[Reader-list] The Anarchist Argument Against Capitalism.

[indersalim]

Dear All,

Two or three more Satyam like frauds, Shining Indian economy would
look like say Nepal's .  Govt. is on the side of Corporate. Future of
53000 thousand employees is at risk. There is no concept of UNIONISM
in Capitalism.  I wonder if defects of Capitalism are debated world
over, more politically than academically, a new hope can emerge; may
even  tell us why there is terrorism, and why there are wars, and even
why there is environmental degradation, poverty and absence of Love,
but…

Here is  the anarchist argument against Capitalism. A little longer to
read, but quite emancipating



http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm_capital.html

Stripping the mystery
from the money markets
________________________________________
Most people only worry about currency exchange rates when they're
changing money for a holiday, but over the last few years, they have
become increasingly hard to ignore. Government ministers appear on TV
to inform us that interest rates will have to go up or down, or
reassure us that, having spent hundreds of millions of pounds, our
standing in the ERM is now safe. What are they talking about?
Part of the move towards European integration, indeed, one of the main
reasons for this move, is making sure that the value of all the
European currencies stays at more or less the same level. If the pound
today is worth 5 francs, 100 pesetas, or 1,000 lira, then it should
always be worth about 5 francs, 100 pesetas, or 1,000 lira. This is
because, if a business is exporting stuff to Germany, it wants to be
sure that the 10,000 marks it gets paid is worth as much as when the
price was agreed, otherwise it could end up making huge losses.
Speculators
The problem is that the value of a currency depends ultimately on how
much other people are willing to pay for it, and that, in turn depends
on millions of other things, like the general strength of the economy,
that no-one can really control. When, as happened with sterling,
speculators (basically the big banks and investment companies) think
that the price is too high, they start selling the currency - forcing
its price down. To try to keep the price up, governments will increase
interest rates, so investors will save their money in that country, or
buy as much of the currency as they can.
Naturally, we're the ones who have to pay for all of this. If interest
rates go up because of speculators attacking a currency, our mortgages
and bank loans become more expensive. When governments use their
reserves to buy up currency, they then have to spend the next few
years building their reserves back up, which means less public
spending and more taxes. And no matter how much of our money the
government spends, they still have little chance of fixing the value
of the currency.
No-one's in charge
The problem isn't simply one of having the wrong government in power -
no matter how 'socialist' the ruling party, they will still be faced
with the same situation. If a price for the currency is not fixed,
then companies will go out of business, with the attendant loss of
jobs, through losses incurred as their payments are changed from one
currency to another. (Not to mention the complications in terms of EU
membership raised by dropping out of the ERM) On the other hand,
because it is not the only player in this game, the state simply isn't
in a position to set the price of its money.
Just as manufacturers try to produce the most profitable goods,
investment companies and banks are drawn to the most profitable
markets. They speculate on currencies because they are trying to make
a profit for their shareholders and investors, even if these are the
same people who end up losing if a currency is devalued. Whatever
happens, they are in the position of enforcers for the 'iron law of
the market', and until that 'law' is challenged, we're going to keep
going in the same old circles. Capitalism, by its nature, is chaotic.
A rational economy requires a new system - anarchism.
………………………………………………

-- 

A guide to how capitalism functions and why it is destroying our world
and the people who live on it. But there is resistance!



