Capitalism and Militarism
'Capitalism and Militarism' -- notes from a talk by Jim Devine
(marxist economist based in LA)
----------
Capitalism and Militarism
a. Introduction. I'm going to talk about "capitalism and militarism"
rather than simply military spending.
b. What is Militarism?
1. Militarism refers to excessive military spending, going beyond
mere defense. It also refers to attacks on other countries,
aggressive wars.
2. The hand-out by Seymour Melman shows the meaning of militarism
in the United States: we are sacrificing all sorts of important
civilian goals in order to pay for the military.
3. Further, I believe that the recent unprovoked attack on Iraq was
a clear example of militarism. On the other hand, I don't see the
U.S. role in World War II as involving militarism.
c. Themes and Conclusion.
1. The great conservative economist Joseph Schumpeter argued that
militarism and imperialism were atavisms, left over from old-
fashioned, backward, systems such as feudalism, in which military
might and experience were central to social advancement of
individuals and to maintaining the social order.
2. He had a point. But this poses the question: why does militarism
persist even in the richest and most capitalist countries in the
world, such as the United States?
3. To give you an idea of my conclusion: yes, there is a strong
positive connection between capitalism and militarism, but that
doesn't mean that capitalism has to imply militarism.
d. What is Capitalism?
1. It's an economy in which the major productive resources beyond
labor - i.e., the means of production - are owned by a small
minority of the population, giving them control over the system.
2. This small minority dominates politics, putting a major emphasis
on the preservation and extension of their property rights.
3. It's more than an economy in which markets and exchange dominate
economic relations between people.
i. It's an economy in which competition for profits - the profit
motive - is the driving force. The big profits do not come from
"normal" trade (selling products that people want), but from
expansion, innovation, fraud, lawsuits, lobbying, and the like.
ii. Capitalists "grow their businesses" to gain profits and survive
the battle of competition, while "plowing their profits back
into the business" to expand.
iii. They try to gain monopolies for themselves, while fighting to
maintain existing monopoly positions.
iv. As a result of this competitive expansion, capitalism is a
dynamic system, that keeps on changing, disrupting individual
lives, families, and communities, creating social problems.
e. How Capitalism Encourages Militarism. There are several levels
here. In reality, they interact and often reinforce each other.
1. (simple profit-seeking) Individual capitalists expand
internationally, trying to profit by controlling natural
resources (oil!), markets for products, access to cheap labor,
contracts to build or fix infrastructure (Bechtel!), etc. They
strive to get government-guaranteed monopolies that preserve
high profits.
i. Expanding internationally is one major way to compete.
ii. Having a government that has a strong international position
allows monopolization efforts to prevail. International
propagation of the U.S. system of "intellectual property
rights," keep medicines at really high prices even if it leads
to deaths of people who can't afford them.
iii. Other forces profit mightily from government military
contracts (the military industrial complex).
iv. Coalitions favoring militarism can be formed, as with the
military-industrial complex's current alliance with the oil
industry.
v. Capitalist politics typically works following pressure from
such coalitions of the powerful. (It wasn't a single industry -
such as the oil interests - that was behind the recent war
against Iraq. Forces also included the pro-Israel bloc,
fundamentalist Christians, etc.) These forces represent a major
political force driving the government to back up their claims,
encouraging militarism.
2. (Macroeconomic) In recent decades, the U.S. and the entire
world has seen a chronic problem of insufficient demand and
idle capacity, hurting profits. Similar problems were seen
before World War I and in the period between the World Wars.
This led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
i. Disaster and depression aren't inevitable, however.
ii. Spending on the welfare state (health, education, etc.) or
for raising wages and salaries could solve the problem, but
iii. among the powerful militarist bloc, military spending and war
represent politically correct substitutes for these in boosting
the economy. They oppose civilian spending unless it's
obviously profitable for them.
iv. One of the major reasons for prosperity during the 1950s &
1960s was warfare state spending, which acted as a "balance
wheel" on the economy, moderating its fluctuations.
3. (societal effects) Militarism and war
i. represent major social forces for papering over conflicts and
social problems within a nation, unifying around the flag.
ii. are linked to so-called "traditional" values, as in the extreme
case where the Nazis pushing of kinder-küche-kirche. In the U.S.,
we see a more moderate push to return to the "traditional
values" of the 1950s. This includes people such as Attorney
General John Ashcroft who see punitive solutions to all problems
and minimize the need to protect civil liberties.
iii. provide an outlet for advancement to those workers who are
left behind in slums and other areas, with inadequate jobs.
