Nonviolence versus capitalism
by Brian
Martin
Martin
Resisters' International,
2001
ISBN 0903517 19 1
This file contains the complete text of the book in html
Contents
3. Capitalism
from the viewpoint of nonviolence strategy
4.
Conventional anticapitalist strategies
5. Nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism
12. Economic
alternatives as strategies
Summary
Nonviolent action is the most
promising method of moving beyond capitalism to a more humane social
and economic system. How can this be achieved? Nonviolence versus
Capitalism offers a systematic approach, starting with an analysis of
capitalism from the viewpoint of nonviolence, outlining nonviolent
economic alternatives and describing what is involved in a
nonviolence strategy. A check list for activists is proposed and used
to assess diverse campaigns, including workers' struggles, sabotage,
environmental campaigns, social defence, global campaigns and
economic alternatives.
Brian Martin is associate
professor in Science, Technology & Society at the University of
Wollongong, Australia. He has studied nonviolent action since the
late 1970s, is the author of many books and articles, and has long
been involved in activist groups.
Email: brian_martin@uow.edu.au
Web: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/
Acknowledgments
This book is an outgrowth of an
article with the same title published in Gandhi Marg, Vol. 21,
No. 3, October-December 1999, pp. 283-312, with revisions, updates
and the addition of much new material, especially on strategy
(chapters 6 to12). I thank Mary Cawte, Ellen Elster, David Lewit,
Joanne Sheehan, Wendy Varney, Carl Watner and Tom Weber for helpful
comments on drafts.
1
1
Introduction
Go to:
Nonviolent action is the most
promising method for moving beyond capitalism to a more humane social
and economic system. Approaches based on using state power --
including state socialism and socialist electoralism -- have been
tried and failed. Dramatic changes are definitely needed because
capitalism, despite its undoubted strengths, continues to cause
enormous suffering. Nonviolent action as an approach has the capacity
to transform capitalism, though there are many obstacles
involved.
With the collapse of most state
socialist systems, there has been since 1990 much triumphal rhetoric
about the superiority and inevitability of capitalism. But it is far
from an ideal system -- very far. It is producing economic inequality
on a massive scale, with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting
richer. It is destroying traditional cultures, replacing them with a
homogeneous consumer culture that lacks authentic community. It is
causing enormous environmental damage, undermining biological
diversity and depleting resources. It is making the lives of most
workers bleak and meaningless, while denying work to those who do not
fit the available slots.
But capitalism does produce a
massive quantity of goods. It harnesses human acquisitive drives to
the task of production unlike any other system. Within market
parameters, it provides goods and services in a generally responsive
fashion, and has dramatically raised material living standards in
many countries. Capitalism does have strengths. Do the weaknesses
really matter, if there is no alternative?
Actually, it is absurd to say that
capitalism is inevitable. This is really just an excuse for doing
nothing to examine and promote improvements and alternatives. The way
society is organised is due to the actions of people, and these
actions can change. History shows a tremendous range of possibilities
for human patterns of interaction. Furthermore, technological
development is creating new options for the structuring of work,
communication and interaction. Considering that capitalism is only a
few hundred years old and continues to change, and that there is
nothing approaching agreement that the current system is ideal, the
assumption of inevitability is very weak indeed.
Defenders of capitalism assume
that there are only two basic options: either capitalism or some sort
of system based on authoritarian government, either state socialism
or some other sort of dictatorship. (Capitalism is assumed to go hand
in hand with representative government, but this ignores those
countries with capitalist economies and authoritarian politics,
including fascism and military dictatorship.) But of course there are
more than these two options. There are other ways of organising
economic and social life. The challenge is to figure out which ones
are worthwhile and worth pursuing.
Even setting aside options that
are completely different, capitalism is by no means a fixed and final
system. It will be transformed and will transform itself in coming
decades. It could become better or it could become worse, depending
on what people do about it.
The two most prominent strategies
against capitalism pursued during the 1900s were state socialism and
socialist electoralism. Both were attempts to use the power of the
state to transform capitalist relations. State socialism -- as in the
Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China -- relied on capture
of state power by a revolutionary party which, in the name of the
working class, eliminated private ownership and replaced it by state
ownership. In practice the communist party became a new source of
rule, in many cases highly repressive.
Socialist electoralism is an
attempt to bring about socialism more gradually, gaining state power
through the electoral system, increasing the level of state ownership
and putting restraints on capitalists. It has been pursued in
countries such as Sweden, France and Italy. In practice this strategy
has failed by being watered down. Rather than bringing about a
transition to socialism, left-wing parties have instead become
managers of capitalism, fostering social democracy, in effect an
enlightened reform of capitalism. In many cases they have eventually
adopted the same policies as their political rivals.
It may seem that capitalism, state
socialism and social democracy are very different, but they all rely
on the power of the state and hence, ultimately, on violence for
control of society. Capitalism relies on state power to protect
private property, state socialism relies on state power to run both
the economic and political system and social democracy relies on
state power to manage the economy. So at a deep level -- the level of
power for social control, and the ultimate reliance on violence --
these three approaches have much in common.
Nonviolent action offers another
road, with the potential to be a radical challenge to capitalism
without relying on state power. There are hundreds of methods of
nonviolent action, including leafletting, strikes, boycotts, marches,
sit-ins, refusals to obey and setting up alternative institutions.
These methods have been used extensively in all sorts of settings.
The most well known are the campaigns for Indian independence led by
Gandhi. Here is a list of some of the most often cited highlights of
nonviolent action from 1900 onwards.
- Resistance to Russian
domination in Finland, 1899-1904. - Collapse of the Kapp Putsch, a
military coup in Germany, 1920. - German resistance to the
French-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr, 1923. - Gandhi's campaigns in India,
1920s, 1930s and 1940s. - Toppling of 10 military
dictatorships in South and Central America, 1930s to
1950s. - Resistance in several European
countries to the Nazi occupation, 1940-1945. - US civil rights movement,
1950s and 1960s. - Sarvodaya campaigns in India
and Sri Lanka, 1950s onwards. - Collapse of the Algerian
Generals' Revolt, 1961. - Czechoslovak resistance to the
Soviet invasion, 1968. - The Iranian revolution,
1978-1979. - Direct action against nuclear
power in various countries, 1970s onwards. - Campaigns against logging,
large dams, freeways and on other environmental issues, 1970s
onwards. - People power in the
Philippines to bring down the Marcos dictatorship,
1986. - Palestinian intifada,
1987-1993. - Prodemocracy movement in
China, 1989. - Collapse of East European
regimes, 1989. - Thwarting of a coup in the
Soviet Union, 1991. - Elimination of apartheid in
South Africa, early 1990s. - Forced resignation of
Indonesian President Suharto, 1998. - Removal of Serbian ruler
Milosevich, 2000.
These are all examples of major
challenges to aggression, repression and oppression carried out
largely or entirely without violence (though of course violence is
often used against nonviolent activists). These events include
resistance to military invasion, toppling of repressive regimes and
challenges to oppressive social systems or hazardous practices. A
number of social movements, notably the feminist and environmental
movements, have made nonviolent action an integral part of their
campaigning.
But what about nonviolent action
against capitalism? A look down this list reveals that not a single
one of these highly prominent actions is specifically targeted
against capitalism.
Actually, there has been an
enormous range of nonviolent action against aspects of capitalism --
just not usually at the dramatic level of the above examples.
[1]
For example:
- workers' direct action against
employers, such as strikes, boycotts, work-to-rule and factory
occupations, to obtain better pay and conditions or a greater say
in decision making; - workers' control and
cooperatives, providing alternatives to capitalist ownership and
management; - environmental movement
campaigns against damaging industries, harmful products and new
industrial developments; - local campaigns against
commercial developments (often linked to campaigns
elsewhere); - squatting in unoccupied
buildings as a means of exposing and challenging private control
over housing; - global campaigns against
agencies and arrangements extending the power of capital, such as
campaigns against the World Bank and the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment; - direct action against
genetically engineered crops.
As well as these initiatives that
challenge aspects of capitalism, a close look at just about any
aspect of capitalist society will reveal challenges using nonviolent
action. Consider advertising, a crucial part of consumerism and the
commodity-based culture. Responses have included rejection of
advertising messages (as in "no junk mail" signs on mail boxes),
campaigns against particular styles of advertising, and the creative
defacing of billboards.
Nonviolent resistance to
capitalism has occurred from the beginning of the industrial
revolution through to the November-December 1999 protests in Seattle
against the World Trade Organisation and subsequent protests in
Washington DC, Prague, Melbourne and other cities against the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other global economic
management forums. While there is ample nonviolent action within and
against the capitalist system, this has not so often been conceived
in terms of a nonviolence framework. Instead, the rhetoric and
imagery of class struggle, including armed struggle, have had greater
saliency in anticapitalist movements. Especially among Marxist
organisers, there is neglect of or even antagonism to
nonviolence.
The problem is compounded by a
neglect of capitalism in writing and thinking on nonviolence.
Gandhi's constructive programme of village democracy and
self-reliance was certainly noncapitalist, although capitalism as a
system was not widely seen as one of his main targets in campaigning.
However, nonviolence writers since Gandhi have largely neglected
capitalism, and indeed this neglect can be traced to the heart of the
consent theory of power used by Gene Sharp as the theoretical
foundation of nonviolence theory.[2]
Sharp's model assumes a dichotomy between rulers and subjects: if
subjects withdraw consent, the power of rulers dissolves. This model
works best, as a foundation for practice, when rulers are obvious, as
in a military dictatorship.
From the point of the view of the
ruler-subject model, capitalism is a complex system. There used to be
just a few owners at the top (and there still are a few such as Bill
Gates and Rupert Murdoch), but increasingly ownership is dispersed
among shareholders and managerial power dispersed within corporate
bureaucracies. "Withdrawing consent" sounds easy enough in principle
but what does it mean in practice: boycotting all corporations or
refusing the boss's orders? Most people participate in the market
system in various ways that are not easily captured by the
ruler-subject picture.
Capitalism is, in many ways, a
more robust type of system than a dictatorial regime. Market
relations draw people in, making them a part of the system, whereas a
dictatorship has a more difficult time providing jobs and benefits to
a large segment of the population. Injustice is experienced under
both capitalism and a dictatorship, but with a dictatorship the
source of injustice is easier to pinpoint. For nonviolence theory and
practice, dictatorship is an "easy case": people know what needs to
be challenged, and the primary questions are about how to mobilise
support and maintain campaigning momentum in the face of repression.
Something more sophisticated is needed to transform
capitalism.
Many of the most powerful
instances of nonviolent action have been largely spontaneous, with
little planning or training. This is often the case in resistance to
military coups, such as the 1920 Kapp Putsch in Germany, the 1961
Algerian Generals' Revolt and the 1991 coup in the Soviet Union. In
each case the nonviolent resistance was improvised on the spot,
partly because there was little or no warning that a coup would
occur. Even in some of the longer campaigns, the level of planning
and training has been low, such as the intifada in Palestine, which
burst on the scene as a surprise to both Israelis and the Palestinian
leadership and whose course over the years was more an organic
development than a carefully calculated trajectory.
Spontaneous nonviolent action has
a better chance of being successful when people have an intuitive
grasp of what needs to be changed. In the case of a military coup,
the coup must be defeated and the status quo (or better) restored.
The intifada was a change of tactics -- it was mass unarmed action
rather than terrorism, which had been used unsuccessfully by the
Palestinian Liberation Organisation -- for a widely understood goal,
namely ending the Israeli occupation. But if the goal is not so
obvious to participants, then spontaneous nonviolent action -- or
violence, for that matter -- is far less likely to be
effective.
It was Gandhi who pioneered
planning for nonviolent action. He saw overt action as part of a
long-term strategy for social change, requiring great care in
preparation, planning, discipline and training. His example has been
taken to heart by a number of social movements, such as the US civil
rights movement and antinuclear campaigners. Realising that an action
may lack impact without sufficient preparation, if it is aimed at the
wrong target or is ill-timed, campaigners have spent great effort in
social analysis, community education and nonviolence training, in
order to maximise effectiveness.
With planned nonviolent action,
there is a much greater capacity to deal with complex systems of
oppression, by working out targets that deal with the source of
problems as well as tapping into popular concerns. A strike for
higher pay can be valuable to exploited workers but does not
challenge the relationship between employers and workers, whereas a
work-in to demand a greater say in what is produced aims at a more
fundamental change in the relationship.
It is worth noting that the
strategies of Leninism and socialist electoralism are calculated,
indirect and not "spontaneous." Workers are expected to support
political parties claiming to operate on their behalf rather than
acting directly against those they see as their exploiters, such as
their immediate bosses. Many workers have been sufficiently convinced
that they channel their efforts away from "obvious" targets such as
prominent capitalists, instead aiming at party building or election
campaigning. Anticapitalist activists pursuing a strategy based on
nonviolence can learn from this experience: workers and others are
quite capable of understanding a long-term strategy for change that
initially might not seem as intuitive as tackling obvious targets.
The challenge is to develop a suitable strategy that engages large
numbers of people.
There is another important reason
why nonviolence planning is needed to tackle capitalism: the ways
that exploitation and damage under capitalism are disguised. This is
nothing new or peculiar to capitalism, since every system of
exploitation and inequality is justified by some rationale, whether
it is the divine right of kings or the naturalness of the caste
system. Yet the process of obfuscation is less transparent with
capitalism. The exploitation involved in trade -- for example,
selling bananas in exchange for computers -- is not so immediately
obvious as is the source of repression when police beat and torture
dissidents. The mystifications involved in the commodity form were
described insightfully by Marx in the mid 1800s, yet it remains a
challenge to expose the exploitation involved.
Information -- including records,
computer programs, correspondence, and much else -- plays an ever
larger role in capitalist economies. This causes additional factors
to come into play that make exposure of capitalist oppression more
difficult. Governments use "disinformation" -- intentional telling of
lies and half-truths -- to advance their interests. Corporations and
governments use public relations to give their messages the right
"spin," both to boost favourable images and block damaging stories.
Advertising fosters a mind-set in which it is natural to assume that
commodities are the solution to problems, hindering critical thinking
about the whole commodity system. Hollywood filmed entertainment
creates attractive but deceptive images of what life can be like. The
result is an information-rich environment that is immensely enticing.
Contrary viewpoints, although sometimes censored, are often tolerated
on the margins, giving the impression that there is a genuine
marketplace of ideas.
This rich information environment
provides new challenges for nonviolent activists. The traditional
Gandhian philosophy of satyagraha involves seeking the truth through
dialogue, with nonviolent action as a means of encouraging opponents
to engage in the dialogue. That approach makes some sense when the
facts of repression and oppression are reasonably obvious, where
there is an obvious source of oppression and where there are
opponents with whom activists can engage in dialogue, directly or via
intermediaries. These conditions no longer apply. Much of the
oppression in capitalism is built into the system of ownership and
exchange: there are few obvious "opponents" who by their actions can
change the system. Furthermore, the system for producing "unreality" has become so pervasive that straightforward dialogue seems ever more
elusive. This is another reason why, for nonviolent action to be used
effectively to transform capitalism, a deeper analysis is required,
plus careful planning. A system built on a surfeit of information
(with plenty of distortions and imbalances) requires a different sort
of strategy than a system built primarily on censorship.
There is another reason why
nonviolent action has not been seen as a strategy against
capitalism: it has been mostly used as a method for promoting reform
within capitalism. Strikes, boycotts, work-to-rule, rallies
and many other methods have been used to improve workers' pay and
conditions, oppose harmful products and block damaging developments.
These are all quite valuable, but are seldom seen as challenges to
capitalism as a system. As a result, nonviolent action is not
recognised as a potentially revolutionary strategy.
"Revolution," namely a fundamental
change in social relations, is of course the rhetoric of Marxism.
"Reform" is seen as tepid and inadequate, even though a series of
reforms may end up having a more lasting impact than a revolution
that is quickly corrupted or reversed. Leninist strategy often relies
on nonviolent action for early stages but on violence for "advanced" stages of overthrowing the ruling class. One result is that those who
perceive themselves as revolutionaries seldom think of nonviolence as
the primary means.