Abolish private property" has been a slogan used by anarchists since
the dawn of the industrial age. It's a pity they couldn't have found a
better way of wording it. Anarchist views have become so
misrepresented by defenders of the existing order that some people
think it means that we would take away their house, their car, or even
their TV.
It's nothing like that. It has nothing to do with the personal
possessions that we all should be able to have. When that slogan was
first used 'private property' referred only to private ownership of
productive property.
It was - and still is - about denying anyone a 'right' to own
factories, big farms and the means of distributing products, such as
railways, airlines and road haulage fleets.
Anarchists are opposed to such private ownership because we are
opposed to exploiting people. There are those, usually of the ruling
class, who will deny that there is exploitation in the Ireland of the
1990s. All that stuff belongs to the bad old days ...or does it?
In the distant past things were a lot more obvious. A peasant had to
work two or three days a week on the landlord's estate but got no
payment for it. It was as clear as day that part of the fruit of that
peasant's labour had been stolen by the lord.
Now workers are paid for all the hours they put in. Some may be
underpaid by current standards, but they don't have to give their boss
a set number of hours without pay. So how can anyone claim they are
being exploited in the sense of having to work for nothing so that
some parasite can benefit?
Under the present economic system - capitalism - goods are produced in
order to be sold. Most of us do not have products to sell. We do,
however, have something else to sell.
We have our ability to work, our labour power. Wages are the price we
get for our labour power. Without labour power nothing can be
produced. Even an apple on a tree has no value until it is picked, it
is the labour used to pick it that gives it value. Otherwise it could
not be eaten, it would just rot on the branch and be of no use to
anyone.
It all seems simple and straight- forward. We work (if we are lucky
enough to have a job), our work creates value,and we get paid for it.
So what's the problem? It is that our wages never add up to the full
value of our work.
The difference between what we get in wages and what the product or
service is sold for (after allowing for expenses) is what bosses call
profit. This is their source of income. This is the basis of
capitalism, a small minority living off the unpaid wages of the
majority.
Anarchists are working for a future where the ownership of industry
will be taken away from the bosses and instead will become the
property of society as a whole. Its control and management would be
vested in bodies democratically elected by the workers themselves.
The world of work would not be geared to generating profits for a
class of rich idlers like Tony O'Reilly, Margaret Heffernan or Michael
Smurfit. Instead decisions about what to produce, and what to invest
in improvements and new processes, would be taken on the basis of what
is socially useful. Production would be geared to meet people's needs
rather than to satisfy the greed of a tiny minority. That would be the
end of 'private property'.
Why the bosses system can't sort it out
________________________________________
The list of jobs to be done in Ireland is endless. Houses need to be
built, roads need to be repaired, hospitals and schools need to be
adequately staffed. At the same time 265,300 people are unemployed in
the 26 counties (official figures for end of August, which do not
include those on FAS Schemes, early retirement and SES Schemes). Why
can't these jobs be given to those who want them?
Is it because we have a right wing government and all we need is a
more 'caring' one? Or is there a more fundamental reason, one specific
to capitalism? In this article we explain how long unemployment lines
are part and parcel of the capitalist system. And we explain why
"booms" and "recessions" and millions of people dying of hunger are
something that leftist or "socialist" politicians in government can't
do anything about.
First, a brief economics lesson. Picture a typical business with
workers and owners. In a small business the owner will also be the
boss. But in big corporations and multinationals the owner would be
the majority shareholder who may never meet you. The following still
applies whether there are 10, 100 or 100,000 employed in the business,
and whether the owner/boss is the local shopkeeper or a cigar smoking
Texan billionaire.
What we will look at in this business is the way the finances are
arranged. And in particular, who controls them. The workers who do not
own anything do the majority of the work and get paid by the
owner/boss. Also paid by the owner is a relatively fixed sum for
maintenance of machinery, electricity and gas bills, rents, taxes,
etc.
The bosses who own everything and do at most a small fraction of the
work reward themselves out of what is left over. This means that they
get more for themselves if they pay out less in other expenses. The
main expense that the owners can lessen is the wages and working
conditions of the workers, so these are attacked most.
THE CLASS STRUGGLE
This is what is meant by the class struggle. The capitalist system
creates two main classes, owners/bosses (or ruling class) and workers
(or working class). The more the working class wins (through strikes
and militant action), the less the ruling class has.
The ruling class is a tiny minority and so must defend its "property"
(i.e. the ownership of factories, businesses and land) from the
majority by use of repression. This involves using a wide spectrum of
tools, from the propaganda of the education system and Church to the
State courts, police and army. The working class will be constantly
forced to fight to win and protect gains from this class. And as long
as the capitalist system exists these two classes will be pitted
against each other.
But how does this lead to unemployment? Why not employ everyone,
including developing the third world. Surely this would mean more
workers, more profits and so more money for the ruling class. The
reason why, in the Western World, is competition.
CAPITALIST COMPETITION
Different companies have to compete with each other to sell more, in
order to make higher profits and increase the money in the bosses'
pockets. To protect their present sales and hopefully increase them,
the ruling class must invest in more research and development, more
modern machinery, advertising and marketing. This costs money.
The bosses are faced with the problem of trying to recover this money.
They can produce more of the product in the hope of selling more and
they can try to lower workers wages.
RECESSION
The recession starts when more goods are produced than people can
afford to buy. Sales and therefore profits drop as shops start filling
up with unsold goods. Then the ruling class resorts to the second
method of keeping their profits up. They start imposing wage freezes
and wage cuts.
Recently, for example, Cooks Travel workers in Britain had their wages
"voluntarily" cut - they were given the choice to accept wage cuts or
lose their jobs! This accentuates a downward spiral. As people have
their wages cut they buy less; prices are put up and wages put down.
Finally the owners start sacking people and closing down factories.
The number of unemployed in Cork City has risen by 5,000 this year.
Small companies drop like flies, companies like the Cere Star chemical
factory which laid off 80 of its 86 workers recently. In Britain one
out of every fifty businesses have closed down this year. The
situation is the same elsewhere in the world as the thousands of
returning, out of work, emigrants will testify.
A point about the recession is that profits have not vanished, they
have just gone down low enough for large parts of the ruling class to
make more by earning interest from government funds, stocks and
speculation rather than by direct investment in business. Fortune
magazine in its September issue announced that the average wealth of
the richest 202 people has gone up from $2.6 billion to $2.7 billion
in the past year.
Meanwhile it is the working class who suffer. Unemployment soars,
wages are slashed. Working class confidence dives. Women are most
effected by cuts in public services: housing, hospitals, schools and
transport.
THE SO-CALLED 'BOOM'
The recession ends as it began - when the economic conditions are
right for the ruling class. That is, when they can make high enough
profits by investing in production instead of speculating on the stock
market.
