D.

0 Section D Introduction
anarchism.pageabode.com /afaq/secDint.html

Section D - How do statism and capitalism affect society?

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

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

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

It is important to remember that most supporters of capitalism refuse to do this. Yes, some
of them point out some flaws and problems within society but they never relate them to
the system as such. As Noam Chomsky points out, they "ignor[e] the catastrophes of
capitalism or, on the rare occasions when some problem is noticed, attribut[e] them to any
cause other than the system that consistently brings them about." [Deterring
Democracy, p. 232] Thus we have people, say, attacking imperialist adventures while, at
the same time, supporting the capitalist system which drives it. Or opposing state
intervention in the name of "freedom" while supporting an economic system which by its
working forces the state to intervene simply to keep it going and society together. The
contradictions multiple, simply because the symptoms are addressed, never the roots of
1/3
the problems.

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

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

These links and interaction between statism and capitalism are to be expected due to
their similar nature. As anarchists have long argued, at root they are based on the same
hierarchical principle. Proudhon, for example, regarded "the capitalist principle" and "the
governmental principle" as "one and the same principle . . . abolition of the exploitation of
man by man and the abolition of the government of man by man, are one and the same
formula." [quoted by Wayne Thorpe, "The Workers Themselves", p. 279] This means
that anarchists reject the notion that political reforms are enough in themselves and
instead stress that they must be linked to (or, at least, take into account) economic
change. This means, for example, while we oppose specific imperialist wars and
occupation, we recognise that they will reoccur until such time as the economic forces
2/3
which generate them are abolished. Similarly, we do not automatically think all attempts to
reduce state intervention should be supported simply because they appear to reduce the
state. Instead, we consider who is introducing the reforms, why they are doing so and
what the results will be. If the "reforms" are simply a case of politicians redirecting state
intervention away from the welfare state to bolster capitalist power and profits, we would
not support the change. Anarchist opposition to neo-liberalism flows from our awareness
of the existence of economic and social power and inequality and its impact on society
and the political structure.

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

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

3/3