There are several ways to address
this. One is to develop the model of nonviolent revolution, which has
been espoused by Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan, Erik Dammann and
others.[3] Another is to scrap the very image of revolution as too tainted by
violent and masculine imagery, and to substitute an alternative, such
as to think in terms of goals and methods of equality, justice, truth
and participation. One challenge is that the vocabulary of "revolution" has been taken over by advertisers.[4]
Any alternative vocabulary is similarly susceptible.
In any case, if nonviolent action
is to become a strategy against capitalism, to replace it or
transform it into something qualitatively different, then the
strategy needs to go beyond reform. The key here is strategy. For
nonviolence to be effective against capitalism, improved
understanding is needed, both of capitalism and of nonviolence
itself.
Social analysis and social
problems
To undertake an effective campaign
requires some level of investigation. For example, a campaign against
genetically engineered crops needs information on environmental
risks, likely impacts on farmers and organic alternatives, plus
insight into government and corporate strategies and how they can be
countered. Knowledge and insight are invaluable, especially in a
field where advanced science and technology play such a major
role.
The professionalisation of
intellectual work, especially in universities and research
laboratories, has led to incredible specialisation. This is most true
of technical fields such as biochemistry and computer engineering.
The only groups that can take advantage of most such research are
those with large resources, especially governments and major
corporations, which are able to hire researchers and set the agenda
for much of the research. In contrast, protest groups have little
money or capacity to hire researchers or to fund expensive
investigations. With a budget even one tenth of that devoted to
military research and development, enormous advances in nonviolent
struggle could be made.[5]
Lacking the capacity to hire
researchers or fund their own research, social movements rely heavily
on investigations carried out by sympathisers, especially academics.
There are many academics who study issues of interest to activists,
but unfortunately most of them aim to communicate primarily to other
academics. The academic system rewards scholars who publish in
refereed journals, namely those relying on critical scrutiny of
submissions by peers, which is a recipe for dealing only with what
impresses scholars and not with what is beneficial to
activists.
This has led to a way of thinking
that affects even those scholars who are sympathetic to action. The
basic approach is to get the theory right and then draw conclusions.
The main orientation is to analysis and critique, with very little on
alternatives or strategies. This sort of work can be quite valuable
-- some of it is truly inspiring -- but it is not likely to be the
foundation for participatory understanding.
What is needed is not theory from
on high, developed by theoreticians and dispensed by movement gurus,
but theory that can be used and refined daily by rank-and-file
activists.[6] Within some social movements, this occurs routinely. Many feminist
activists have some familiarity with ideas from feminist theories,
including some conception of patriarchy, alternatives and strategies;
for this sort of "practical feminism," much academic feminism is
irrelevant.
Sometimes low-cost investigations
can be carried out by participants. Investigations by activists are
increasingly both possible and important. A search for information on
the World Wide Web, plus sharing of information with other activists,
can quickly lead to valuable material.
Within the nonviolence movement,
there is a reasonable level of understanding of nonviolence theory,
especially the methods and dynamics of nonviolent action. Nonviolence
theory is an outgrowth of the practice of nonviolence and has not "gone academic" the same way as many other areas, perhaps because
there are fewer careers to be made in the field. In order to apply
nonviolence theory to capitalism, there needs to be a compatible
analysis of capitalism, one that can be used by activists.
Analysing capitalism is a major
enterprise. There are vast bodies of writing in various traditions,
including neoclassical economics, Marxism and non-Marxist political
economy. There are insights to be had for nonviolent activists, but
to extract them is no easy task. Most of the writing is uncritical of
capitalism, while most of the critical works give little attention to
strategy for activists. There is a rich banquet for theorists, with
only a few crumbs for activists.
Rather than sifting through
analyses of capitalism, an alternative approach is to start with the
alternative to capitalism and the method of obtaining it and build up
activist-relevant theory from that. In the case of nonviolence, the
alternative and the method are jointly specified: a nonviolent
society created through nonviolent action.
That is the approach taken here.
The starting point is nonviolence, which is both a method and a goal. "Nonviolence" is used in a broad sense, including participation and
dialogue as well as lack of physical violence. Capitalism is analysed
from the perspective of how it can be challenged and transformed
using nonviolent action. Of course, it is useful to draw on some of
the many insightful analyses of capitalism. But the key point is
this: rather than develop a comprehensive analysis of capitalism
first and then draw implications, instead critiques of capitalism are
drawn on just to the extent that they are relevant for a nonviolent
challenge. That means in addition that the analysis must be
reasonably clear to activists. A high-level analysis understandable
only to a few scholars is not much value except to the scholars
themselves.
Needless to say, what I offer here
is just one contribution to the process, which to be successful must
involve many people grappling with ideas and using them in
conjunction with practice.
Overview
In the spirit of activist-relevant
analysis outlined above, chapter 2 deals with nonviolence, outlining
methods, giving examples, presenting arguments for and against, and
examining theory. For those who have been exposed to nonviolence
theory and practice, this will be familiar ground.
Special attention is given to
weaknesses of nonviolence, at a theoretical level, for challenging
distributed systems of domination such as capitalism. The implication
is that nonviolence theory must be supplemented by an appropriate
analysis of the system being challenged. That may seem obvious, but
in fact nonviolence theory relies on a very general theory of power
and works reasonably well in practice only because many activists
have a very good practical insight into local systems and dynamics of
power. This combination works moderately well for obvious systems of
domination, such as dictatorship, but for more dispersed systems of
power such as capitalism, activists need deeper
understandings.
With this background on
nonviolence, chapter 3 looks at capitalism. Some of the obvious
problems with capitalism are outlined, such as exploitation of
workers, but only briefly.
The main part of the chapter
describes three central aspects of capitalism that are specially
relevant for developing a nonviolence strategy. The first is the most
obvious: capitalism's link with systems of violence, including
government, the military and police. Without the ultimate sanction of
violence, capitalism would not survive. But this reliance on violence
is hidden through the routine operation of the market and needs to be
brought into brighter view. Nonviolent action is ideally designed to
challenge and undermine systems based on violence, so the key here is
to design nonviolent actions that tackle the violent underpinnings of
capitalism.
But although capitalism depends
ultimately on violence, for most of the time it is sustained by
belief systems and everyday behaviours, including those associated
with consumerism, property, entitlement, individualism and
selfishness. Challenging such beliefs and behaviours is a difficult
task. Nonviolent action offers one approach, but not just any action
will serve. Careful examination of options and alternatives is
needed. It is in the area of beliefs and behaviours that the most
effort is needed, especially because capitalism has an unparalleled
capacity to coopt ideological challenges.
A third central aspect of
capitalism that is specially relevant for developing a nonviolence
strategy is destruction of alternatives. In the rise of capitalism,
prior systems and alternative practices, such as community-controlled
production, cooperatives and collective provision, were destroyed or
marginalised. One reason why capitalism seems like the only option is
that alternatives have been eliminated. Nonviolence strategy in this
area is reasonably straightforward: it is the building of
alternatives, in the tradition of Gandhi's constructive programme.
But this is not easy in the face of the power of capital to destroy
and supplant alternatives.
Chapter 4 deals briefly with
conventional anticapitalist strategies, especially Leninism and
socialist electoralism, examining them through the lens of
nonviolence theory. None of them has succeeded in permanently
replacing capitalism with a better system, though it can be argued
that social democracy has limited many of the worst capitalist
excesses. From a nonviolence perspective, a central problem with
these strategies is that they rely on the use of violence, namely the
power of the state, for bringing about change. The existence of a
system of violence means that it can be, and often is, used to
support the powerful and repress challengers. Thus, these
anticapitalist strategies have given only a limited amount of power
to the people, retaining much power in the hands of a ruling group,
whether it is communist party elites or politicians and bureaucrats
in a social democratic government.
Taking note of these failed and
flawed challenges to capitalism is especially relevant because some
of the greatest hostility to nonviolent alternatives has come from
socialists. It might be concluded that the collapse of communism has
opened a tremendous opportunity. A nonviolent challenge to capitalism
now has better prospects because the alternative socialist road,
based on violence, is largely discredited.
Chapter 5 looks at nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism, spelling out some possible principles for
organising society without the capacity for organised violence. It
turns out that there are not many comprehensive visions of society
that are explicitly constructed on a nonviolent foundation. To
illustrate possibilities, four models are outlined: sarvodaya,
anarchism, voluntaryism and demarchy. By examining these, it becomes
apparent how little of the current capitalist system is viable
without the ultimate sanction of violence.
One of the features of nonviolence
is that it is self-consistent: it incorporates its goals within its
means. In other words, nonviolent methods are used to help attain a
nonviolent society. Looking at models of a nonviolent society is part
of the process of developing and refining this
self-consistency.
With a background of method,
critique and alternative, it is time to examine strategies. This is
the task of chapters 6 to 12. Chapter 6 discusses principles for
assessing strategies and proposes a short check list for assessing
campaigns, including questions such as "Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?" This check list is used in the following chapters to
assess a range of actual and possible campaigns.
Chapter 7 examines workers'
struggles, including campaigns for better wages and conditions, for
jobs, workers' control, green bans and whistleblowing. Some
campaigns, such as workers' control, provide a potent challenge to
capitalism whereas others do not. It is noted here and later that
even if a campaign does not challenge capitalism as a system, it may
still be very worthwhile for other reasons.
Chapter 8 looks at sabotage, an
approach on the border of nonviolent action. Chapter 9 probes
environmental activism, in particular campaigns against pesticides,
nuclear power and local developments. Chapter 10 analyses social
defence, which is nonviolent community resistance as an alternative
to military defence, as a means to undermine capitalism. Chapter 11
addresses three campaigns challenging corporate globalisation: the
campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the
campaign against genetically modified organisms and the development
of free software. Chapter 12 assesses several economic alternatives
-- community exchange schemes, local money systems and voluntary
simplicity -- as strategies against capitalism.
Chapters 7 through 12 illustrate
how to use a check list, developed through a nonviolence analysis, to
assess strategies for their potential to challenge capitalism. The
assessments given here are not definitive. What is important is for
activists to decide on their own check lists and choose their
campaigns and methods according to their own goals. Finally, chapter
13 discusses the relation between campaigning and the more subtle
process of cultural change.
Notes to
chapter 1
[1] Naomi Klein, No Logo (New York: Picador, 1999), gives an
insightful survey of recent popular challenges to corporate
power.
[2] Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action[ (Boston:
Porter Sargent, 1973), pp. 7-62. Sharp's ideas are discussed in more
detail in chapter 2.
[3] Erik Dammann, Revolution in the Affluent Society (London:
Heretic Books, 1984); Dave Dellinger, Revolutionary Nonviolence:
Essays (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971); George Lakey,
Strategy for a Living Revolution (New York: Grossman, 1973);
Brian Martin, Social Defence, Social Change (London: Freedom
Press, 1993); Martin Oppenheimer, The Urban Guerilla (Chicago:
Quadrangle, 1969); Geoffrey Ostergaard, Nonviolent Revolution in
India (New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1985).
[4] The
title of a new glossy magazine is Revolution: Business and
Marketing in the Digital Economy. A billboard -- an ad for Adobe
-- shows several men in suits with their neckties ablaze, with the
web site address www.smashthestatusquo.com. Then there is the Apple
Computer ad showing Gandhi and his spinning wheel, with the Apple
slogan "Think different," flying in the fact of the fact that Gandhi
was a trenchant critic of both capitalism and much modern
technology.
[5] Brian Martin, Technology
for Nonviolent Struggle
(London: War Resisters' International, 2001).
[6]
This view is developed in Brian Martin, "On the value of simple
ideas," Information
Liberation (London:
Freedom Press, 1998), pp. 143-163.
2
2
Nonviolence
Go to:
For many purposes,
nonviolence is easier to explain through examples than definitions or
theory.[1]
And what better example than Gandhi's famous march to Dandi in 1930?
India was then under British rule and ruthlessly exploited. The
British claimed a monopoly on the manufacture of salt, taxed it and
arrested any Indians who made it. Gandhi decided illegal production
of salt from sea water would be a good form of civil disobedience. To
maximise the impact of this act, he marched with his followers for 24
days on the way to the small coastal village of Dandi, telling about
the planned act along the way and picking up hundreds of adherents.
By the time the march reached Dandi, it had already served as a
powerful organising method. The salt-making and arrests then served
to dramatise the injustice of British rule. Similar salt-making civil
disobedience actions took place simultaneously across
India.[2]
This sort of
organising would not have been possible if the aim was a violent
resistance. Openness would not have been possible, either in
recruitment, training or action. Participation would have been
limited. Finally, violent attacks often have the effect of unifying
the opponents and alienating potential supporters. The march to
Dandi, in contrast, did far more to undermine support for the British
and win sympathy from observers.
The US civil
rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s made excellent use of
nonviolent action.[3]
In the US South, slaves had been freed in the 1860s but
blacks[4]
continued to be oppressed by the practice of segregation, with denial
of equal opportunity and retribution for those who bucked the system.
In 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, civil rights activist Rosa Parks sat
in the white section of a bus, in planned defiance of the segregation
laws. After she was arrested, blacks in the city boycotted the buses,
many of them walking long distances to work.
The civil rights
movement picked up momentum, with additional boycotts, "freedom
rides" (blacks and whites on buses together travelling through the
South), sit-ins to desegregate lunch counters, marches through
segregated cities, road blockades and rallies. The civil rights
movement made enormous strides especially through the early
1960s.
The peace movement
worldwide has made extensive use of nonviolent action. There is a
long tradition of war resistance, namely men refusing to go to war or
to be in the army. In war after war there have been men who have gone
to prison for refusing military service; in some countries they are
persecuted or even killed. Others claim exemption from military
service as conscientious objectors or emigrate to avoid
conscription.
Many creative
actions are used by peace activists to protest against wars, arms
production and export, weapons systems and military support for
repressive regimes. At Greenham Common in the UK, women protested
against the US military base in numerous ways. They maintained a
presence for years, held rallies, repeatedly entered the camp (acts
of civil disobedience) and sought to win over soldiers and
observers.
Other types of
peace protest have included marches (including some across
continents), rallies, vigils, street theatre, human blockades of
trains carrying weapons, trade union bans of arms shipments, sailing
ships into nuclear test zones and pouring blood on military
documents.
In recent decades,
the environmental movement has made heavy use of nonviolent action.
Forest activists, for example, have put themselves in the way of
bulldozers and chain saws, sometimes locking themselves to equipment
in order to hinder operations. Others have placed themselves in
vulnerable positions in front of ships carrying rainforest products,
using kayaks or even by swimming.
These sorts of
dramatic actions are only the tip of the iceberg of activity by
social movements. Behind effective actions there is usually a vast
amount of work in analysing the situation, preparing for action,
nonviolent action training, mobilising support and coordinating the
action. For every individual on the "front line" in a dangerous or
challenging action, there may be dozens behind the scenes arranging
meetings, transport, food, child care, posters, public statements,
media liaison, legal support, fund raising and much else. A few
highlights of nonviolent action may be thrilling and dramatic, but
there is lots of routine work necessary to support these visible
actions. This is not so different from military operations: a fighter
pilot's sortie is backed by the work of aircraft designers, builders,
testers, maintenance workers, planners, accountants, cooks and many
others.
Furthermore, the
most visible and risky actions do not necessarily have more impact
than other sorts of action. Sometimes the most effective methods may
be quiet work in talking to neighbours, producing leaflets, holding
small meetings and writing letters. Sometimes the most effective
actions are personal behaviour in not using certain products, voicing
disapproval of a popular policy or being friendly with a stigmatised
person. Whether or not these methods are called nonviolent action,
they are certainly part of the process of social change from the
grassroots.
Nonviolent action
has been used to thwart military coups, sometimes with dramatic
success. In 1920 there was a military coup in Germany, led by
Wolfgang Kapp. The putschists captured the capital, Berlin, and the
elected government fled to Stuttgart, where it advocated nonviolent
resistance. There was a general strike in Berlin and massive rallies.