In the absence of a large fighting movement, workers will be forced to
work for less and accept worse conditions. The unemployed are used by
the bosses to threaten the security of workers' jobs. For the same
reason strikes and militant action will be at a minimum. And with less
money being spent on wages, health, education and housing the owners
will take a larger chunk of the profits for themselves.
As the economy pulls out of a recession only one thing is sure - it is
going to collapse again. Not that a "boom" is any way brilliant. It
just means that a large amount of bosses are making an extraordinarily
large amount of money. Any increase in living standards won by the
working class is only a fraction of that which is gained by the ruling
class as the last "mini-boom" showed.
The horrific pictures of people starving in Ethiopia first came in
when the world economy was last at an all time high. Even then,
Thatcher was smashing the miners, cutting support to schools and
hospitals, and crushing the independence of the unions with the new
anti-union laws.
The unemployment rate in Ireland still hovered, officially, between
17% and 19%. Hospitals were being closed down and the youth were still
emigrating to find jobs. The numbers homeless in the United States
reached the highest level ever recorded.
The ruling class will never invest in lower than average profit making
businesses simply because they don't need to. And it is in their
interests to keep people unemployed and hungry. The only sizable gains
that are made for the workers are when they fight for them and win
them against the ruling classes' wishes.
ONE SOLUTION - REVOLUTION
Therefore capitalism can only offer to the worker a continuous
struggle, against the ruling class, for the necessities of life. We
can never be as rich as the ruling class, because we can never own
what they own.
The only way to achieve long term riches for all is by a complete
elimination of the class system. It will have to be replaced with
ownership of the means of production by the working class. And that
means everybody having a fair say in how things are run, not just a
ruling "political party" clique who would be no more than the
replacement of one set of rulers by anotherGlobalisation: the end of
the age of imperialism?
[In Spanish] [In Polish]
________________________________________
IT HAS BECOME increasingly fashionable to use the term globalisation
as a description of the international economy and international
political relations. Globalisation is meant to have taken over from
imperialism, when a handful of large states openly and directly ran
most or the world.
The bosses' magazine, The Economist, ran a major article on this New
World Order called 'The New Geopolitics' last July. It described this
supposed transformation: "The imperial age was a time when countries
A, B and C took over the governments of countries X, Y and Z. The aim
now is to make it possible for the peoples of X, Y and Z to govern
themselves, freeing them from the local toughs who deny them that
right."
Many on the left, including some anarchists, have critically adapted
this description of the New World Order. Central to this is the idea
that the rapid movement of money made possible by the 'information
age' and the growth of multinationals means that the age of
imperialism - when powerful nation states dominated the world - has
been replaced by a more abstract and invisible but equally powerful
rule by capital which is not tied to any state.
At first sight such a description seems compelling, it is 'common
sense' that international trade has increased and that treaties like
the European Union are breaking down the old nation state. But does
globalisation provide us with an accurate description of how the world
works?
In fact the Economist article admits that "...before the first world
war some rich countries were doing almost as much trade with the
outside world as a proportion of GDP as they are doing now (and Japan
was doing far more)". Assuming 'rich' to be a polite word for
'imperialist' here, what has changed is in fact the sheer volume of
world trade (and wealth) along with the fact that smaller countries
are now far more involved.
End of the nation state?
But this is not the end of the nation state. In fact since 1914 the
number of states had rocketed from 62 to 74 by 1946 and today it
stands at 193. The other surprise is that in the wealthy nations state
spending as a percentage of GDP (a measure of the relative wealth of a
country) has actually increased since 1980. The central idea of
globalisation - capital becoming increasingly independent of any
particular nation state therefore has to be questioned. Again the
Economist is unusually honest here in asking what is "the central
reason why a state remains". It answers "the State is still the chief
wielder of organised armed force".
Recent wars clearly divide into two types. Some involve geographic
neighbours fighting each other, commonly over border demarcations like
India and Pakistan. Others involve interventions by countries that may
be 1000's of km's away, most commonly on the basis of 'humanitarian
intervention' as with the UN interventions in Iraq and Somalia or the
NATO intervention in Kosovo. But when we look at these second type of
interventions we find that, far from the distant countries being a
random collection or selected according to size, every single one of
these interventions has been led by one country, the USA.
Beyond this the second and third most important forces in the
intervention will also be drawn from a very small pool of countries
including Britain, France and Italy. Clearly, on the military side at
least, such interventions are not random but are dominated by a small
number of what the more old fashioned amongst us would term
imperialist powers.
The US is the dominant power and, with its NATO junior partners, has
proved able to dictate to any and every other nation on the planet.
Indeed NATO has no realistic rivals. The closest you might come is an
imaginary alliance of China and Russia. This would face a power with
not only a larger and far better equipped military force but which
also has over ten times the economic muscle (NATO's GDP in 1997 was
16,255 billion dollars, Russia's was 447, China's 902).
However the spread of democratic ideas, and knowledge about other
countries, has meant that 'old style' imperialism has lost its
popularity. That is why imperialism today is far more likely to hide
behind 'humanitarianism' and a whole range of supposedly international
bodies. When we look at these 'international' bodies, however, we find
that they are constructed in such a way that only the major powers
have a real say in decision making.
The United Nations
The United Nations was the great hope for many as an alternative to
war, or to a peace where rich countries could do as they please. Even
today many well-meaning people all too often refer to the UN as if it
was an alternative to US or NATO domination of the globe. The UN may
claim to be a global body representing all countries, but in reality -
for effective intervention - it may only act with the say so of a tiny
number of powerful military powers. These are the five permanent
members of the Security Council (USA, Britain, France, Russia and
China), each with the ability to veto any intervention that goes
against their interests.
In effect the UN is a cover behind which these countries can wage war
when it suits them - as when the UN supposedly went into Iraq to
protect Kuwaiti sovereignty in the 1991 Gulf war. But they can stop
the UN acting in other cases, so for instance no UN body invaded the
US to protect Nicaraguan sovereignty when the Reagan administration
were mining its harbours in the 1980's.
Even where the smaller countries disapprove and partly block military
action behind the UN banner, the NATO countries have proved adapt at
ignoring calls for negotiated solutions and using UN resolutions as an
excuse for war as in the ongoing bombing of Iraq. Often these excuses
are astounding hypocritical. NATO could bomb Serbia supposedly to
protect ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo from Serbian paramilitaries
yet stands by while Turkey (a NATO member) massacres ethnic Kurds.
The Security Council mechanism by which the major powers control the
UN and hence military intervention is quite well known on the left.
However what is not so widely realised are the similar mechanisms that
exist by which - without resorting to arms - the major imperialist
powers, and the US in particular, can control the world economy. Once
this is revealed the idea of globalisation becomes no more then a
cheap card trick designed to disguise and take away our attention from
