken Russia, if not to wage war on it, and we should not forget China, which has obviously become a major target now. If this should happen, soft power will be transformed into Apocalypse Now.


Their solutions will only exacerbate the problems

That the US bourgeoisie is divided about which line to follow stems from the fact that, in the final analysis, the United States are not so powerful as is believed, neither in the economic field, nor in the military. Each time that the rulers thought they had found the solution, it turned out, after a while, that the solution only made things worse.

For example, in the 1980s, in order to escape recession, the US multinationals fell upon Latin America and other regions of the Third World, gobbling up their raw materials, their businesses and their markets. But this neoliberal offensive so impoverished these countries, provoking economic catastrophes and hence increasing resistance that Latin America turned to the left. From 1989 Washington launched a global war to ensure its total control over oil. But oil continues to escape it. As from 2001 Bush launched his war against the so-called Evil Axis, but only succeeded in strengthening resistance in all regions of the world.

The United States seem to be very strong, but are they really so ? With all their dollars, all their technologies and all their crimes, they have lost the war in Korea (1950) and the war in Vietnam (1961-1975), they have had to withdraw from Lebanon (1982) and from Somalia (1993). They would not have won in Yugoslavia (1999) if President Milosevic had accepted a land war. They have already lost in Iraq and in Afghanistan, even if they do not yet recognize the fact. Are they not a ‘paper tiger’ ? In the long run, aren’t people who defend their wealth and their future stronger than dollars and missiles ?

The United States spend far more on their military budget than all the other nations of the world together but that no longer succeeds in ensuring their world supremacy. One might say that they are their own victims of their fundamental contradiction : everything that they do is against the interests of the immense majority of the inhabitants of the planet, so they themselves create the force that will destroy them.

An army cannot be stronger than the economy that finances it. And the basic weakness that will prevent the US rulers from attaining their objctive is that the US economy is sawing the branch on which it is sitting. By underpaying its workers, by delocalizing part of its production, by ruining the countries of the Third World that should be its partners it is ceaselessly impoverishing those to whom it should be selling. This problem cannot be resolved by either of the two options, the militarist or the ‘intelligent’ one. The militarists increase the expenditure and the resistance.
The ‘intelligent’option, while reducing the terror disseminated by direct warfare, also encourages resistance.

Whatever tactics are chosen the United States will continue to wage war throughout the world in order to impose their economic system and their interests. It is urgent to recreate a strong peace movement and for peoples’ sovereignty.

Llegir més

0 comentarios Envia