Noncooperation was an effective tool of resistance. Typists refused
to type Kapp's proclamations and bank officials refused to cash his
cheques without appropriate signatures, and all authorised
signatories refused to sign. The coup collapsed after just four
days.[5]
Algeria used to be
a colony of France. From 1954 there was an armed struggle for
independence, leading to huge loss of life. In August 1961, as the
French government made moves towards granting independence,
anti-independence French generals in Algeria staged a coup. There was
even a possibility of invasion of France. Many French soldiers in
Algeria, most of them conscripts, refused to cooperate, simply
staying in their quarters. Many pilots took off but flew their planes
elsewhere so they could not be used by the generals. As well, there
were massive protests in France. The revolt collapsed after just a
few days without a single person killed.[6]
There are numerous
cases of repressive governments toppled by nonviolent action,
especially in Central and South America.[7] In 1944, the repressive military regime in El Salvador was easily
able to put down a military revolt. But soon after there was a
nonviolent insurrection. University students began a strike, which
was soon joined by high school students, then over a period of weeks
by physicians and business people, until virtually the entire country
was at a standstill. Police shot at some boys, killing one. This led
to massive protest in the streets. The dictator, Martínez, did
not risk using military troops against the crowds. The troops were
reliable against the military revolt but were less so in the face of
popular opposition. Martínez left the country just six weeks
after the beginning of the nonviolent insurrection.[8]
Finally, there are
a few cases where nonviolent resistance has had a degree of success
against military invasion. In 1968 Warsaw Pact troops invaded
Czechoslovakia to put an end to the liberalisation of communist rule
there, so-called "socialism with a human face." There was no military
resistance, which the Czechoslovak military judged to be futile.
Instead, there was a unified nonviolent resistance, from Czechoslovak
political leaders to the citizens. One of the most effective forms of
opposition was fraternisation: talking to the invading troops,
telling them about what was really going on -- they had been told
they were there to stop a capitalist restoration -- and encouraging
them to support the resistance. The initial aim in the invasion was
to set up a puppet government; this was not attained for eight
months: leaders of the Czechoslovak Communist Party refused to
cooperate with the invaders and no alternative leaders could be
found. The invasion backfired badly on the Soviet Union, discrediting
its policies worldwide and causing splits or policy switches in many
foreign communist parties.[9]
Thus on numerous
occasions nonviolent action has demonstrated its effectiveness when
used by social movements and against military coups, dictatorships
and invasions. But what about social revolution, seen by some as the
ultimate goal? Perhaps the best example is the Iranian revolution of
1978-1979, which was largely carried out by nonviolent
means.[10]
The Shah's regime was a ruthless one, using imprisonment and torture
against dissidents and even at random just to strike terror into
opponents. It was highly armed and had diplomatic support from all
major powers, including the US, Soviet Union, Israel and most Arab
states.
As protest
developed in 1978, police fired on a crowd, killing several people.
In Islamic tradition, a mourning procession was held 40 days later.
The procession turned into a political protest, and troops were used
again. This process of killing, mourning and protest occurred at
various locations around the country, causing an escalation in the
resistance, with secular opponents joining the processions. Workers
joined by going on strike and instituting go-slows in factories,
until virtually the entire economy ground to a halt. As rallies
became larger, more and people were shot dead in the streets. But
eventually troops refused to fire and the Shah fled the
country.
The death toll in
Iran was horrific, a total in the tens of thousands. But this was
small compared to many armed liberation struggles. For example, many
hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the Algerian war for
independence, out of a smaller population than Iran's.
It is important to
note that not all uses of nonviolent action lead to long-lasting,
worthwhile change. Nonviolent action is not guaranteed to succeed
either in the short term or long term. The 1989 prodemocracy movement
in China, after a short flowering, was crushed in the Beijing
massacre. Perhaps more worrying are the dispiriting aftermaths
following some short-term successes of nonviolent action. In El
Salvador in 1944, the successful nonviolent insurrection against the
Martínez dictatorship did not lead to long term improvement
for the El Salvadorean people. There was a military coup later in
1944, and continued repression in following decades.
The aftermath of
the Iranian revolution was equally disastrous. The new Islamic regime
led by Ayatollah Khomeini was just as ruthless as its predecessor in
stamping out dissent.
At this point it
is valuable to point to the role of planning in nonviolent action.
Nonviolent action in social movements, such as the Indian
independence movement, the US civil rights movement, the peace
movement and the environmental movement, is usually backed up by a
fair amount of analysis, preparation, training and mobilisation.
Activists think through what they are trying to achieve and pick
their methods and opportunities carefully. By doing plenty of
preparatory work and by careful planning, the odds are increased that
outcomes will be positive and the movement can build strength and
attain its goals.
In contrast, many
of the dramatic actions against coups, dictatorships and invasions
have been largely spontaneous. In the cases of the Kapp Putsch, the
Algerian Generals' Revolt, the nonviolent insurrection in El
Salvador, the Czechoslovak resistance to the Soviet invasion and the
Iranian Revolution, there was little or no preparation, planning or
training. In essence, nonviolent action in these cases was largely
spontaneous.
Spontaneity is not
a reliable basis for success or long-term change. An army could
hardly be expected to be successful without recruitment, weapons,
training and leadership. Why should nonviolent action be
fundamentally different?
What this suggests
is that the power of nonviolent action is yet to be fully realised.
Military methods have been used systematically for centuries, with
vast resources devoted to train soldiers, build weapons and develop
strategies. Revolutionary violence has had far fewer resources, but
even these have been substantial. By comparison, nonviolent action
has had only minimal support and a low level of
development.
Nonviolent
action
Gene Sharp gives
this description: "Nonviolent action is a generic term covering
dozens of specific methods of protest, noncooperation and
intervention, in all of which the actionists conduct the conflict by
doing -- or refusing to do -- certain things without using physical
violence."[11]
In his classic work The Politics of Nonviolent Action he
catalogued 198 different methods, and since then he has discovered
hundreds more. Some methods of nonviolent protest and persuasion are
public speeches, petitions, banners, picketing, wearing of symbols,
fraternisation, skits, religious processions, homage at burial
places, teach-ins and renouncing honours. Some methods of
noncooperation are social boycott, student strike, providing
sanctuary, hijrat (protest emigration), consumers' boycott, refusal
to rent, traders' boycott, lockout, refusal to pay debts,
international trade embargo, lightning strike, prisoners' strike,
sympathy strike, working-to-rule strike, economic shutdown, boycott
of elections, refusal to accept appointed officials, civil
disobedience, deliberate inefficiency, mutiny, severance of
diplomatic recognition and expulsion from international bodies.
Methods of nonviolent intervention include fasting, sit-ins,
nonviolent obstruction, guerrilla theatre, stay-in strike, seizure of
assets, alternative markets, revealing identities of spies and
alternative government.
Nonviolent action
is just what its name suggests: it is action rather than nonaction,
and it avoids physical violence. Nonviolent action can be coercive
and can cause (nonphysical) harm. Strikes, boycotts and sit-ins can
all cause economic harm to a business. Noncooperation with political
officials and alternative systems for decision making can cause
political harm to a government official. Ostracism can cause
psychological distress to an individual. Nonviolent action is, after
all, a method of waging conflict. If it is going to be effective, it
has to make some impact.
Nonviolent action
does not involve physical violence. That rules out beatings,
imprisonment, torture and killing. Nonviolent action is for waging
conflict, so it does not include routine activities such as attending
a meeting, voting in an election, buying vegetables or reading a
newspaper -- unless, due to circumstances, they are integral parts of
a conflict. For example, if a government outlaws carrots, then
growing, selling and buying carrots could be a form of nonviolent
action.
A crucial issue is
whether nonviolent action is used for a "good" purpose. Of course,
what is considered good depends on who is judging. Cutting off funds,
for example, can be used either to support or oppose racial
segregation. In 1956, the legislature in the state of Virginia passed
a law to cut off state funding for any school that racially
integrated.[12] In contrast, the international campaign against apartheid in South
Africa included withdrawal of investment. In the Gandhian approach,
acting against repression or oppression are an essential part of the
idea of nonviolent action, whereas in the pragmatic approach
exemplified by Sharp, nonviolent action is simply a method which can
be used for good or bad. Here, the term "satyagraha" is used for the
Gandhian conception and "nonviolent action" for the pragmatic one. In
practice, even those using the pragmatic conception usually refer to
examples where nonviolent action is used to challenge
oppression.
Just because
nonviolent action can be used for good and bad purposes does not mean
it is a neutral method. Weapons can be used for good and bad
purposes, but they are not neutral because they are easier to use for
harm than for social benefit. A guided missile is a tool with a
built-in bias: it is easy to use to destroy and kill, though in
principle it could be used to foster harmony, for example by being an
object of worship! Nonviolent action is also a tool with a built-in
bias: it is easier to use against oppression than for it. To
understand why, it is useful to list some of the strengths of
nonviolent action.
- For those
seeking to create a world without violence, nonviolent action is
self-consistent: it uses only those methods that are compatible
with the goal. This is unlike military defence, which relies on
the threat of violence to prevent war. - Nonviolent
action allows maximum participation in social struggle. Nearly
anyone can sign a petition or join a boycott or vigil without
regard to sex, age or ability. This is unlike military or
guerrilla forces, which put a premium on physical fitness and
often exclude women, children and the elderly. - Nonviolent
action often works better than violence, since it is more likely
to win over opponents and third parties. It often works better
than using official channels for change, such as formal complaints
to governments, court actions or elections, since nonviolent
action can be used by those without administrative impact, legal
support or electoral influence. - Nonviolent
action often leads to more lasting change, because it mobilises
more of the population in a participatory fashion than either
violence or official channels. - Compared to
violent struggle, nonviolent action usually leads to fewer
casualties. Although violence can be and is used against
nonviolent protesters, this is usually less intense and sustained
than against armed opposition, since it is easier to justify
violence against a violent opponent. Note, though, that nonviolent
action is not guaranteed to cause fewer deaths and
injuries.[13]
If these are some
of the strengths of nonviolent action, what are the weaknesses? Of
course, nonviolent action may not work, but then no method is
guaranteed to work in every circumstance. Therefore it is useful to
compare nonviolent action to two alternatives: violence (armed
struggle) and official channels (such as operating through
bureaucracies, courts and governments).
- Nonviolent
discipline can be hard to sustain. A small number of participants
who become violent or run away can be damaging to an action.
Military forces use force to maintain discipline, for example by
imposing punishments on those who refuse orders and by
court-marshalling deserters. Official channels have their own
requirements, such as forms to fill out and payments to make:
those who do not follow the rules usually make little progress.
Nonviolent discipline relies more on moral sanctions than do the
military and bureaucracies. - Mobilising
support for nonviolent action can be difficult. Military forces
can employ soldiers or use conscription. Government departments
hire employees. So far, most nonviolent activists have been
volunteers. - Nonviolent
action has an image problem. From the point of view of those who
favour or are used to armed struggle, nonviolent action seems
weak. A standard assumption is that the side with the greater
capacity for inflicting violence will necessarily win in a
struggle. From the point of view of those who favour official
channels, nonviolent action is inappropriate, illegitimate or
illegal. - As a pragmatic
method for reform, nonviolent action may not lead to lasting
change. As noted above, there have been some spectacular
nonviolent campaigns against dictatorial regimes, but the
aftermath has seen a new system of oppression. On a smaller scale,
nonviolent protests may lead to a change in government policy that
is quietly reversed once the protesters are gone. - As a
systematic alternative, nonviolent action has extremely radical
implications. To run a society without systems of violence would
mean that governments and corporations could not survive without
widespread support. Completely different arrangements might be
needed for organising work, community services and
defence.
Nonviolent action
thus has many strengths but also a number of weaknesses. Several of
the strengths are important for challenging capitalism, especially
self-consistency, participation and forging lasting change. It is
also important for activists to be aware of and try to overcome the
weaknesses, especially the reversal of changes made through
nonviolent action and the need for a full-scale alternative to
capitalism.
It might seem that
there is a contradiction in saying that nonviolent action can lead to
more lasting change and yet that many of the changes brought about
are susceptible to reversal. The resolution is to note that
nonviolent action can lead to more lasting change than violence or
official channels, especially because it is through a participatory
process, but even so reversal of this change is still a great risk.
To bring about long-lasting change without using violence is bound to
be difficult, and to use violence is to risk causing enormous
suffering.
Severe
repression[14]
A common argument
against nonviolent action is that it can't work against severe
repression. What about ruthless invaders who just keep killing people
at the least hint of resistance? What can be done to stop a programme
of total extermination? How can nonviolent action possibly work
against repressive regimes such as the dictatorships of Hitler and
Stalin?
It is worthwhile
exploring various responses to these questions. Nonviolent resistance
can be successful against very repressive regimes. As
described earlier, the Iranian revolution occurred in the face of a
ruthless military and torture apparatus. Against the Nazis, there was
effective nonviolent resistance in several countries, including
Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.[15]
However, nonviolence was not tried, in a big way, against the Nazis.
Many Germans were ardent supporters of the Nazis, and many people in
other countries were admirers as well. Supporters of military methods
tended to be especially favourable to the Nazis.
There was no
concerted attempt from outside Germany to undermine the Nazis using
nonviolent methods. Stephen King-Hall gives a telling account of how
he tried futilely as late as 1939 to drum up British government
support for a campaign to undermine the German people's support for
Hitler.[16]
There has been no further study on this issue, so it must be
considered a possibility that concerted nonviolent attack from around
the world could have undermined or restrained the Nazi
regime.
Throughout the
rule of the Nazis, there was a German opposition to Hitler.
This internal opposition was not fostered by the Allies, nor was it
given sufficient credit by postwar writers.[17]
To take another
example, consider the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi military
under Saddam Hussein. Nonviolent resistance by the Kuwaiti people was
probably not a possibility, since Kuwait was a grossly unequal and
authoritarian society, so it would have been difficult to build a
popular base for nonviolent resistance. The time to stop Saddam
Hussein was much earlier, in the 1980s. Nonviolent opposition was
required then against the governments of Iraq, Kuwait and others in
the Gulf region that were repressive and undemocratic.
A principal reason
why Saddam Hussein's Iraq became such a military power and threat was
the support given by outside powers. The Iraqi invasion of Iran in
1980 was supported by the governments of the US, Soviet Union and
many other countries. Numerous companies sold Saddam Hussein arms and
technologies of repression. Governments were silent about his use of
chemical weapons against Iranians and against Kurds in Iraq and about
his brutal repression of political opponents in Iraq. He was given
diplomatic support right up until the invasion of Kuwait.
Since many
governments gave Saddam Hussein support during the 1980s, a key role
for nonviolent action should have been to expose and oppose the
hypocritical foreign policies of Western governments. That is a
lesson for the future. There are plenty of repressive regimes in the
world today being given full support by Western
governments.
Real-life
dictatorships are not as all-powerful as might be imagined. Under the
brutal military regimes in Argentina and Chile in the 1970s and
1980s, many individuals continued to openly express opposition in the
workplace, in public protests and in the media. Student protests
shook the harsh regimes in South Korea and Burma. If nonviolent
resistance could be prepared for and expanded, then dictatorships
would be difficult to sustain.
For example,
consider the courageous stand of publisher Jacobo Timerman in
Argentina, who maintained his newspaper's open resistance until he
was arrested and tortured. An international campaign led to his
release and he wrote about his experiences in a powerful book. His
efforts were among those that contributed to the collapse of the
generals' regime in the country.[18]
Ruthlessness --
namely, the psychology of the ruler -- may not be the key factor.