the imperialist domination of the world.
Economic control - Debt, the World Bank and the IMF
One aspect of this economic control has recently got a lot of
attention, if perhaps a little indirectly. That is the massive debt
owed by 'Third World' countries. The Jubilee 2000 campaign, which
demands that 'unpayable' debt be abolished, has had considerable
success in mobilising tens of thousands on demonstrations in support
of this demand. Some 800,000 people in Ireland alone have signed the
petition for the abolition of the debt. What is seldom mentioned is
the central part debt plays for the western powers in dictating how
third world economies are organised.
The debt crisis of the late 1970's and early 1980's proved an ideal
leverage for the western powers to force 'free trade' on the 'third
world'. This occurred when third world countries faced with falling
incomes and rising interest rates defaulted on their loans.
Before this many countries had followed a policy of 'import
substituionism' which meant that they tried to manufacture goods like,
for instance, cars that they had previously imported. Without
suggesting this sort of policy offered a positive alternative role it
did have one big disadvantage for the imperialist powers, it tended to
deny them both markets and cheap raw materials.
What the imperialist powers wanted, and what they essentially have
won, was a system where the third world provided cheap raw materials &
labour and acted as a market to consume the products of companies with
their bases in the imperialist countries. But for obvious reasons this
would not be a popular policy for the people of those countries,
except perhaps the few who could be promised a share of the profits
generated if they would administer the system.
When the debt crisis hit in the mid-1980's, starting with Mexico's
declaration that it was unable to repay loans in 1982, the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund stepped in. Despite the fact that
these institutions are household names most people have very little
idea of what they do or how they function. Until recently they were
quite happy to keep things that way.
One dollar - one vote
In summary, both these bodies are designed in a way which favours the
powerful western nations - they are based on the pro-business
principle of "one dollar - one vote". What is more, their internal
decision making structure gives the US a veto - enabling it to block
any decisions that go against it's economic interests. They are
technically part of the UN structure, but in reality the western
powers have an even greater say in them then they have in the UN. In
the case of the IMF the US holds 17% of the vote while only 15% is
required for a veto. In the case of the World Bank it has managed to
insist that every single president is a US citizen. Thanks in
particular to the debt crisis, the power of these institutions is so
great that no country can defy their dictates without losing the
ability to engage in foreign trade.
The debt crisis forced most developing nations to hand over control of
at least part of their economies to the IMF and World Bank. This
occurred in the 1980's when individual countries became unable to
repay loans. At that stage the IMF and World Bank would step in and
'offer' to facilitate re-structuring of the loans providing the
country concerned implemented an IMF dictated 'Structural Adjustment
Program'.
Typically these involve removing barriers to imports and removing
whatever protection of workers 'rights' and pay exists. This is
usually achieved through high inflation, privatisation and anti-union
laws (and indeed physical repression). Alongside this, spending on
education and health are slashed. In the 1980's an official of the
Inter-American Development Bank described these as "an unparalleled
opportunity to achieve, in the debtor countries, the structural
reforms favoured by the Reagan administration".
The payoff
It shouldn't be imagined, through, that this means the local ruling
class likes these policies. In reality today most Latin American
economies are controlled by locally born but US educated economics
graduates. As Latin American intellectual Xavier Gorostiaga observed
"Neo-liberalism has united the elite's of the South with those of the
North and created the biggest convergence of financial, technological
and military power in history".
In 1960, the income of the wealthiest 20% of the world's population
was 30 times greater than that of the poorest 20%. Today it is over 60
times greater. The top 20%, though, is too crude a measure. According
to the UN "the assets of the 200 richest people are more than the
combined income of 41% of the world's people."
This highlights what is perhaps the major post-war change to the
imperialist system. Before the war the old colonialist countries like
Britain and France had controlled it. They favoured a very obvious
system of direct rule with the local ruling class being composed of
people sent out from the imperialist country for that purpose. This
system caused great resentment amongst the local middle class as it
denied them the possibility of promotion into these roles, and more
often than not the racist nature of the imperialist power meant the
local middle class had to put up with all sorts of petty oppressions.
The post-war years saw many anti-colonial revolts in which the working
class and peasants, under middle class leadership, united to throw out
the imperialists. With the growth of these movements, and the growth
in the military and economic might of the US, the old imperialist
powers were frequently defeated and a section of the local ruling
class would take over the running of the country, often with American
aid but sometimes with Russian aid.
As US dominance grew a post-colonial system was constructed where, in
return for accepting terms of trade favourable to US business, the
local ruling class would be allowed some local control. Some, of
course, were not happy with this but by the 1980's the debt crisis on
the one hand and the collapse of the USSR on the other meant they had
little choice and most came over.
The US has constructed a 'New World Order' in which it pulls almost
all the economic and military strings. With such control there is no
need for it to rely on 'old fashioned' direct imperialist control.
Through the IMF/World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) it
can set the rules of global trade with its junior partners of the G7
nations (the seven most powerful economies).
Recently it has not flinched from using these powers on its 'junior
partners' in particular with its attempts at imposing Genetically
Modified foods on reluctant European states. The handful of 'rogue'
states that are reluctant to accept its rule have been easily
contained, militarily and economically in the case of North Korea and
Cuba or bombed into the stone age in the case of the ongoing war
against Iraq.
Those who suffer from this new imperial order include the workers and
peasants of the developing world. Real wages in most African countries
have fallen by 50-60% since the early 1980s and in Mexico, Costa Rica
and Bolivia average wages have fallen by a third since 1980. But
workers in parts of the developed world, and in particular the US,
have also seen falling living standards and wages.
This global economic order had given new weapons to the major
companies by which they can dictate economic policy to even the
governments of the developed world. The threat of mass withdrawal of
investment has essentially ended the post- war social democratic
compromise throughout Europe, in particular in countries like Britain.
The nation state continues to be central to this 'New World Order'.
Multinationals may trade everywhere but their headquarters,
administrative and research facilities are concentrated in the
imperialist nations. The recent trade war about bananas grown in the
Caribbean, for instance, was fought between US and European based
transnationals, despite the fact that neither grows significant
quantities of bananas.
Limited space here only allows a brief exploration of these bodies
behind which US imperialism hides. Importantly I haven't touched on
resistance to this domination that has taken many forms. This July saw
over 250,000 Turkish workers demonstrating against IMF imposed
'reforms'.
June saw the global J18 day of action; this November will see
widespread action against the WTO summit to be held in Toronto,
Canada. But what should be obvious is that before we can decide on the
most effective form of action against imperialism we need to identify
its real nature - despite whatever mask it may choose to hide behind.