As the famous late 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes
noted, militarism can be a solution to the "social problem."
4. (international competition) The competition among capitalist
nation-states is encouraged by the competition among capitalists
from various nations to attain or protect monopoly positions.
Militarism of one country is then encouraged by that of another,
as seen in arms races, the effort to grab territory for strategic
reasons, etc.
i. this was a major reason for the competitive militarism that
encouraged the tensions that caused World War I.
ii. it also encouraged World War II, for similar reasons, in
addition to encouraging the "trade wars" (aggressive
protectionism in foreign trade) that encouraged the Great
Depression of the 1930s.
iii. competition with the U.S.S.R., a non-capitalist but still
militarist country, had a similar effect from 1945 until
1989 or so.
5. (hegemonism) These days, the militarism of the U.S. government
does not seem to be responding to competition of these sorts.
i. Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., while containment could have
worked. Most "third world" countries aren't competitors for the
capitalists of the U.S. and other dominant capitalist countries.
Instead, they represent possible places for profitable investment.
ii. Europe and Japan are hardly military or economic threats to the
U.S. these days.
iii. We see a "uni-polar" world, with a single super-power.
6. If the nation-vs.-nation story isn't working, something else is
going on.
i. Obviously, there are private benefits to powerful companies and
individuals and coalitions, as noted above. Dominating
recalcitrant countries in what used to be called "the third
world" can guarantee profits and monopoly.
i(a). For example, the U.S.-backed International Monetary Fund has
pushed and shoved South Korea to open its markets to U.S.
investment, even though (or even because) it stimulated a
financial crisis (in 1997) that allowed U.S. businesses to
buy up key elements of the Korean economy at rock-bottom
"fire sale" prices.
i(b). A key problem is that the growing world economy - often
called globalization - needs a world government, to maintain
order, avoiding conflicts between nations and preventing
non-governmental violence (sometimes called "terrorism").
i(c). The powerful companies, individuals, and coalitions in the
U.S. don't see the United Nations and similar multilateral
institutions as adequate.
i(d). The U.S. is trying to establish a world government that's
"under its thumb," perhaps incorporating the U.N. as a
subordinate institution. A U.S.-dominated world government
would be highly profitable to the dominant political bloc.
f. Capitalism Doesn't Always Involve Militarism.
1. Examples of Capitalist non-Militarism.
ii. Sweden: the welfare state.
ii. Costa Rica, until the U.S. encouraged it to set up a military.
iii. Germany or Japan, both of which have been very pacifist since
World War II. However, they both profited from U.S. militarism
during the Cold War.
iv. The European Union, which lacks the unity sufficient to engage
in wars and the like.
2. Why? There are lots of historically-specific reasons. But there
are also some general reasons:
i. There are some businesses that do not profit much if at all from
militarism or see the possible long-term downside of militarism.
They prefer multilateral solutions, efforts to use diplomacy and
the like.
ii. Military spending is usually not a very efficient way of helping
the supply side of the economy grow. (It "primes the pump," but
isn't very good at improving the quality of the pump.) There are
technical spin-offs from military spending but they are
ii(a). expensive, due to the high costs encouraged by the
military-industrial complex (gold-plated toilet seats, etc.);
and
ii(b). sometimes very hard to "capture" for the country, as when
Japan took advantage of the military-inspired advances in
electronics.
ii(c). Thus, after World War II until the 1990s, non-militarist
countries such as Germany and Japan were able to win in
the competitive battle with the U.S.
3. Workers and other people (including small business-owners) who
pay the taxes, suffer from inadequate public services, die in
war, etc.
4. Other forces, such as well-intentioned liberals and religious
groups. (It ain't all economics.)
5. These can form an international movement, as with opposition
to Operation Iraqi Liberation. The people of Turkey and France,
for example, were successful in getting their countries to
oppose the war.
6. The limited inter-country rivalry these days may mean that
there's an opportunity to create a non-militarist and
multilateral solution to the world's problems. A super-power
can use its power for evil, but it can also use it for good.
g. Can Capitalism Co-Exist with an end to Militarism?
1. It would be useful to do an experiment and see the answer to
this question.
|