Instead, the real issue is how to make the ruler dependent in some
way on the nonviolent resisters. This might be economic dependence or
it could be the influence of family members who know people in the
resistance. If there is a dependency relationship, then the ruler
will encounter great obstacles if severe repression is used, because
pressure will increase on the ruler. But if there isn't some direct
or indirect connection between the two sides, then even a fairly
benevolent ruler may do really nasty things.[19]
The issue of
severe repression highlights the issue of suffering. In the Gandhian
tradition, suffering by nonviolent activists is a primary mechanism
for the effectiveness of nonviolent action, since recognition of this
suffering is supposed to "melt the hearts" of opponents. Acceptance
of the inevitability of suffering has been criticised, especially by
feminists, as perpetuating submissive and dependent orientations that
have been imposed on subordinate groups for too long. A more
pragmatic response is to note that suffering is seldom effective in
converting those dispensing violence. In the case of the 1930 salt
satyagraha, the police who brutally attacked protesters were not
greatly deterred by the suffering they caused. However, the campaign
was influential due to impact on people around the world who read
about it through the reports of journalist Webb
Miller.[20] So the key to winning over others was a chain of observers and
communicators who passed on information about the campaign until it
reached those who were ultimately responsible, in this case the
British government. This process has been called the "great chain of
nonviolence."[21]
Not all methods of
nonviolent action open activists to physical attack. Boycotts, for
example, are relatively safe compared to sit-ins. If repression is
harsh, methods and tactics need to be specially chosen. More use can
be made of quiet "mistakes" in carrying out tasks and
"misunderstandings" of orders. Preparation in advance is crucial for
things such as shutting down factories, protecting dissidents,
providing food and shelter for survival, maintaining communications
and exposing repression to the world. When support for the resistance
becomes widespread, open defiance becomes possible.
In many countries,
challenging capitalism is not as likely to lead to brutal physical
attacks as would, for example, opposing a harsh dictatorship. In the
normal operation of capitalism, suffering is imposed through economic
mechanisms, such as job losses, destruction of livelihoods, injuries
on the job and harm from dangerous products. As will be seen in later
chapters, dealing with capitalist repression is less difficult than
dealing with the attractions of the consumer society.
A nonviolent
society
Nonviolent action
is often thought of as just a set of methods, but it also is the
basis for a way of life. There are several ways to approach this. One
is the constructive programme, part of Gandhi's legacy. It involves
taking positive measures to overcome poverty, discrimination,
exploitation and other social ills by grassroots efforts to build
supportive and vibrant communities. Nonviolent action is often a "negative" process: it is used against systems of domination. The
essential complementary process is the building of systems without
domination.
The constructive
programme can be interpreted as a programme of service, namely
support and aid for those in greatest need. Another dimension of
creating a nonviolent society is the creation of social, political
and economic arrangements that minimise oppression. This might be
called the "institution building" side of the constructive programme.
It includes, for example, workplaces in which workers and community
members make decisions about what to produce and how work is done.
There is more on this in chapter 5, which covers nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism.
Yet another
dimension to a nonviolent society is appropriate
technology.[22]
Technology, which includes everything from hoes, shoes, televisions
and needles to jet aircraft and supercomputers, is both a product of
society and a reflection of political and economic values. Some
technologies are more supportive of a nonviolent society than others.
For example, interactive communication media such as the post,
telephone and email provide fewer opportunities for domination than
do one-directional media such as newspapers and television. One way
to help build a nonviolent society is by choosing and developing
technologies that support self-reliance.[23]
This outline gives
only the briefest introduction to possibilities for a nonviolent
society. The point is that nonviolent action as a method is only one
part of the picture. The method needs to be tied to an
alternative.
The consent
theory of power
Gandhi approached
nonviolent action as a moral issue and, in practical terms, as a
means for persuading opponents to change their minds as a result of
their witnessing the commitment and willing sacrifice of nonviolent
activists. While this approach explains some aspects of the power of
nonviolent action, it is inadequate on its own. Moral persuasion
sometimes works in face-to-face encounters, but has little chance
when cause and effect are separated. Bomber pilots show little
remorse for the agony caused by their weapons detonating far
below,[24]
while managers of large international banks have little inkling of
the suffering caused by their lending policies in foreign
countries.
For insight into
both the strengths and weaknesses of nonviolent action, in particular
for dealing with capitalism, it is useful to turn to the consent
theory of power, proposed by Gene Sharp as the theoretical foundation
for his study of the politics of nonviolent action.[25]
Sharp is the world's foremost nonviolence scholar. Although his work
has received little attention from other scholars, it is enormously
influential in nonviolence circles. His theory of power is often
presented as the theory component in nonviolent action
training.
The essence of
Sharp's theory of power is quite simple:
- people in
society can be divided into rulers and subjects; - the power of
rulers derives from consent by the subjects; - nonviolent
action is a process of withdrawing consent and thus is a way to
challenge the key modern problems of dictatorship, genocide, war
and systems of oppression.
The two key
concepts here are the ruler-subject classification and the idea of
consent. The "ruler" includes "not only chief executives but also
ruling groups and all bodies in command of the State
structure."[26]
Sharp focuses on the state,[27]
spelling out the various structures involved, especially the state
bureaucracy, police and military. All those besides the rulers are
the subjects.
Sharp defines
political power, which is one type of social power, as "the totality
of means, influences, and pressures -- including authority, rewards,
and sanctions -- available for use to achieve the objectives of the
power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State,
and groups opposing either of them."[28] Sharp counterposes his analysis to the common idea that power is a
monolithic entity residing in the person or position of a ruler or
ruling body. He argues instead that power is pluralistic, residing
with a variety of groups and in a diversity of locations, which he
calls "loci of power." The loci of power provide a countervailing
force against the power of the ruler, especially when the loci are
numerous and widely distributed throughout society.
Accepting the
argument that power is not intrinsic to rulers, then it must come
from somewhere else. Sharp gives the following key sources of power:
authority, human resources, skills and knowledge, intangible factors,
material resources and sanctions. What is the basis for these sources
of power? This is where the second key concept of Sharp's enters in.
He says that "these sources of the ruler's power depend intimately
upon the obedience and cooperation of the
subjects."[29]
Without the consent of the subjects -- either their active support or
their passive acquiescence -- the ruler would have little power and
little basis for rule.
Power for Sharp is
always contingent and precarious, requiring cultivation of
cooperation and manipulation of potentially antagonistic loci. His
consideration of the sources of power thus leads him to obedience as
the key: the "most important single quality of any government,
without which it would not exist, must be the obedience and
submission of its subjects. Obedience is at the heart of political
power."[30]
Sharp's focus on
obedience then leads him to ask why people obey. He suggests that
there is no single answer, but that important are habit, fear of
sanctions, moral obligation, self-interest, psychological
identification with the ruler, zones of indifference and absence of
self-confidence among subjects.
Nonviolent action
constitutes a refusal by subjects to obey. The power of the ruler
will collapse if consent is withdrawn in an active way. The "active" here is vital. The ruler will not be threatened by grumbling,
alienation or critical analyses alone. Sharp is interested in
activity, challenge and struggle, in particular with nonviolent
methods of action.
The consent
picture works best, as theory, when there is an obvious oppressor.
Sharp refers regularly to Stalinism and Nazism, and his examples of
challenges to authority mostly deal with situations widely perceived
as oppressive by Western political judgement. Capitalism is not
included. While Sharp gives numerous examples of nonviolent action by
workers, he offers no examination of capitalism as a system of
power.
One reason for
this is that the ruler-subject model does not fit capitalism all that
well. True, the traditional Marxist classifications of bourgeoisie
and proletariat -- ruling class and working class -- seem to fit a
ruler-subject picture. But classes, according to Marx, are defined by
their relation to the means of production. Can withdrawal of consent
be used to change relationships to means of production? It is not a
matter of just withdrawing consent from a particular factory owner,
but of withdrawing consent from ownership itself. How to achieve that
is not so obvious.
Capitalism is a
system of exchange, based on markets for goods, services and labour
power. In all of these there is an element of reciprocity. In a
retail shop, the exchange is money for goods. In employment, the
exchange is money for labour. Oppression in capitalism is built into
the exchange system, for example in the surplus extracted by owners,
in the alienation of workers, in the degradation of the environment
and in dependency of Third World economies. A boycott is a method for
withdrawing consent, but can it be used to withdraw consent from the
exchange system itself, or from its oppressive elements? Because
exchange involves each party both giving and getting something, the
idea of rulers and subjects does not fit all that well.
In some workplaces
the owner-boss is like a ruler, directly ordering workers around. But
in corporate bureaucracies of any size, domination is more diffuse
and complex. Many workers both exercise power over subordinates and
are subject to superiors. Furthermore, there may be cross-cutting
systems of authority, so that formal power depends on the
task.
Likewise, in the
marketplace, individuals may be both buyers and sellers, with a
different exchange and power relationship from situation to
situation. The idea of withdrawing power from a ruler does not make a
lot of sense in these circumstances.
Thus, because
capitalism is a system of cross-cutting relationships, in which
oppression is built into the system of exchange as well as exercised
through direct domination, the consent theory is not so obviously
applicable. The challenge is to modify or supplement consent theory
to make it more relevant to capitalism.
Besides
capitalism, other systems of power have similar complexities,
including patriarchy,[31]
bureaucracy and racism. Actually, even systems of domination that
seem to fit the ruler-subject model are much more complex. Stalinism
was not just a matter of Stalin himself wielding power by consent of
the people. A fuller understanding of Stalinism would require
analysing the mobilisation of support and suppression of dissent
through the Communist Party, the process of industrialisation, the
reconstitution of the hierarchical army in the 1918-1921 war against
the Western attack on the revolution, the social inheritance of
Tsarism and the international political environment.
One of the
intriguing aspects of consent theory is that although it has
considerable theoretical shortcomings, it is remarkably well suited
for activists. Unlike Marxism, which is a theory built around
collectivities, social relationships and large-scale processes
(classes, base-superstructure, hegemony), consent theory is
individualistic and voluntaristic. It immediately implies that
individuals can make a difference: all they need to do is withdraw
consent and the power of rulers is undermined. This can actually be
quite effective, because experienced and perceptive activists often
have a remarkably good grasp of power structures, especially local
ones. Through their own understanding of complexities of power, they
essentially provide the structural analysis that is missing from
consent theory. In turn, consent theory provides activists with an
easy way to grasp that their own actions can have an impact. The
theory, of course, does not provide detailed guidance on what actions
to take in particular circumstances, nor a guarantee of success.
Therefore activists are seldom under illusions about the difficulty
of their task: preparation, training and careful decision making are
required.
This suggests that
to develop a nonviolent challenge to capitalism, a key factor is for
activists to have an understanding of how capitalism works, from the
point of view of nonviolent intervention. That is the topic of the
next chapter.
Notes to
chapter 2
[1] For
case studies, see Robert Cooney and Helen Michalowski (eds.), The
Power of the People: Active Nonviolence in the United States
(Philadelphia: New Society Press, 1987); Ralph E. Crow, Philip
Grant and Saad E. Ibrahim (eds.), Arab Nonviolent Political
Struggle in the Middle East (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1990); Souad
R. Dajani, Eyes Without Country: Searching for a Palestinian
Strategy of Liberation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1994); Pam McAllister, The River of Courage: Generations of
Women's Resistance and Action (Philadelphia: New Society Press,
1991); Philip McManus and Gerald Schlabach (eds.), Relentless
Persistence: Nonviolent Action in Latin America (Philadelphia:
New Society Press, 1991); Andrew Rigby, Living the Intifada
(London: Zed Books, 1991); Dick Scott, Ask That Mountain: The
Story of Parihaka (Auckland: Heinemann Educational Books/Southern
Cross Books, 1975); Stephen Zunes, "The role of non-violent action in
the downfall of apartheid," Journal of Modern African Studies,
Vol. 37, No. 1, 1999, pp. 137-169.
[2] Thomas Weber, On the Salt March: The Historiography of Gandhi's
March to Dandi (New Delhi: HarperCollins, 1997). On Gandhi's
approach to nonviolence more generally, see Mohandas K. Gandhi, An
Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth
(Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1927); Richard B. Gregg, The Power of
Nonviolence (New York: Schocken Books, [1935] 1966);
Krishnalal Shridharani, War Without Violence: A Study of Gandhi's
Method and its Accomplishments (London: Victor Gollancz,
1939).
On the practicalities of
nonviolent action, see Howard Clark, Sheryl Crown, Angela McKee and
Hugh MacPherson, Preparing for Nonviolent Direct Action
(Nottingham: Peace News/CND, 1984); Virginia Coover, Ellen Deacon,
Charles Esser and Christopher Moore, Resource Manual for a Living
Revolution (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1981); Narayan
Desai, Handbook for Satyagraphis: A Manual for Volunteers of Total
Revolution (New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation; Philadelphia:
Movement for a New Society, 1980); Per Herngren, Path of
Resistance: The Practice of Civil Disobedience (Philadelphia: New
Society Publishers, 1993); Martin Jelfs, Manual for Action
(London: Action Resources Group, 1982).
[3] Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years,
1954-1963 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988); David Halberstam,
The Children (New York: Random House, 1998); Coretta Scott
King, My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1969).
[4]
Terminology has changed. "Negro" was the accepted term at the
beginning of the civil rights movement, "black" became standard in
the 1960s and more recently "African-American" has been
used.
[5] D.
J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup
d'État (London: Macmillan, 1962).
[6]
Adam Roberts, "Civil resistance to military coups," Journal of
Peace Research, Vol. 12, 1975, pp. 19-36.
[7] Patricia Parkman, Insurrectionary Civic Strikes in Latin America
1931-1961 (Cambridge, MA: Albert Einstein Institution, 1990);
Stephen Zunes, "Unarmed insurrections against authoritarian
governments in the Third World: a new kind of revolution," Third
World Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1994, pp. 403-426.
[8] Patricia Parkman, Nonviolent Insurrection in El Salvador: The Fall
of Maximiliano Hernández Martínez (Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 1988).
[9] H.
Gordon Skilling, Czechoslovakia's Interrupted Revolution
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976); Philip Windson and
Adam Roberts, Czechoslovakia 1968: Reform, Repression and
Resistance (London: Chatto and Windus, 1969).
[10] David H. Albert (ed.), Tell the American People: Perspectives on
the Iranian Revolution (Philadelphia: Movement for a New Society,
1980); Fereydoun Hoveyda, The Fall of the Shah (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980).
[11] Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter
Sargent, 1973), p. 64.
[13]
This point is made forcefully by Gene Keyes, "Heavy casualties and
nonviolent defense," Philosophy and Social Action, Vol. 17,
Nos. 3-4, July-December 1991, pp. 75-88.
[14]
This section is adapted from Brian Martin, "Social defence: arguments
and actions," in Shelley Anderson and Janet Larmore (eds.), Nonviolent Struggle and Social Defence (London: War Resisters'
International, 1991), pp. 81-141, at pp. 99-107.
[15] Jacques Semelin, Unarmed Against Hitler: Civilian Resistance in
Europe 1939-1943 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993).
[16] Stephen King-Hall, Total Victory (London: Faber and Faber,
1941), appendix 3.
[17] Hans Rothfels, The German Opposition to Hitler (London: Oswald
Wolff, 1961). See also Werner Rings, Life with the Enemy:
Collaboration and Resistance in Hitler's Europe 1939-1945
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1982).
[18] Jacobo Timerman, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a
Number (New York: Vintage, 1982).
[19]
Ralph Summy, "Nonviolence and the case of the extremely ruthless
opponent," Pacifica Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, May-June 1994, pp.
1-29.
[20]
Thomas Weber, "'The marchers simply walked forward until struck
down': nonviolent suffering and conversion," Peace & Change, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1993, pp. 267-289.
[21]
Johan Galtung, "Principles of nonviolent action: the great chain of
nonviolence hypothesis," in Nonviolence and Israel/Palestine
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Institute for Peace, 1989), pp.
13-33.
[22] Godfrey Boyle, Peter Harper and the editors of Undercurrents
(eds.), Radical Technology (London: Wildwood House, 1976); Ken
Darrow and Mike Saxenian (eds.), Appropriate Technology
Sourcebook: A Guide to Practical Books for Village and Small
Community Technology (Stanford, CA: Volunteers in Asia, 1986);
Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality (London: Calder & Boyars, 1973)
[23] Johan Galtung, Peter O'Brien and Roy Preiswerk (eds.), Self-Reliance: A Strategy for Development (London:
Bogle-L'Ouverture, 1980).
[24] For an excellent treatment of the psychodynamics of killing, see Dave
Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill
in War and Society (Boston: Little, Brown, 1995).