...............................
What about human nature?

A WORLD without war, famine, poverty, racism? A world where there are
no bosses ordering us around and living off our work? A world where
competition is replaced by co-operation and individual freedom?

Sounds nice. Who wouldn't like to see it? But it can never happen, it
runs against human nature. How many times have you heard that line?
How many times have you been told that people are naturally selfish,
greedy, prone to violence and short-sighted?

We are constantly being told that there will always be leaders and
led, rulers and ruled. These ideas are powerful because they seem to
make sense. We do live in a nasty, competitive society.
IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE

Capitalism is based on competition. Countries compete, companies
compete. At work you are encouraged to compete for promotion (or to
avoid being let go), in school you compete against other students to
get the best exam results. With so much competition around it would be
miraculous if people were not competitive.

The question is whether this is natural? The idea that there is some
eternally flawed human nature that we can't do much about gets lots of
support from those with a stake in the existing set-up. Anarchists
reject this as self serving nonsense churned out by those who are
doing well out of capitalism and don't want to see it got rid of.
WHO DOESN'T CARE?

Despite the odds stacked against it we can find just as many examples
of caring and co-operation as we can of selfishness and competition.
Solidarity strikes are an obvious one. We even saw workers in Dunnes
Stores go on strike for months in support of black workers in South
Africa whom they had never even met.

Look at any working class neighbourhood and you will find people
caring for each other. They are organising football teams for the
teenagers, summer projects for the younger children. This doesn't make
sense if greed is part of our human nature.
WILLIE BERMINGHAM

Greed and selfishness don't motivate people to carry kidney donor
cards or make them want to donate blood to the transfusion service.
Greed did not inspire the late Willie Bermingham to start up ALONE to
care for the elderly living on their own.

Selfishness does not lead people to give money to charities. It does
not explain why nurses volunteer to work unpaid for Concern projects
in the less developed countries.

But, we are told, there are those better suited to ruling, that
inequality is natural and inevitable. Before capitalism the ruling
class used the argument that God had chosen them, the 'divine right of
kings'. With capitalism came a new justification. We are told that our
bosses and rulers owe their position to superior talent. They 'merit'
their position.
ARE THEY BETTER THAN YOU?

We are told that with intelligence and hard work anyone can make it.
The other side of the coin is that those at the bottom of society are
there because of their own laziness or because they are not as bright
as the likes of Haughey or Ben Dunne. Are we really expected to accept
that Dan Quayle is an intellectual giant? Are we to believe that the
child of a millionaire has only the same chances as the rest of us?

This is crap pushed at us to stop us questioning why the many do all
the work while the few make all the important decisions and live off
the fat of the land.

The true story is that we are products both of the environment we live
in and of the changes we make on it. We have no control over what sort
of society we are born into but we can change it.
CHANGING VIEWS OF 'NATURAL'

To law-abiding parents stopping the heroin dealers was a job for the
gardai. When the gardai were not moving against the Larry Dunnes and
Ma Bakers those same law-abiding parents thought it quite natural to
organise into the CPAD and put the pushers out of their areas - even
though doing that was illegal.

To the conscripted American soldier in Vietnam blindly obeying orders
from officers seemed perfectly natural. After years of slaughter and
massacres, desertion and even mutiny seemed natural.

To most workers getting in to work each Monday morning and taking
orders from the boss seems natural until they are forced to strike.
They may even challenge the right of the boss to control their
workplace by occupying it.
WE CAN DO IT

We have the power to change the world. The ruling class know this and
try to divide us. They split us into Protestant and Catholic, gay and
straight, black and white, working class and so-called middle class
(white collar workers).

But again and again the system throws us together in struggle. It is
in struggle that we we come to depend on each other and co-operate for
a common goal. This is the first step towards building a society where
selfishness is replaced by co-operation, where the dictate of the boss
is replaced by freedom, where we take control of our own lives and
futures.

......................
Have I got news for you?

SUNDAY MAY 13th saw the first national conference of anti-water charge
campaigns from all around the country. In Dublin a majority of
eligible householders are ignoring the law and refusing to pay.
Similar figures are available elsewhere. Yet this conference received
only one and a half column inches in the Irish Times, and no mention
in any other paper.

Meanwhile the Finance Minister, Ruairi Quinn, was bringing in a new
law which will require accountants to report any of their clients who
they discover are breaking the law by trying to cheat on tax. The
accountants protested by holding meetings and issuing press
statements. Their side was covered in all sections of the media:
radio, newspapers and television. Special TV programmes were made
about them, and they even had an accountant on Questions & Answers to
plead their case.
Biased reporting

This is a good example of the way reporting is carried out. TV, radio
and newspapers publish very bland accounts of what is going on. They
may make a big deal, and give us all a laugh, out of the so-called
sexual scandals of the British Tory party. We also see a lot of
articles criticising working class people such as "dole spongers" or
people claiming "too much" on their insurance. But serious
investigative journalism is usually avoided when it comes to business
or politics. In general, the mass media is pro-business and pro-state.
It is not a conspiracy

This is not a conspiracy theory. We do not belive there is a secret
force controlling mainstream media reporting, intent on bending the
truth one way or another. There are very good reasons why the media is
as it is.

It costs a fortune own a newspaper or TV company. Anybody who does so,
like Tony O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch or Conrad Black, is a millionaire.
Media moguls are in the same league as the rest of the rich. They hang
pout in the same clubs, they buy racehorses from each other and, more
importantly, they have similar economic interests.

They all want a stable economy, friendly to capitalists like
themselves. They support each other in trying to lower their
employees' wages and breaking strikes. They all want to see lower
public spending on services like health, and more tax breaks for the
rich. While it is true that they complete with each other for
audiences and advertising, it is also true that they have far more in
common with each other than with the rest of us.
Power of advertising

There is a more direct link that connects the ruling class with media
coverage. That is advertising and shareholding. Most papers and
broadcasting stations depend on advertising to stay afloat. It costs
thousands of pounds to put even a short advert. on TV or in a national
newspaper. That is why most of it comes from multinationals, banks,
insurance firms, etc.

If one newspaper published articles slagging off the Bank of Ireland,
they would soon find the bank refusing to buy advertising space from
them. There are only so many big advertisers.

If a media outlet was to lose this advertising to a competitor they
would quickly find themselves in trouble. Profits would fall, and the
shareholders would threaten to pull out. So no media company will be
in hurry to publish controversial news about a company that advertises
with them. Likewise, they are most unlikely to publish anything
controversial about people who own shares in their firm.

The process can be more subtle, harder to pinpoint. Most media are
dependent on advertising to be profitable, and advertisers target
certain groups in their campaigns (e.g. people with high incomes). The
paper or TV station, then, will also have to target these groups if it
is to attract advertising, which further narrows the range of opinions
they are likely to broadcast.

These factors help to ensure that little of a controversial nature
gets into the mainstream propaganda networks. It makes simple economic
sense. That is why a massive, if passive, revolt can take place in the
suburbs of Ireland and the media are not interested. And that is why
it takes amateurs putting in voluntary time and energy to publish
alternative news and ideas.
............................................
The World Bank :
Robbery With Violence

Mozambique lies in the southern part of Africa. It is a huge country,
nearly ten times the size of Ireland. Despite great riches under the
ground - diamonds, coal and precious minerals - it is an very poor
country. Today, the legal minimum wage is only $40 per month. Out of a
total working population of nearly seven million adults, a bare 90,000
people earn this sort of money - most people earn a lot less or
nothing.

Last year, in order to maintain basic standards of income, the
Mozambique government announced, with the agreement of business and
the trade unions, that it was increasing the minimum wage by about 37%
or $14 dollars per month. At first sight this might have seemed like a
bonanza - in actual fact it wasn't. Last year, inflation in Mozambique
was running at over 40%. Putting the sums together, you'll see that
even with the increase of $14 per month most people would still be
losing out.

The problem is that this increase of $14 per month never actually
happened. A dispute arose between the World Bank (WB), the
International Monetary (IMF) and the government of Mozambique as to
whether or not Mozambique "could afford" this pay rise. A
representative of the IMF, a person by the name of Sergio Leite,
intervened and ordered that, in accordance with IMF/WB policy,
inflation in Mozambique be kept at just 24% annually. In other words,
no pay rise.

A further dispute then arose. It was pointed out to Mr Leite by a
group representing countries such as Denmark and Sweden that the
infrastructure of Mozambique was already in danger of collapse. Some
30,000 jobs in the government had already gone, largely as result of
cuts introduced by the IMF/WB in 1994. These jobs, a quarter of all
salaried work in the country, were mainly in areas like health and
education - areas already poorly funded.

The outcome for Mozambique, in relation to this particular case, is
still not clear. Despite the interventions of outside governments on
its behalf, the stark likelihood is that the World Bank and IMF will
eventually get their way. This gives some idea of their enormous power
in today's world. It is often power over life and death.
WORLD WAR II

No one ever elected the IMF's Sergio Leite into power. In fact, it is
probable that few people in Mozambique even know who he is, or even
know about what he is doing. In reality, Leite himself is just a
messenger for decisions that are taken about Mozambique in Washington,
London and Geneva.