[25] See especially Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action
(Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973), pp. 7-62 and Gene Sharp, Social
Power and Political Freedom (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1980), pp.
21-67 and 309-378. The following analysis is drawn from, and includes
extracts from, Brian Martin, "Gene Sharp's theory of power,"
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1989, pp.
213-222.
[26] Sharp, Social Power and Political Freedom, p. 22.
[27]
The term "the state" is used to refer to the system of government and
government-run institutions, including the military, police, courts,
government departments for taxation, welfare, education and so forth,
and government-owned enterprises.
[28] Sharp, Social Power and Political Freedom, p. 27.
[29] Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, p. 12.
[30] Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, p. 16.
[31]
On patriarchy and consent theory, see Kate McGuinness, "Gene Sharp's
theory of power: a feminist critique of consent," Journal of Peace
Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1993, pp. 101-115.
3
3
Capitalism from the
viewpoint of nonviolence strategy
Capitalism from the
viewpoint of nonviolence strategy
Go to:
In order to develop a nonviolence
strategy against capitalism, it is necessary to analyse capitalism,
assessing its assumptions, problems, weaknesses, strengths and
driving forces. This is potentially an enormous task. Innumerable
scholars and activists have analysed capitalism from various
viewpoints, and there is no agreement about the best way to
proceed.
The approach here is a bit
different since the starting point is nonviolence strategy. This
means that the challenge to capitalism cannot use violence or rely on
systems of violence and should lead toward an alternative that is not
built on violence. In short, nonviolence is both the means and the
end. The challenge needs to be a popular, grassroots challenge, since
a nonviolent struggle by a small elite has little chance of success.
A nonviolence-oriented analysis of capitalism needs to be geared to
this strategy. Furthermore, the analysis needs to be one that can be
readily understood and implemented by grassroots activists; it cannot
be something that is the preserve of a small band of
intellectuals.
Of course, it is sensible to draw
on insights from various analyses of capitalism and its effects,
including Marxism, political economy, environmentalism, feminism, and
theories of underdevelopment and neocolonialism, among others.
However, rather than starting with one or more of these theories and
then developing a nonviolence strategy to implement a strategy based
on the theory, the starting point here is nonviolence strategy, with
theories of capitalism used to inform it and offer guidance about
directions, opportunities, dangers and overlooked areas.
Given the size of this task, this
can be only a preliminary assessment. To set the stage, a brief
overview of problems with capitalism is given. Some of the strengths
of capitalism are mentioned, followed by capitalism's links with
other systems of domination. Finally, three crucial areas are
presented: capitalism's links with systems of violence; belief
systems; and the need for alternatives.
At the core of capitalism is
private control of the means of production, including land, factories
and knowledge. This is backed up, ultimately, by the coercive power
of the state. Generally speaking, the system of ownership and control
encourages individuals and groups to put special interests above
general interests. This is responsible for many of the problems with
capitalism.
What is called capitalism can be
many things.[1] It is typically a system in which a small number of large
corporations dominate in most sectors of the economy. This is
commonly called "monopoly capitalism" though "oligopolistic
capitalism" would be more accurate. Capitalism is never a pure or
free-standing system but in practice is always intertwined with other
systems of power, including the state, patriarchy and the domination
of nature. Free-market libertarians advocate a totally free market,
perhaps maintained by a "minimal" state, but such a system is, as
yet, hypothetical. "Capitalism" as discussed here refers to "actually
existing capitalism."[2]
Capitalism is not homogeneous.
There are major differences between capitalist societies, with
adaptations to local political, religious, cultural and other
features. The use of the label "capitalism" can tend to obscure the
variability in capitalist systems.
Capitalism has shown a remarkable
capacity for regeneration in the face of crises. Some Marxist
analysts have referred to today's system as "late
capitalism,"[3] but it is possible that it will, centuries hence, be known as "early
capitalism." As capitalist economies move from the industrial era to
postindustrial society or information economy and move from national
economies to a global economy, what people recognise as capitalism is
transformed.
The word "capitalism" is used
because the system is based on private control of capital, namely the
means of production. To call this a free market system is a
misleading euphemism. Markets are quite possible without private
ownership. The "free" in "free market" implies freedom from state
control, but actually it is the state that protects the conditions
that make capitalist markets possible. So the term "capitalism" is
used here, with the understanding that this refers to "actually
existing capitalism" of the kind involving large corporations and
state support rather than some libertarian ideal market
system.
Problems with
capitalism
Since problems with capitalism are
well known, only a summary is given here. This is the "case against
capitalism"; the generalisations do not apply to every circumstance
or individual.
- Social inequality is fostered
within and between societies: the rich become richer and the poor
become poorer. There is nothing in systems of exchange that
promotes equality, and in practice countries or individuals that
amass wealth can use the wealth to gain advantages over others.
One of the rationales for government is to control and compensate
for the tendency of markets to generate inequality.If a person has a serious
disability, they may be unable to produce as much as an
able-bodied worker, or perhaps unable to obtain a job at all. In a
society built around people, the person with a disability would be
given support and training to become a productive member of
society. Capitalism has no process for achieving this. Similarly,
a country that is much poorer in natural resources or skills
cannot compete with richer countries. Rather than helping that
country, international capitalism keeps it in a dependent
position. - Work is unsatisfying. Under
capitalism, work is a means to an end, namely to get money to
purchase goods and services, rather than an end in
itself. - Workers are alienated from the
product of their labour. Because decisions about products and
methods of work are mostly made by employers, workers essentially
become cogs in the workplace, often with little personal
connection with the ultimate outcome of their labour. This is
especially the case when there is a fine division of labour, as
when workers in Malaysia produce one component of a car that is
assembled in Korea and sold in the US. - Those who cannot obtain jobs
suffer poverty and boredom. Markets do not guarantee jobs for
everyone, and employers benefit from a "reserve labour force" of
unemployed people, the existence of which keeps those with jobs in
line. Since work is one of the things that gives many people their
sense of identity, those who are unemployed suffer boredom,
greater health problems and loss of motivation as well as
poverty. - Consumers buy goods as
substitute gratification in place of satisfying work and community
life. Companies make money by selling goods and services and
collectively promote a "consumer society." Advertisers prey on
people's fears and inadequacies to encourage
purchases. - Opportunities for economic
gain foster antisocial and dangerous practices, such as bribery,
workplace hazards and legislation to protect monopolies. When
profits and corporate survival become the prime concern, all sorts
of abuses occur. Corporations bribe government officials (legally
or illegally) for special favours. To save money, unsafe working
conditions are allowed to persist and injured workers fired and
given as little compensation as possible. Lobbying and pay-offs
are used to encourage politicians to pass legislation to benefit
the most powerful corporations, by giving them trade concessions,
preferential treatment, government contracts, and guaranteed
monopolies. - Selfishness is encouraged and
cooperation discouraged. Since wealth and income are acquired
primarily by individuals, capitalism fosters individualism and
encourages selfishness. Sharing of ideas and labour is discouraged
when only a few reap the benefits. - Men use positions of economic
power to maintain male domination. It is well known that most of
the wealthiest owners and powerful executives are men. Capitalism
obviously is quite compatible with patriarchy. Similarly, dominant
ethnic groups can use economic power to maintain their
domination. - Military and police systems,
which are needed to protect the system of private property, are
also used for war and repression. This will be discussed further
later. - The profit motive encourages
production and promotion of products with consequences harmful to
human health and the environment, such as cigarettes, pesticides
and greenhouse gases. It is common for products such as
pharmaceuticals to be sold even though they have not been
adequately tested or are known to have dangerous side-effects, and
for efforts to be made to boost sales and avoid paying
compensation to victims. Most environmental impacts are treated as "externalities": their cost to society is not incorporated in the
price. Consequently, there is no built-in market incentive to
eliminate environmental impacts that are borne by others, and a
strong profit incentive to oppose attempts by governments or
others to incorporate these costs in prices of goods. An example
is the strenuous efforts by soft drink manufacturers against
legislation to require a refundable deposit for bottles. In
contrast, there is little or no profit incentive to promote
certain options that are healthy and environmentally sound, such
as walking to work or sharing goods.
As noted before, this is a stark
presentation of the case against capitalism. Obviously not every
generalisation applies universally. For example, though work is often
unsatisfying, for some workers it is satisfying much or all of the
time. The problem is that providing satisfying work is not a goal or
design principle of capitalism. Similarly, some owners and managers
make decisions for the public interest at the expense of profits. But
although individuals can do good things, the capitalist system has no
built-in method of encouraging this. The key problems with capitalism
are predictable consequences of the way it is organised.
Strengths of
capitalism
It is possible to get carried away
with the problems of capitalism. Problems always need to be taken in
context; especially important is comparison with alternatives.
Capitalism may have problems but some other systems have worse
ones.
As well as countering one-sided
anticapitalist critiques, examination of capitalism's strengths is
also important in order to formulate better strategy. By
understanding what capitalism does well, it may be possible to avoid
unrealistic hopes and plans -- such as the expectation that
capitalism is on the verge of collapse.
Capitalism has repeatedly
demonstrated the capacity to promote great increases in the
productive capacities of societies, harnessing individual and social
drives for improved living standards.[4]
This is not guaranteed, as periodic recessions, depressions and
collapses have demonstrated; also, increased economic productivity is
possible in other systems such as state socialism. However,
capitalism has an impressive record, with economic growth in numerous
countries being far greater globally than in the days of feudalism.
Comparisons between North and South Korea and between East and West
Germany suggest that capitalism fosters economic growth far more
effectively than state socialism. This can be attributed to the
harnessing of self-interest, competition and the search for profits,
compared to the bureaucratic constraints of state socialism. True,
rampant capitalism growth is responsible for many problems, from
inequality to environmental destruction, but the positive side is
dramatically increased productivity.
Although capitalism is compatible
with dictatorship, it also thrives in societies with representative
government in which certain civil liberties are maintained, at least
for most people most of the time. The "creative destruction" by which
new products and new markets supersede old ones is facilitated by a
moderately flexible society in which there is a degree of open
dialogue and adaptation to new conditions. Furthermore,
representative government provides social supports and opportunities
for some citizen participation that can mitigate some of the worse
excesses of capitalism, thus protecting the system against itself.
For example, a free press and freedom of assembly together can
operate to expose harmful products and damaging policies, thus
protecting workers and consumers and ultimately ensuring a greater
productive capacity.
Although many harmful and wasteful
products are produced, capitalist markets are responsive enough to
produce and distribute many largely beneficial products, such as
vegetables, bricks, beds and recorded music. Indeed, the amazing
range of consumer choice is one of the most enticing features of the
capitalist system. In buying screws, breakfast cereals, travel
packages or building materials, there are options for nearly every
taste and requirement. Obviously there are limits to choice:
taxpayers are de facto consumers of "defence services" but do not
have a choice between military troops, conflict resolution services
and peace brigades. But where choice is catered for by markets, even
a small market segment can attract entrepreneurs, such as book
publishers or cleaning services for tiny niche markets.
Capitalism judged by
principles for a nonviolent alternative
Any challenge to capitalism needs
to have some alternative in mind. In chapter 5, some nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism are assessed against five principles,
which themselves can be viewed as features of an expansive
interpretation of nonviolence. Here is an evaluation of how
capitalism rates.
Principle 1: Cooperation,
rather than competition, should be the foundation for activity.
Contrary to this principle,
capitalism is founded on competition between firms and between
workers, and discourages cooperation, except for the purposes of
competition. It appeals to people's worst impulses with the claim
that pursuing self-interest serves the greater good. However, all
available evidence from every field suggests that cooperation works
better than competition.[5]
Principle 2: People with
the greatest needs should have priority in the distribution of social
production.
Capitalism does not operate
according to this principle. Instead, the standard idea is that
allocation of the economic product is through jobs: people get
rewarded for doing the work to keep society going. This is a sort of
meritocracy. However, although jobs do some of the allocation,
there's far more to the story. What actually determines a large
proportion of the allocation of goods and services
are:
- ownership of capital
(providing profits to owners); - credentials (providing high
salaries to those with the background and opportunities to obtain
degrees and enter occupational areas with protection against those
without credentials[6]); - executive salaries and perks
(providing high return to managers with more power); - state interventions (welfare,
pensions); - unpaid work (housework, child
rearing).
Within the framework of the
regulated market, solutions to economic inequality include reducing
working hours, increasing wages, reducing credential barriers, taxing
wealth and paying for housework. However, none of these challenges
the foundations of capitalism.
Philosophers who look at "just
desert" find little justification for unequal
rewards.[7]
Why should someone receive more simply because they have rich parents
or high natural ability?
There is plenty of production in
the world today to satisfy everyone's needs but not, as the Gandhian
saying goes, anyone's greed. The problem is
distribution.[8]
Principle 3: Satisfying
work should be available to everyone who wants it.
Under capitalism, this principle
is not fulfilled. People are expected to adapt to fill available
jobs, rather than work being tailored to the needs of
people.[9]
A job is typically regarded as an unpleasant activity that is
necessary to obtain income for a good life.
Compared to a society that
distributes goods to those who most need them, under capitalism there
is a great deal of inappropriate production, wasted effort and
pointless activity, including advertising, planned obsolescence,
military production, provision of luxuries for the rich and
unnecessary work and jobs that serve only to help justify receiving a
share of society's resources.[10]
In contrast, there is a great deal of work that is needed but for
which there is little or no pay, including child rearing, provision
of goods and services for the poor, environmental improvements, and
friendship and support for people who are lonely or have
disabilities.
Principle 4: The system
should be designed and run by the people themselves, rather than
authorities or experts.
Contrary to this, capitalism is
founded on control by those with the most money and power.
Participation by the people is fostered only to the extent that it
helps firms compete or maintains managerial control (as in limited
forms of industrial democracy).
Principle 5: The system
should be based on nonviolence.
Contrary to this, capitalism is
founded on the state's use of its police and military power to
protect the system of ownership.
Thus, capitalism fails on all five
of these principles. Every one of them is a challenge to the
capitalist way of doing things.
With this brief background on
problems with and strengths of capitalism, it is time to turn to key
areas from the viewpoint of nonviolence strategy. Three are outlined
here: systems of violence, belief systems and alternatives. These
arise from central aspects of nonviolence strategy. First, since the
strategy is based on nonviolence, it is obvious to focus on the
violent foundations of capitalism. Second, since the consent theory
of power underlies nonviolent action, it is valuable to look at how
capitalism fosters consent. Third, the other side to nonviolent
action's role in challenging oppressive systems is the constructive
programme, namely the building of a nonviolent society. This leads to
the issue of alternatives, in particular the way in which capitalism
destroys or coopts alternatives.
Capitalism's link with systems
of violence
From the point of view of
nonviolence, a crucial feature of capitalism is its links with
systems of violence, notably the military and police. For some
capitalist countries, which are run as repressive states, this
connection is obvious. But for capitalist countries with
representative governments, the connections between the military,
police and capitalist social relations are less overt.
For most of the time, overt state
violence is not required to defend capitalism, since most people go
along with the way things are. If the challenge to capitalism is
violent, such as by a revolutionary party that uses bombings or
assaults, then police and military forces are used to crush the
challengers. But sometimes there are serious nonviolent challenges,
especially when workers organise. Troops are typically called out
when workers in a key sector (such as electricity or transport) go on
strike, when workers take over running of a factory or business, or
when there is a general strike. Spy agencies monitor and disrupt
groups and movements that might be a threat to business or
government. Police target groups that challenge property relations,
such as workers and environmentalists taking direct
action.
At the core of capitalism is
private property.[11]
Military and police power is needed to maintain and extend the system
of ownership, but this is hidden behind the routine operation of the
legal and regulatory system, which is seldom perceived as founded on
violence. If a person or corporation believes that their money or
property has been taken illegally -- for example through insider
trading or patent violation -- they can go to court to seek redress.
The court decision, if not obeyed voluntarily, can be enforced by
police, for example confiscation of goods or even imprisonment. For
most of the time, property rights, as interpreted by the courts and
various other government agencies, are accepted by everyone
concerned. That goes for billion-dollar share transactions as well as
everyday purchases of goods.