In the headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF, decisions are also
taken about many other countries - in Africa, Asia, South America, and
European countries like Ireland. It is here that the real course of
our lives is decided. We may vote - at elections - for whomever we
want, or for whatever polices are on offer - but, at the end of the
day, what actually happens is not decided by us but by the likes of
those who run and staff the World Bank and the IMF.

These two institutions - set up during World War 2 - decide on the
main features of our economies today. They decide on whether money
should be put into the economy (increased public spending) or whether
money should be taken out (cutbacks). They have one main consideration
in mind when they make these decisions. They consider 'what is the
best thing for business' - that's what happened in Mozambique.
FAVOURABLE

The World Bank and IMF obtained the power that they now have largely
as result of the unequal balance in wealth that was created in the
world by colonialism. Countries like Mozambique, and to a lesser
degree Ireland, were plundered under colonialism. They were left with
very little in terms of infrastructure - that is schools, housing,
roads, electricity services, hospitals, etc. On the other hand,
countries such as England, France, Italy and the United States emerged
in much better condition. It was these countries, the main
beneficiaries of colonialism, that set up the World Bank and the IMF
in 1944.

The proper name for the World Bank is actually the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development. From this name, one can get some
idea of what the actual purpose of the WB is meant to be: "to loan
money at a favourable rate to developing countries for the purposes of
economic development and progress."

In theory this is a great idea. Developed countries like Britain, the
USA and Japan have enormous resources and wealth at their disposal.
Why shouldn't they lend money at a reasonable rate to poorer countries
for the purposes of development? In fact, obtaining cheap money
(credit) so as to provide hospitals, schools, roads, power plants, and
a clean water supply is one of the best ways to help build up the
wealth of a country.

Actually, it is one of the best ways to help people. The problem with
this theory, however, is that it takes no account of capitalism - the
prevailing manner in which the world is organised. Because of
capitalism the World Bank creates poverty and destitution in most
countries that it involves itself with: (see box 1)
DEBT IS GOOD

Colonialism created massive inequality wherever it went. Many Irish
people, for example, will be familiar with this in regard to Britain -
a country that has always been wealthier than Ireland. But in 1870,
when colonialism was well underway in Africa, Asia and the Americas,
estimates of the disparity in wealth in world were put at only one to
ten. That is, rich countries were ten times wealthier than poor
countries. By 1960 however - just ninety years later - that estimate
of the disparity had risen to thirty-eight times. (That is, rich
countries were thirty-eight times wealthier than poor countries.)

The amazing thing is, is that just twenty-five years on from that
again (in 1985) the estimate had risen to fifty-two times. This gives
some idea of the impact that institutions like the World Bank and the
IMF have had from the time they were set up. Rather than helping to
alleviate inequality they began, very quickly, to make it worse.

Looking at the figure above, another thing is also very noticeable. In
more recent decades (since the early 1970s) the increase in the
disparity in wealth has actually begun to accelerate - that is, it is
beginning to increase at a faster and faster pace. To explain and
understand why is this so, a couple of things must be borne in mind -
these give some indication of the disaster than is now facing many
millions of people in this world. It also explains, in part, why
nothing short of revolution will change it.

Borrowing to pay for development became an accepted (and correct) part
of the world economy after WW2. Almost all countries borrowed to some
degree - in part as a response to the need to develop, in part because
borrowing was an accepted economic practice. However, with the onset
of massive oil price rises in the early seventies, prices
sky-rocketed. So did the interest rates that were payable on borrowed
money. In response to this, many countries (in the First World) cut
back on their borrowing and spending - this in turn led to a massive
recession.
BIG STICK

All countries were hit by the oil crisis and by the recession. But
poorer countries were hit severely. Because their economies were weak
and vulnerable they had to continue borrowing despite the high costs
involved. Some just borrowed to pay the interest on the massive debts
that they had already accrued with the WB. Between 1977 and 1982, the
crisis that became known as the 'Debt Mountain' was well underway.

In some countries over 50% of all monies earned in exports was
immediately going to pay off just the interest on the debt. This was
the first real occasion when the IMF and the World Bank began to
step-in with the big stick, demanding that things be done its way or
else. In particular, the World Bank underwrote a lot of the world's
debt (much of which was owed to private banks).

In this way, it began to obtain an enormous say in the internal
affairs of many countries. Indeed, it should be borne in mind, that
while this was happening at its worst in Africa, it happened to some
degree in all countries including Ireland

As the 'Debt Mountain' began to grow, economic thinking (if one could
call it that) also began to shift towards what we now call
'Thatcherism' or 'Reaganomics'. This meant, that if there were bills
to be paid, then it was better to get poor people to pay them. These
sorts of policies began to be applied throughout Africa, in
particular, from the early 1980s onwards. They were known as
Structural Adjustment Policies (or SAPs).

In general, their thrust was to cut funding to all non-essential
services as a means of 'saving money' in the debtor countries
(Mozambique for example). The 'saved money' could then be diverted to
paying off the banks (the WB included). One of the major problems with
SAPs, as they are applied, is that 'non-essential services' are often
defined as the very services that the most people need in the first
place - for instance hospitals, schools and the public services in
general.
DISASTER

Even in the early eighties, some countries were able to avoid some of
the more stringent aspects of the SAPs. This was largely because of
the existence of the Soviet Union, which, to a degree, funded
development in its own right. For obvious reasons, the Soviet Union
tended to financially support countries that took a friendly attitude
to it; it also tended to trade with these countries. This, at least,
gave some countries an alternative source of credit and food (which
allowed them some bargaining room with the IMF/WB).