Petty theft, big-time swindles and
organised crime are not major challenges to the property system,
since they accept the legitimacy of property and are simply attempts
to change ownership in an illegal manner. Criminals are seldom happy
for anyone to steal from them. Principled challenges to property,
such as squatting and workers' control, are far more
threatening.
Many people, especially in the
United States, believe that government and corporations are
antagonistic, with opposite goals. When governments set up
regulations to control product quality or pollution, some corporate
leaders complain loudly about government interference. But beyond the
superficial frictions, at a deeper level the state operates to
provide the conditions for capitalism. The state has its own
interests, to be sure, especially in maintaining state authority and
a monopoly on what it considers legitimate violence, but it depends
on capitalist enterprises for its own survival, notably through
taxation. In capitalist societies, states and market economies depend
on and mutually reinforce each other.[12]
In recent decades there has been
an enormous expansion of private policing. In the US, for example,
there are now more security guards, private detectives and others
privately paid to carry out policing duties than there are
government-funded police. In the military arena, there are now
private mercenary companies ready to intervene if the price is right.
However, these developments do not change the basic point that
capitalism is built on relationships between people, production and
distribution ultimately protected by armed force.
As capitalism is increasingly
globalised, international policing and military intervention become
more important to protect and expand markets and market
relationships. For example, economic blockades, backed by armed
force, can be imposed on countries such as Cuba. Usually, though, the
lure of the market for elites in weaker countries is more effective
than military coercion.[13]
Investment has done more to promote capitalism in Vietnam than
decades of anticommunist warfare.
Belief systems
Although capitalism is backed up
by violence, in day-to-day operation no coercion is required. Most
people believe that the world works according to capitalist dynamics,
and behave accordingly. Quite a few of them believe, in addition,
that this is the way things should work, and exert pressure to
bring nonconformists into line.
Here are a few common beliefs in
capitalist societies, with comments in brackets.
- Capitalism is superior to
alternatives. (Many people assume that success, in other words
dominance, means superiority or virtue. Logically, this doesn't
follow.) - Capitalism is inevitable. (In
the face of everyday reality, many people cannot easily conceive
of an alternative that is fundamentally different.) - It is fair that people receive
what they earn. (The system of jobs operates as a method of
allocating the economic product to individuals and groups. This
system is arbitrary and built on the exercise of power. There is
nothing inherently fair about it.) - The market is the most
efficient method of matching supply and demand. (In practice, many "markets" are artificial constructions, as in the case of
copyrighted software. The market is not used for things people
hold dearest, such as allocating affection in a
family.) - Selfishness is innate and
justified; it makes the profit system operate. (Humans have the
potential for both selfishness and altruism.[14]
Social systems can foster either.) - People who are poor have only
themselves to blame. (Blaming the poor ignores the exercise of
power in creating poverty and denies the social obligation to help
those in need.) - Greater production and
consumption lead to greater happiness. (Actually, happiness is not
closely correlated with objective measures such as
income.[15]Happiness is more related to how people subjectively compare
themselves with others, which suggests that inequality fostered by
markets reduces happiness.[16]) - Politics is something that
politicians do; ordinary citizens are not involved except through
voting and lobbying. (If politics is taken to be the exercise of
power, then capitalist economic arrangements are intensely
political. That workers do not vote to choose their bosses does
not mean there is no politics at the workplace, but rather that
workplace politics is authoritarian.)
Beliefs do not arise out of
nothing: they are an adaptation to the situations in which people
find themselves, sometimes challenging these situations. There are
three main ways in which beliefs supportive of capitalism develop and
are maintained: daily life, schooling and mass media.
First, most people adjust their
beliefs to be compatible with their daily life. This is a process of
reducing "cognitive dissonance," namely the difference between
reality and thought. If daily life is filled with buying and selling,
this makes market exchange seem more natural. If daily life involves
working as an employee along with many others, this makes selling
one's labour power seem more natural. If daily life involves noticing
that some people are very rich and some very poor, this makes great
economic inequality seem more natural.
But just because something seems
natural does not necessarily make it positive or desirable. There is,
though, a general tendency for people to believe that the world is
just. When someone is poor, this is a potential challenge to the
assumption that the world is just. One way to cope is to believe that
the poor person is to blame.
Of course, for wealthy and
privileged people, it is tempting to believe that they deserve their
wealth and privilege, and that others deserve their misfortune.
Beliefs in the virtues of capitalism are commonly stronger among its
greatest beneficiaries.
Part of day-to-day experience is
interacting with other people. If others share certain beliefs, it
can be hard to express contrary views, and easier to keep quiet or
adapt one's beliefs to standard ones.
A second source of beliefs is
schooling. Children learn conventional views about society, learn
that they are supposed to defer to authority and learn that they need
to earn a living. Just as important as what is learned in the
classroom is what is learned from the structure of the schooling
experience: pupils are expected to follow the instructions of their
teachers, a process that is good training for being an obedient
employee.
A third source of beliefs about
capitalism is the mass media, especially the commercial media, which "sell" capitalism incessantly through advertisements, through
pictures of the "good life" in Hollywood movies and television shows,
and in plot lines in which good guys always win. Due to global media
coverage, basketball star Michael Jordan became a cult figure even in
countries where basketball is not a big sport. Jordan is a symbol of
competitive success. He embodies the assumption that someone can
become rich and famous by being talented and that being rich and
famous is a good thing, worth identifying with and emulating. Jordan
thus is living testimony to the capitalist marketplace, even setting
aside the products that he endorses. Sport generally is something
that is sold through the mass media, especially television, and used
to sell other products, such as Nike running shoes and
McDonald's.[17]
As well as the beliefs listed
above, there are others commonly found in capitalist societies, but
of course not everyone subscribes to every one of these beliefs.
Nevertheless, the passionate commitment to certain core beliefs by
some people (especially those with the most power) and general
acceptance by many others makes it possible for capitalism to carry
on most of the time without the overt use of force to repress
challenges. This process is commonly called hegemony.
There are quite a few
contradictions within usual belief systems. Here are some
examples.
- The ideology of capitalism is
a free market in labour. This implies unrestricted immigration,
but all governments and most people oppose this.[18] - Sexual and racial
discrimination is incompatible with a labour market based on
merit. - A free market in services
implies the elimination of barriers based on credentials. For
example, anyone should be able to practise as a doctor or
lawyer.
A key group involved in shaping
belief systems is intellectuals. Although universities are attacked
by right-wing commentators as havens for left-wing radicals, in
practice most academics, journalists, teachers, policy analysts and
other knowledge workers support or accept the basic parameters of the
capitalist system. Through advertising, public relations, policy
development and public commentary, intellectuals give legitimacy to
beliefs supportive of capitalism. Many of the most vehement
intellectual disputes, for example over employment, public ownership
and taxation, are about how best to manage capitalism, not how to
transcend it.
Destruction of
Alternatives
For the past several centuries,
alternatives to capitalism have been systematically destroyed or
coopted. Sometimes this is through the direct efforts of owners and
managers and sometimes it is accomplished by the
state.
- The family-based "putting-out" system of production was replaced by the factory system. The new
system was initially not any more efficient but gave owners the
power to extract more surplus from workers.[19] - Workers' control initiatives
have been smashed. Sometimes this is at the factory level. In
revolutionary situations, such as Paris in 1871 or Spain in
1936-1939, it has been at a much wider scale. - Provision of welfare from the
state, including pensions, unemployment payments, disability and
veterans' supports and child maintenance, undercuts
community-based systems of collective welfare and mutual
support.[20]
This helps to atomise the community, making state provision seem
the only possibility. - Worker-controlled organising
is opposed. Trade unions are often tolerated or cultivated as a
way of coopting worker discontent, so long as the unions focus on
wages and conditions rather than control over
production. - Left-wing governments have
often acted to dampen direct action by workers.[21] - Affluence and the promotion of
satisfaction through consumption have bought off many dissidents,
actual and potential. - Socialist governments,
especially those that provide an inspiring example to others, have
been attacked by political pressure, withdrawal of investment,
blockades, destabilisation and wars. - International agreements and
agencies, including the International Monetary Fund, World Bank
and World Trade Organisation, are used to expand opportunities for
capitalism, especially through opening national economies to
international investment. - The production and promotion
of attractive new products and services make people want to join
the consumer society.[22]
Many commodities appeal to people's wants, including junk food,
television, stylish cars and trendy clothes, especially targeting
people's worries about relative status.[23]An orientation to commodities serves to displace achievement of
human values that are possible without commodities, including
friendship and work satisfaction.
Alternatives to capitalism can
provide both a material and symbolic challenge. For example,
socialist governments provide a material challenge by preventing
capitalist investment and reducing markets. The symbolic challenge is
that an alternative is possible, and this can be a more far-reaching
threat. This is why even small countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua,
with little impact on the global economy, may be seen as such a dire
threat by elites in dominant capitalist countries. To reduce this
symbolic challenge, such governments have been attacked militarily
and economically and by sustained disinformation campaigns designed
to reduce their credibility. One way to defend against such attacks
is through a more authoritarian socialist government, which then
serves to discredit the alternative.
This was the scenario following
the Russian Revolution, which occurred without much violence and had
significant libertarian aspects. The invasion of the Soviet Union by
eight western countries over the period 1918-1920 had the impact of
militarising the revolution, helping set the stage for the repression
under Stalin and making the Soviet Union a far less attractive model
than it might have been otherwise. To this was added an unceasing
campaign of anti-socialist propaganda that was only interrupted by
the military alliance with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany
during World War II.
Attacking and discrediting
alternatives is one approach. Another is cooption, namely
incorporating the alternative, or part of it, into the capitalist
system, or winning over adherents of the alternative view. This
happens frequently at the individual level. Vocal critics of
capitalism may seek to rise in the system so as to be more effective
in their challenge, only to become much more accepting of capitalism,
and sometimes even advocates of it. Cooperatives that are set up as
alternatives to commercial enterprises often gradually become more
similar to them, with workers becoming employees and cooperative
members becoming consumers. Some anti-establishment rock groups
become commercial successes, with their iconoclastic fashions and
angry lyrics a selling point.
Alternatives do not need to be "somewhere else," namely in another country. There are small islands
of noncapitalist practice and belief in the middle of every
capitalist society. Public parks and libraries are based on sharing
resources rather than buying and selling. Taking care of a friend's
children is cooperative rather than individualistic and
competitive.
The implication of these and other
examples is that a nonviolence strategy needs to both build
alternatives and to inhibit the power of the capitalist system to
smash or coopt alternatives.
Other systems of
domination
Besides capitalism, there are
various other systems of domination, including:
- patriarchy;
- the state;
- bureaucracy;
- the
military; - racial
domination; - domination of
nature.
(Note that to call something a "system of domination" is to put a label on a complex, ever-changing
set of relationships between people and between people and nature.
Any such label is bound to be a simplification and can be misleading
if it suggests rigidity and permanence. It can be useful if it
captures important regularities in relationships.)
The relation between these systems
is a matter of some debate. Some argue that one particular system is
fundamental, with the others being subsidiary or derivative. Of
special interest here is the view, common among Marxists, that class
domination is fundamental, with other systems of domination being
secondary. The implication is that the central struggle should be
against capitalism, with other issues being given second billing
until "after the revolution." Needless to say, this view is not well
received by those whose personal concerns are focussed on one of the
other areas.
From the point of view of a
strategy of nonviolent action, a final resolution of this issue is
not essential, since the same methods -- namely nonviolent action --
can be used directly against all the systems of domination. (In
contrast, while armed struggle may be used against the capitalist
state, it is never advised as a method to challenge patriarchy.) It
is useful, in this context, to outline some of the connections
between capitalism and these other systems of domination.
Patriarchy. There
was collective domination of men over women long before capitalism
arrived on the scene. What has happened is that these two autonomous
systems of power have largely accommodated each other, each changing
in the process.[24]
It is a commonplace observation that most wealthy owners and top
managers are men. In some societies, women are formally excluded from
high level jobs in business; in others there are psychological and
structural barriers including those associated with parental
expectations, educational opportunities, job discrimination,
expectations for child rearing, sexual harassment and a male
executive style. Individual men may be sexist, to be sure, but the
main effect comes from the system of expectations, roles and
behaviours that prevents or discourages women from succeeding as
big-time capitalists.
Down the job hierarchy, male
domination is entrenched in many occupations, for example in civil
engineering and driving tractors. However, this can change with time
and vary from country to country. For example, when typewriters were
first introduced, typing was a male occupation. Later it became
stereotypically female. Now, with the introduction of personal
computers, most users do their own typing. Most job differentiation
by sex has little to do with different capabilities and much more to
do with advantages for bosses and for men.[25]
Bosses, by catering for men's interest in having preferment over
women for prize jobs, maintain men's willingness to accept
subordination to other men.
One way to interpret this is to
say that men have used their power as men to prevent women from
gaining equality within capitalism. There are some exceptions,
especially in the case of inherited wealth. The liberal feminist push
for equal opportunity has made significant inroads into male
domination in business, though there is a long way to go.
If women gained equality within
corporations, would this be a threat to capitalism? Not really,
unless women brought different values and behaved differently from
men in equivalent positions. All the evidence suggests that women do
not behave all that differently: they are much more likely to adapt
to the business ethos than to change it.
There is nothing about the system
of capitalism that requires men to be in charge. Women can own
property and run businesses and in general keep the system going just
as well as men. The exception would be if having women in charge was
so unacceptable to men that capitalism itself came under attack by
men. If capitalism became a uniquely nonsexist system in a sea of
male domination, then it could be vulnerable. But this is far from
the case. By accommodating women's demands no faster -- and often
considerably slower -- than other sectors of society, capitalism is
in a sort of equilibrium or accommodation with patriarchy.
In principle, the expansion of
capitalist relations is a threat to male domination. If women can do
an equal or better job, then there is more profit to be made by
hiring them and promoting them. A full expansion of the market to
child rearing would involve massive expansion of paid child care,
with most mothers in the paid workforce. Capitalism thus provides
some pressures to undermine patriarchy, but again the outcome in
practice is more like an accommodation.
The relations between capitalism
and patriarchy are thus complex and variable, sometimes mutually
reinforcing and sometimes destabilising. (There are important social
and cultural dimensions to patriarchy as well as the economic
dimension that is emphasised here.)
The state. One
definition of the state is that it is a set of social institutions
based on a monopoly within a territory over what is considered the
legitimate use of force. Legitimate use of force is by police against
violent criminals and by troops against invaders. Private militias
would be illegitimate use of force, unless sponsored by the state
itself. Who decides what is legitimate use of force? The state
itself. However, feminists have pointed out that this definition is
incorrect, since violence by men against women, especially husbands
against wives, has long been treated as legal in most countries. This
is violence that the state considers "legitimate" but which it does
not control itself.
The key point here is that the
state claims a monopoly over collectively organised violence that
underpins capitalism.[26]
This is one of the crucial areas that needs to be addressed in a
nonviolence strategy against capitalism, as discussed
above.
Marxists have often treated the
state as an agent for the ruling class, as in the phrase the "capitalist state." While it is certainly true that the state serves
capitalists in various ways, the state can have its own interests and
dynamics, not all of which are supportive of capitalists and
capitalism.
One key issue, of special interest
to nonviolent activists, is war.[27]
Wars are primarily engagements between military forces on behalf of
states -- corporations do not run wars directly, though mercenary
operations and other nonstate groups are playing an increasing
role.[28]
Many Marxists, though, claim that
wars are driven by capitalist interests.[29]
The idea is that states engage in war to protect markets. The best
example is the Gulf war in 1990-1991, in which the US government
organised the military effort to defend Saudi Arabia and drive Iraqi
troops out of Kuwait, which can be seen as ensuring access to oil in
the interests of US-based oil companies.
However, the claim that capitalist
interests are the driving force behind war looks much thinner in
other cases, such as US involvement in the war in Vietnam in the
1960s and 1970s,[30]
US and Australian government support for the 1975 Indonesian military
invasion and occupation of East Timor, and NATO bombing of Serbia in
1999 to drive Serbian troops out of Kosova. There are natural
resources in Vietnam, East Timor and Kosova, but there is little
evidence that expected profits from these were big enough to justify
the enormous expense of war.
Even a purely destructive war has
benefits for corporations that produce weapons for the military. But
these benefits have to be weighed against costs. If the government is
funding massive military expenditures, then there is less money for
other functions, including corporate subsidies and consumer
expenditures.
The elimination of capitalism is
unlikely to eliminate war, if states still exist. After all, there
have been wars between socialist states, such as between China and
Vietnam in 1979.
The key point is that the state is
not simply a tool of capitalists, nor solely an "arena for class
struggle," but in addition has interests of its own. Capitalism and
the state system have grown up together and are mutually supportive,
but neither can be reduced to a puppet of the other. Hence a
nonviolence strategy needs to address both systems of
power.
Bureaucracy. The
word "bureaucracy" conjures up images of government agencies that
cause people headaches with their rules and regulations, commonly
known as red tape. Sociologically speaking, though, bureaucracy is a
way of organising work based on hierarchy, division of labour, rules
defining tasks, and promotion by merit. The keys here are hierarchy
and division of labour. In a bureaucracy, a worker is simply a
replaceable cog.
Government departments are
bureaucracies, to be sure, but so are most corporations. There are
bosses at the top, layers of middle management, all sorts of rules,
with everyone doing specialised jobs. Many other organisations are
organised bureaucratically, including trade unions, churches,
professional associations and environmental bodies.
Compared to slavery, serfdom or
nepotism, bureaucracy is a great step forward. It offers
predictability, reliability and accountability within its own rules
and so can compare favourably to informal systems where decisions may
be based more on personal favours, vindictiveness or whim (though
these play a role in bureaucracies too). For all its advantages over
previous systems, though, it is still a system that gives power to a
few at the top and subordinates most others. It also makes it easy
for outside bodies to control an organisation: only the bureaucratic
elites need to be dealt with.
There are various non-bureaucratic
modes of social organisation, including families (where individuals
are certainly not replaceable cogs!), networks and workers' control
(where workers collectively make decisions about how to organise
their work and what to produce).
Bureaucracy has become dominant
only in the past few centuries, along with the rise of capitalism and
the state system.[31]
It is an integral part of both, yet has its own dynamics.
Bureaucratic elites operate to serve their own interests, even if
this is at the expense of the organisation or its mandate. This is
illustrated by the enormous salaries and share packages that many
chief executive officers receive. This level of remuneration is
seldom required to make the corporation more profitable, especially
in cases where the company is losing money but the president gets a
larger bonus. It is best explained by the power that organisational
elites have to reward themselves, irrespective of the advantages to
the organisation.
There is a lot of managerial
rhetoric about flat hierarchies, team building, the network
organisation and so forth, but the reality is that traditional
bureaucratic hierarchy is alive and well. Bureaucracies are similar
to authoritarian regimes: there is no freedom of speech, no freedom
of assembly, no right to organise opposition movements and no ability
to choose leaders.[32]
It is often said that democratic rights end when you walk in the
office door.
Some of the greatest advances for
workers have been through organising in order to claim the right to
strike and bargain for better wages and conditions. Yet in most
workplaces rights are very limited indeed. Aside from legally
protected actions, such as strikes -- and these are legally protected
only in some countries and under specified conditions -- nonviolent
action by employees is likely to lead to dismissal. Often just
speaking out against the boss, or criticising the organisation on
television, leads to harassment, demotion or dismissal. The same fate
faces those who refuse to cooperate with instructions, who hold
vigils or set up alternative decision-making methods. Most nonviolent
action is considered illegitimate when carried out by
employees.[33]
Other systems of power.
As well as patriarchy, the state and bureaucracy, there are
quite a few other systems of power worth considering, including the
military, racism, industrialism, domination of nature (including
domination of nonhuman animals) and heterosexism. In each case, there
are strong links to capitalism but the system of power is not easily
reduced to purely a symptom of capitalism. These are not issues that
can be resolved easily or finally. The main implication, in any case,
is that overthrowing capitalism will not necessarily lead to solving
other problems. Nor will addressing the other problems necessarily
help in the struggle against capitalism.
There is no need to decide which
issue is the "most important." All systems of domination need to be
challenged and transformed. Capitalism is certainly one of them, and
that is sufficient rationale for developing a nonviolence strategy
against it. In order to make this strategy as effective as possible,
it is useful to recognise that there are other systems of domination
also worth opposing and transforming, and that if possible the
struggles against these systems of domination should be designed to
be mutually reinforcing.
Other issues
Whether capitalism is about to
collapse or actually will collapse cannot be easily predicted. Nor is
it obvious that collapse is a good thing. It might open opportunities
for grassroots alternatives,[34]
but it might create a demand for state repression. The collapse of
the Russian economy under capitalism in the 1990s -- with a 50% drop
in gross national product -- did not seem to improve prospects for a
better alternative. In any case, the possibility of collapse should
be taken into account in developing strategy.
Whether globalism is a new phase
in capitalist development or simply an extension and revision of
national capitalist systems is important,[35]
but it is not clear how much this should affect the way a nonviolent
struggle against capitalism is carried out.
Conclusion
There are many ways to analyse
capitalism, so in choosing or developing an analysis it is essential
to keep in mind what it is to be used for. The analysis of capitalism
in this chapter is for the purpose of improving nonviolence strategy
against capitalism. Three areas were singled out: the role of state
power, founded in violence, in protecting private property and the
capitalist system more generally; the shaping of belief systems to
support capitalism; and the squashing or cooption of alternatives to
capitalism. Later, in chapters 6 to 12, strategies will be examined
to see whether they address one or more of these areas. In this
sense, the analysis of capitalism presented here is one made from the
viewpoint of nonviolence strategy. Another connection between the
analysis of capitalism and the assessment of strategy comes through
the five principles for assessing economic alternatives, applied in
this chapter to capitalism and in chapter 5 to nonviolent economic
models.
It is important to remember that
capitalism is not the only system of domination, nor necessarily the
one with greatest centrality or priority. Therefore anticapitalist
strategies need to be developed in conjunction with strategies
against other forms of domination. Nonviolence has the great
advantage of being applicable, as both method and goal, to a whole
range of systems of domination.
Notes to
chapter 3
[1] The
word "capitalism" is used here to refer to a set of social relations
which have significant regularity and are constantly being both
reinforced and challenged. At times I refer to "capitalism" as an
entity in itself; this is just a shorthand for a persistent set of
social relations and should not be taken to imply that these
relations are monolithic, unchanging or autonomous. A poststructural
approach might avoid the word "capitalism" altogether and refer
instead to the multitude of contingent and problematic negotiations,
behaviours and the like. My main aim is to raise the issue of
nonviolent action as a means of challenging capitalist social
relations. No doubt this analysis could be rewritten from a rigorous
poststructuralist perspective. However, I doubt that it would be any
more valuable in that form.
[2]
This expression is by analogy to the use of "actually existing
socialism" to distinguish Soviet-type societies from the ideal of
socialism. See Rudolf Bahro, The Alternative in Eastern Europe
(London: NLB, 1978).
[3] Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism (London: NLB, 1975).
[4] See
for example David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations:
Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (New York: Norton,
1998).
[5] Alfie Kohn, No Contest: The Case Against Competition (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1986).
[6] Randall Collins, The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology
of Education and Stratification (New York: Academic Press, 1979);
Ronald Dore, The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification and
Development (London: Allen and Unwin, 1976).
[7] On
the psychological aspects, see Morton Deutsch, Distributive
Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1985).
[8] On
the way that social and economic changes are causing greater
inequality, see Robert H. Frank and Philip J. Cook, The
Winner-Take-All Society: Why the Few at the Top Get So Much More Than
the Rest of Us (New York: Penguin, 1996).
[9] There is a large body of writing on the nature of and rationale for
work. See for example P. D. Anthony, The Ideology of Work
(London: Tavistock, 1977); Vernon Richards (ed.), Why Work?
Arguments for the Leisure Society (London: Freedom Press,
1983).
[10] On the enormous surplus of production over needs, see J. W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth 2: Save Our Wealth, Save Our
Environment (Cambria, CA: Institute for Economic Democracy,
1994).
[11] Capitalism based on exchange of owned properties may be transforming
into a postmodern system of negotiated access in a networked world,
such as through borrowing, renting, outsourcing and franchising. See
Jeremy Rifkin, The Age of Access: The New Culture of
Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life Is a Paid-for Experience (New
York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2000). However, even with such changes, the
role of state power in maintaining the system's elements of control
remains crucial.
[12] Robert L. Heilbroner, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism (New
York: Norton, 1985), p. 105, says "remove the state and the regime of
capital would not last a day." See also Michael Moran and Maurice
Wright (eds.), The Market and the State: Studies in
Interdependence (London: Macmillan, 1991); Charles Tilly,
Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD990-1992 (Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell, 1992). Note that there are areas of obvious friction
between state and corporate interests. For example, businesses want
secure encryption whereas government spy agencies want only
encryption that they can break. The clash is most obvious in total
economic mobilisation for war, during which the state overrides the
market. See Lionel Robbins, The Economic Problem in Peace and War:
Some Reflections on Objectives and Mechanisms (London: Macmillan,
1950).
[13] Another factor is US policy elites' support for elite-dominated
representative government in Third World countries as a better method
of domination in a globalising world, using methods that appear more
consensual than authoritarian: William I. Robinson, Promoting
Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
[14] Alfie Kohn, The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and
Empathy in Everyday Life (New York: BasicBooks, 1990).
[15] Michael Argyle, The Psychology of Happiness (London: Methuen,
1987).
[16] Relevant here is Paul L. Wachtel, The Poverty of Affluence: A
Psychological Portrait of the American Way of Life (Philadelphia:
New Society Publishers, 1989).
[17] Walter LaFeber, Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism
(New York: Norton, 1999).
[18] Principled libertarians support unrestricted immigration.
[19]
Stephen Marglin, "What do bosses do? The origins and functions of
hierarchy in capitalist production," Review of Radical Political
Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 1974, pp. 60-112.
[20] Community-based systems should be distinguished from private
charities. The key distinction concerns who controls the
provision.
[21] Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969). A specific example of the way
state-led transformation discourages popular initiative is given by
Ed Brown, "Nicaragua: Sandinistas, social transformation and the
continuing search for a popular economic programme," Geoforum,
Vol. 27, No. 3, 1996, pp. 275-295.
[22] Martin P. Davidson, The Consumerist Manifesto: Advertising in
Postmodern Times (London: Routledge, 1992).
[23] On status and economics, see Robert H. Frank, Choosing the Right
Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1985).
[24] Sylvia Walby, Patriarchy at Work: Patriarchal and Capitalist
Relations in Employment (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1986).
[25] Cynthia Cockburn, Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men and Technical
Know-How (London: Pluto Press, 1985).
[26] On the state and the military, see Ekkehart Krippendorff, Staat
und Krieg: Die Historische Logik Politischer Unvernunft (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1985), as reviewed by Johan Galtung, "The
state, the military and war," Journal of Peace Research, Vol.
26, No. 1, 1989, pp. 101-105; Bruce D. Porter, War and the Rise of
the State: The Military Foundations of Modern Politics (New York:
Free Press, 1994); Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European
States, AD 990-1992 (Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1992).
[27] On grassroots strategy against war, see Brian Martin, Uprooting
War (London: Freedom Press, 1984).
[28] Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global
Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999).
[29] Karl Liebknecht, Militarism (New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1917);
Martin Shaw (ed.), War, State and Society (London: Macmillan,
1984), especially Michael Mann, "Capitalism and militarism," pp.
25-46.
[30] An excellent attempt to explain the US military involvement in the
Vietnam war as in the interests of capitalism is given by Paul
Joseph, Cracks in the Empire: State Politics in the Vietnam
War (Boston: South End Press, 1981), but his material suggests
that the interests of state managers took priority over the interests
of capitalism.
[31] Henry Jacoby, The Bureaucratization of the World (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1973).
[32] On bureaucracies as similar to authoritarian states, see Deena
Weinstein, Bureaucratic Opposition: Challenging Abuses at the
Workplace (New York: Pergamon Press, 1979).
[33] On nonviolent action within and against bureaucracies, see Brian
Martin, Sharon Callaghan and Chris Fox, with Rosie Wells and Mary
Cawte, Challenging Bureaucratic Elites (Wollongong: Schweik
Action Wollongong, 1997; http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Schweik_cbe/).
[34] L. S. Stavrianos, The Promise of the Coming Dark Age (San
Francisco: Freeman, 1976).
4
4
Conventional
anticapitalist strategies
Conventional
anticapitalist strategies
Go to:
Since its very beginning, there
has been opposition to capitalism, due to its disruption of
communities, exploitation and creation of poverty. In spite of
courageous resistance, capitalism in a matter of a few centuries has
become the dominant economic system, penetrating into every part of
the world and into ever more aspects of people's lives. In order to
develop a better nonviolence strategy, it is useful to examine other
strategies.
One approach is to try to persuade
those with power and wealth, such as landowners and corporate
presidents, to voluntarily relinquish their privileges. This approach
has repeatedly failed. A few individuals respond to religious and
moral calls for using wealth to serve the poor, but not enough. The
movement for bhoodan -- the donation of land for use by the landless
-- led by Vinoba Bhave in India beginning in 1951, showed the human
capacity for generosity. But ultimately, despite massive efforts to
encourage bhoodan, not nearly enough land was donated to
fundamentally transform the system of ownership.[1]
The basic problem with the
approach of seeking change by persuading the powerful is that power
tends to corrupt.[2]
Some individuals can resist the temptations of power, but there are
many who can't and plenty more who seek power precisely because they
can use it for their own ends, whatever the cost to others. Many of
those with power use every available means to protect it. Rather than
relying on persuading individuals, the alternative is collective
action by large numbers of people.
Until now, the socialist tradition
has provided the major source of sustained collective challenge to
capitalism. Here, two socialist approaches are considered, Leninism
and socialist electoral strategy. Obviously, these are enormous
topics, and only the briefest treatment is possible. The focus here
is on how these strategies rely on violence.
Leninist
strategy
Marx provided a penetrating
analysis of capitalism. However, he devoted far less attention to
alternatives to capitalism and strategies for achieving them, and
consequently there are various interpretations and extensions of
Marxism to anticapitalist strategy. One of them is
Leninism.[3] The basic idea is that a vanguard communist party will capture state
power in the name of the working class, an outcome called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The power of the state is then
used to destroy capitalist social relations. Subsequently, the state
is supposed to "wither away," leading to a classless, cooperative
society.[4]
Leninist strategy relies centrally
and heavily on violence, in at least two ways. First, capture of
state power by the vanguard party is expected to involve armed
struggle against the police and military of the existing state.
Second, once control of the state is achieved, the power of the state
-- backed by the police and military -- is used to smash capitalism.
Thus, Leninism is completely contrary to a nonviolence strategy.
Leninists seldom discuss what is supposed to happen to the police and
military after the state withers away.
In practice, Leninism has
performed true to expectations up to the stage of smashing
capitalism. Communist parties came to power in many countries through
armed struggle or military conquest, including Russia, China, Vietnam
and Eastern European countries. In these countries, traditional
capitalism was crushed. However, there has never been any sign in any
state socialist country of any withering away of the
state.
The costs of attempts at violent
revolution are enormous. Millions of people have died in
revolutionary wars in China, Angola, El Salvador and dozens of other
countries. Many attempts at armed liberation have ended in complete
failure,[5]
including all attempts to overthrow governments of industrialised
countries. Yet for decades many on the left remained attached to the
idea of revolution through armed struggle.
Even when armed struggle succeeds
in bringing about state socialism, there are serious problems. In
many cases the wars of liberation lead to militarisation of the
revolution.[6]
The human costs of state socialism have been enormous. Under Stalin,
tens of millions of Soviet citizens died in purges and avoidable
famines. In China, perhaps 20 million died of starvation in the
aftermath of the 1957 Great Leap Forward, a bold socialist
initiative, but this horrific toll was hushed up for decades. Most
state socialist countries have been highly militarised, have
curtailed freedom of speech, movement and assembly, and imprisoned
many dissidents.