However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, this fallback
position was removed. Many countries, from that point on, had no
choice but to deal with and accept the commands of the World Bank and
the IMF - which led to the real disaster that is now facing millions
in the world. At a time of enormous wealth, millions are starving and
dying from problems that could be eradicated with a relatively small
sum of money.

The United Nations has estimated that just $11 billion would pay for
all the primary health care needs in all countries that are, today,
considered to be 'developing countries'. This includes catering for
all the immunisation requirements in these countries and for the
removal of all serious malnutrition, as well as providing safe, clean
drinking water for everyone. Just $11 billion - one tenth of what rich
countries spend on weapons every year.

Since the introduction of the SAPs in the 1980s, levels of poverty and
destitution have risen rapidly in Africa and throughout the world (see
graphic 1). Ironically, the World Bank's World Development Report (a
yearly publication) often flags this. In fact, there is no better
source for data on the world's appalling poverty statistics.

But the World Bank, while having the facts and figures at its
fingertips, rarely draws the right conclusions about its polices. On
certain occasions, it is true, it does admit to 'errors', and even
'miscalculations' with regards to the SAPs. But, largely, it tends to
blame forces outside its control, like 'Africa' or 'corruption' or
'famine'. The fact is is that the SAPs, more than any other single
policy strategy in the last twenty years, have impoverished millions.
WHO BENEFITS?

Given the degree of debt that currently exists in the world, one might
be forgiven for thinking that the world's economic system has gone
mad. After all, it is a strange to think that a country as rich as
Mozambique is close to collapse - given its mineral wealth, its
natural amenities and its resources. Indeed the impression that the
world's economic system is 'out of control' is quiet wrong. Bear in
mind that now as much as ever, enormous wealth is being made from the
misery of the poor. Therein is the key to what is wrong.

Institutions like the WB and IMF have an enormous say in the running
of the world - this is why they were set-up. But who benefits from
this power? You? Me? Hardly. The real beneficiaries are the people who
depend on the Third World for its enormous mineral resources and for
its cheap labour pool. Coal, diamonds, alumina, coffee, tea, grain,
nickel, tin (to name but a few) are all purchased at prices that are
far, far below their real worth.

We may ultimately buy the tea or the coffee or the coal - but it is
the merchants in the middle that make the real profit. Ultimately they
control the price of many commodities - and in this way they also
obtain an important say over the wages and conditions of the workers
in these countries. From such control comes the massive profits that
are the hallmark of capitalism today.

Kevin Doyle
THE World Bank Game

The Money: The USA, Canada and Britain set up the WB. These 'donor
countries' also set up the rules. 'Donor countries' vote on the WB
Board according to the size of their 'donations'. The USA has always
dominated the Bank.

The Projects: Hydroelectric dams, ports and highways are favoured by
the WB. Projects like these eat up 50% of all money 'loaned'. Often
the ports are located 'conveniently close' to a some Multinational
company that is doing business in the country at the same time. For
example: modern deep sea port and dock facilities to allow for the
export of iron ore, coal or alumina.

The Jobs: Often very few jobs result. For instance, 'heavy industry'
construction is often contracted back to companies in the 'donor
countries'. (In fact a lot of the 'loaned money' ends up there).

The Bills: The 'debtor country' pays the bills on all constructions.
Often the final bill is a massive mark-up when interest payments are
taken into account. A further headache is that 'heavy industry'
construction is often the wrong thing for poorer countries. Their
requirements are often much more basic: housing, water pipes,
irrigation, etc.

The People: WB bank planners don't tend to consider 'the other side'
of development: community disruption, environmental degradation, etc.
Dam construction is a classic example - disrupting huge numbers of
people for benefits that might often only accrue to a few.

Human Rights? Not necessary. The WB will work with all types - the
bottom line is you must be a capitalist. The WB regularly does
business with dictatorships. Often people connected with the
dictatorship obtain 'spin-off businesses' from the main project
(bribery and backhanders are not uncommon.)
The World bank and Cheap Labour

Cheap labour means massive profits for business people. In today's
world this means that companies are much more prepared to travel
anywhere to rip-off workers. The World Bank encourages this by
"encouraging developing countries to adopt favourable wage polices".
In return the World Bank gives these countries a good 'credit rating'.
An example of this policy in action is the case of Indonesia where the
government has officially set the minimum wage below the poverty line.
But who benefits?

Nike, the sports shoe company, pays its workers in Indonesia just 16p
an hour to make its 'Nike Air Pegasus' brand. These shoes sell for
over £45 here in Ireland. Total manufacturing labour costs for this
type of shoe are only 2% of the final retail cost!
WORLD Bank death: fighting back

The World Bank and the IMF are killing thousands of people every week
with their policies. They won't change unless they are forced to.
During the coming months the Workers Solidarity Movement - along with
other anarchist groups in France, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and Italy
- is taking part in a campaign to highlight and fight against 'WORLD
BANK DEATH'.

Demonstrations are planned on May Day. A further mobilisation with
take place in Lyon, in France, in June to coincide with the next
meeting to the G-7 (the 'donor countries' in the WB). If you want to
get help out with these protests, contact the WSM as soon as possible.
Remember the more people that get involved, the more we can do!