While state socialism has brought
a range of benefits, including land reform, women's rights and
economic improvements, it has been a failure from a nonviolence point
of view, for two main reasons. First, state socialist regimes have
relied on violence for military defence and internal repression.
Second, the routine exercise of nonviolent action, such as speeches
and strikes, has been ruled illegal and met with full force of the
state.
That state socialism "failed" in
economic competition with capitalist societies is not the key issue.
If the goal is a society without class domination, economic
productivity is not the key criterion. Even if state socialism had
produced more goods than capitalism, it would have been a failure
from a nonviolence viewpoint.
One of the fundamental problems
with the Leninist approach is its reliance on violence. The power of
the state is supposed to be used to benefit the working class, but in
practice it is used to benefit the communist party elite. Leninists
argue that violence is simply a tool, a means to an end, but history
shows that the tool is not neutral, since it tends to corrupt those
who control it.
One possible antidote to
corruptions due to the power of violence is to arm the people. If the
working class is fully armed, this is a potent challenge to both
capitalism and to communist party usurpers. Guerrilla struggles are
the prime example of the strategy of arming the people. Some
guerrilla struggles have had a high level of participation, with many
women involved (though not so many participants who are physically
unfit, elderly or have disabilities). However, after the triumph of
guerrilla armies, it has been standard for conventional military
structures to be set up. The only socialist country to rely heavily
on an armed population for national defence was Yugoslavia, which may
well have contributed to the scale of violence in ex-Yugoslavia in
the 1990s.
Another problem with state
socialism is that although capitalist ownership is eliminated,
domination of workers continues in the workplace in much the same way
as in capitalism. Some critics even argue that state socialism is
really a form of capitalism run centrally by the communist party,
which should be called "state capitalism."[7]
Many members of vanguard parties
are quite antagonistic towards nonviolence. One possible explanation
of this is the heavy reliance of Leninist strategy on violence, seen
as necessary because the ends justify the means; if arming the people
is seen as necessary, then nonviolence is seen as antirevolutionary.
Or perhaps this antagonism is due more to the lack of a vanguard in
nonviolence strategy. If there is no vanguard, there is no privileged
place for those in it. Another explanation is that creation of
dialogue is at the foundation of nonviolent action, something not
attractive to vanguard parties since they believe they are exclusive
bearers of the true way to revolution. Finally, vanguard parties are
built on the premises that capitalism is the central form of
oppression and that action in the name of the working class is
central to its overthrow. Few nonviolent activists subscribe to these
premises.
Socialist electoral
strategy
Rather than using armed struggle
to capture state power, another option for socialists is to gain
state power legally, through election of a communist or socialist
party. This, arguably, is just as compatible with Marxism as is
Leninism. The first thing is creation of a suitable party, but rather
than being or remaining a vanguard party, it must become a mass party
in order to win elections. This requires developing popular policies,
forging a strong but flexible party organisation, engaging in
political debate at local as well as regional and national levels,
and campaigning in elections at all levels.
The success of socialist electoral
strategy obviously requires victory in elections, but being able to
form a national government is only the first step. It is then
necessary to use the power of the state to move towards socialism,
which means such things as nationalising key industries, introducing
or expanding government services such as education and health,
putting constraints on corporations and the market, and supporting
popular movements for greater power to workers and local
communities.
This strategy does not rely on
violence for getting elected, but once in government, party leaders
seek to use the power of the state to help restrain and gradually
replace capitalism. As this process proceeds, the power of the state
increases and is more effectively controlled by the government. In
the crucial part of the strategy, the actual transition to socialism,
the power of the state -- including police and military -- is
maintained or increased, and used to implement the policies of the
socialist government. To support this process, mass mobilisation,
possibly including armed workers' groups, may be used.
Socialist electoral strategy has
failed in a variety of ways. Many socialist and communist parties
have been unable to get enough votes to form a government. When the
parties have been very popular, with a chance of winning national
elections, sometimes there have been interventions by antisocialist
forces to sabotage their efforts, as when the CIA supported
nonsocialist parties in Italy and Chile. In some cases after being
elected, socialist governments have been "destabilised." The most
famous case is Chile, where the elected socialist government led by
Salvador Allende was overthrown in 1973 by a military coup, a process
helped along by the CIA.
Whatever the difficulties of
gaining and maintaining power, there is a far greater risk of failure
from cooption, namely loss of a drive for socialism as the party
accommodates itself to the capitalist system. Capitalist interests
oppose socialist parties at every stage, from formation to election
to policy implementation. Party leaders may be tempted to tone down
their rhetoric or to delay introducing socialist initiatives if this
means reducing some of the opposition from capitalists, who are able
to apply pressure to media, fund opposition parties and withdraw
investment.
A communist or socialist party
must appeal for votes but operate in a society in which capitalists
hold much of the power. Pushing too hard against capitalists may
cause a backlash, with capitalists throwing their weight strongly
behind less radical parties. However, not pushing hard means
disillusionment among some of the most enthusiastic supporters. But
left-wing supporters are not likely to vote for conservative parties,
so the easiest way to remain electorally viable is to gradually move
towards the centre of the political spectrum. Along the way, the
rhetoric and actual programme of bringing about socialism is watered
down or lost altogether. In this way what started as a socialist
strategy becomes a social reform strategy.
This has certainly been the
experience of the socialist parties in France, Greece, Italy,
Portugal and Spain, the so-called Eurosocialists. These parties
started out with commitment to democratisation, Keynesian economic
restructuring, cultural renewal and independent foreign policy.
However, in adapting to the requirements of getting elected and
exercising power, they jettisoned their radical goals, while the
social movements that supported them were disempowered. In all major
areas -- the economy, the structure of state power, and foreign
policy -- Eurosocialist governments have retreated from their initial
goals and become much more like traditional ruling
parties.[8]
Less ambitious than the quest for
socialism is the use of state power to bring about social reforms
that, among other things, ameliorate the worst effects of capitalism.
Examples are minimum wages, unemployment insurance, occupational
health and safety regulations, antipollution measures, maternity
leave, advertising standards, unfair dismissal legislation and
taxation on wealth. While many measures are designed to protect
workers, consumers and the environment from the consequences of
capitalism, others are intended (as well) to make the capitalist
economy work better, such as job training, tariff policy and laws
restricting monopolies. The strategy of state-led social reform is
often called social democracy, but a better name might be "capitalism
with a human face." It has been the rubric for many reforms that are
today seen as essential in a humane, enlightened society.
Social democracy relies routinely
on the power of the state to implement and enforce reforms. In this
it is not greatly different from the socialist electoral strategy,
except that the intended reforms are usually far less
sweeping.
The basic problem with social
democracy is that it just manages capitalism, not changing its
central dynamic. In recent decades, with the rise of a more
aggressive procapitalist movement commonly called neoliberalism, many
social democratic reforms have come under attack and been whittled
away. For example, reforms in western industrialised countries such
as the minimum wage, unemployment insurance and a progressive income
tax, designed to bring about greater economic equality in society,
have been undermined by casualisation of employment, corporate
relocations to low-income countries and skyrocketing income for the
wealthy.
Another shortcoming of socialist
electoralism lies in the electoral approach itself. It seems to be an
inherent dynamic of political parties that party elites develop a
vested interest in their own power, often at the expense of the
public interest. Party organisations over time tend to become more
hierarchical and less participatory, a process that applies to labour
parties, communist parties and green parties as well as
others.[9]
Another side to elections is the
legitimacy that they confer on states. When citizens can vote, they
are encouraged to believe that state power can be used in their
interests. This may have had some basis in reality when populations
and states were much smaller, but today with enormous and complex
states, popular control through elections is largely an illusion. Yet
this illusion is deeply embedded and fostered by education systems
and media attention to electoral politics.[10]
Most people see government as the avenue for fixing social problems
-- even those problems created by government. Socialists see
government as the ultimate means for dealing with capitalism, rather
than as an essential prop for its survival.
Conclusion
Obviously there is considerable
overlap between the strategies of Leninism, socialist electoralism
and social democracy. For example, many vanguard parties contest
elections and many socialist parties gradually become social
democratic parties. Meanwhile, social democratic parties, such as the
New Labour Party in Britain, become virtually indistinguishable from
their conservative opponents.
From a nonviolence perspective,
these strategies have several common problems.
- They all rely on violence,
especially the power of the state to implement socialist policies
and social reform. - They all rely on party elites
to lead the challenge to capitalism. - They are all built on
productivist, managerial assumptions. The party, the state and the
economy are all run on the same lines, with elites at the top to
make key decisions, while others are supposed to reap the benefits
and support the elites. - They all provide a key role
for intellectuals. Although many intellectuals tie their careers
to capitalism, others support the state in its management of
society, since this puts intellectuals in a privileged
position.[11]
Close scrutiny needs to be made of
any anticapitalist movement led by intellectuals, to ensure the
movement is not a way to put a group of them in privileged positions.
Radical intellectuals may become involved in revolutionary
parties.[12]
Successful socialist revolutions almost always are led by
intellectuals (Lenin and Mao are the most prominent examples) and
result in power to a stratum of intellectuals.[13]
It is important to acknowledge
that these strategies have been the most powerful source of challenge
and reform to capitalism. Furthermore, socialist activists have a
long record of organising and campaigning at the grassroots, often in
a way that builds community solidarity and initiative more than it
supports party elites. So socialist strategies, whatever their formal
limitations, can provide a framework for day-to-day work that is
quite compatible with a nonviolence strategy. The challenge is to
link this sort of organising with a different goal: the goal of a
nonviolent alternative to capitalism.
Notes to
chapter 4
[1] Geoffrey Ostergaard and Melville Currell, The Gentle Anarchists: A
Study of the Leaders of the Sarvodaya Movement for Non-Violent
Revolution in India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).
[2] For
impressive evidence from psychological experiments, see David Kipnis, The Powerholders (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981,
2nd edition); David Kipnis, Technology and Power (New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1990).
[3] For
an insightful critique of Marxism-Leninism, see Michael Albert, What Is to Be Undone: A Modern Revolutionary Discussion of
Classical Left Ideologies (Cambridge, MA: Porter Sargent,
1974).
[4]
This classless society is called communism, but this meaning of the
word "communism" has been fatally corrupted by its association with
"actually existing socialism," namely the actual societies ruled by
communist parties.
[5] Examples include Bolivia, Burma, East Timor, Greece, Hungary, Malaya,
Palestine and South Africa.
[6] Prominent examples are China, Soviet Union and Vietnam.
[7] See, for example, Tony Cliff, State Capitalism in Russia
(London: Pluto Press, 1955). The category "state capitalism" is
contentious given the significant differences with monopoly
capitalism.
[8] Carl Boggs, Social Movements and Political Power: Emerging Forms
of Radicalism in the West (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1986).
[9] Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the
Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracies (New York: Dover,
1915 1959).
[10] Benjamin Ginsberg, The Consequences of Consent: Elections, Citizen
Control and Popular Acquiescence (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1982). See also Benjamin Ginsberg, The Captive Public: How Mass
Opinion Promotes State Power (New York: Basic Books,
1986).
[11] Charles Derber, William A. Schwartz and Yale Magrass, Power in the
Highest Degree: Professionals and the Rise of a New Mandarin
Order (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Alvin W.
Gouldner, The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New
Class (London: Macmillan, 1979).
[12] For withering critiques, see Max Nomad, Rebels and Renegades
(New York: Macmillan, 1932); Max Nomad, Aspects of Revolt (New
York: Bookman Associates, 1959).
[13]
George Konrád and Ivan Szelényi, The Intellectuals
on the Road to Class Power (Brighton: Harvester,
1979).
5
5
Nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism
Nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism
Go to:
To develop a nonviolence strategy
against capitalism, it is essential that there be a nonviolent
alternative: a system for economic production and distribution,
including methods for making decisions. It is no good just being
against capitalism without an idea of what is going to be
better. From a nonviolence point of view, the trouble with the
conventional socialist strategies is that they depend ultimately on
violence, via reliance on state power, to both end capitalism and
bring about a socialist alternative.
A useful way to proceed is to
spell out the principles that the alternative should fulfil and then
to examine some proposals and visions to see how well they measure
up. The principles in the box were presented in chapter 3, where it
was noted that capitalism does not satisfy any of them.
Principle 1: Cooperation, rather than competition, should be the
foundation for activity.
foundation for activity.
Principle 2: People with the
greatest needs should have priority in the distribution of social
production.
Principle 3: Satisfying work
should be available to everyone who wants it.
Principle 4: The system should be
designed and run by the people themselves, rather than authorities or
experts.
Principle 5: The system should be
based on nonviolence.
The principles are simply a device
for helping to think about what is desirable. There are other
principles that could be proposed. Principle 5 alone is quite
sufficient to rule out most economic systems, real or
ideal.
Actually, the first four
principles can be interpreted as aspects of principle 5, interpreted
in an expansive fashion. Nonviolence as a tool for social struggle
allows maximum participation, and therefore any system that is run by
a few people is open to nonviolent challenge. The logical outcome of
a process of nonviolent struggle over system design is a
participatory system, which is in essence principle 4. If the system
is participatively designed, then opportunity for satisfying work
(principle 3) is almost certain to be built in, since satisfying work
is something widely recognised as worthwhile. Serving those in need
is an integral part of the nonviolence constructive programme, thus
leading to principle 2. Finally, nonviolent action is a method for
engaging in dialogue and seeking a common truth, which in essence is
a process built around fostering cooperation rather than one person
or group beating another.
To illustrate nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism, in this chapter four models are examined:
sarvodaya, anarchism, voluntaryism and demarchy. Each of these
satisfies most or all of the principles, but they are different in a
number of respects. In the following, each alternative is briefly
described and assessed in relation to the principles, with some
additional comments about background, strengths, weaknesses and
implications for strategy.
Sarvodaya
The Gandhian ideal of village
democracy and economic self-reliance, going under the name sarvodaya,
is a fundamental rejection of capitalist economics.[1]
Gandhi described it as follows:
Independence must begin at
the bottom. Thus every village will be a republic or panchayat
having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has
to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to
the extent of defending itself against the whole world. This does
not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from
the world. It will be free and voluntary play of mutual forces.
Such a society is necessarily highly cultured, in which every man
and woman knows what he or she wants, and, what is more, knows
that no one should want anything that others cannot have with
equal labour. In this structure composed of innumerable villages,
there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles. Life will
not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it
will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual
always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish
for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one
life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance
but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of
which they are integral parts. In this, there is no room for
machines that would displace human labour and concentrate power in
a few hands. Labour has its unique place in a cultural human
family. Every machine that helps every individual has a
place.[2]
In sarvodaya, ethics and economics
are intertwined. The aim is an improved quality of life, and this
means that increasing the material standard of living should not be
at the expense of social and spiritual values.
There are a number of key concepts
underlying sarvodaya: swadeshi, bread labour, non-possession,
trusteeship, non-exploitation and equality.[3]
Swadeshi, which can be thought of as self-reliance, can be
interpreted narrowly as self-sufficiency or more broadly as the
ability of a community to support itself without undue dependence on
others. This rules out domination of economic life by governments or
large corporations.
Bread labour is the participation
by individuals in work to produce the necessities of life. It is
analogous to self-reliance but at the individual rather than
collective level. Work is seen as a positive activity, rather than
something to be avoided or minimised.
The idea of non-possession is that
one should possess only those things that one needs (as distinguished
from what one might want), and nothing else. This of course
rules out capitalist ownership. Non-possession is compatible with the
principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according
to their need."
The principle of trusteeship is
that those who use resources look after them for the benefit of the
community. This includes both material resources, such as land and
tools, and people's abilities. People who possess natural talents
should consider them as community resources rather than private
possessions.
Non-exploitation means not taking
advantage of others. Equality can be interpreted in a limited fashion
as equality of opportunity or more deeply as a process by which all
community resources are used to help each person achieve the greatest
possible quality of life. This is compatible with diversity but
implies that those with greatest needs will have a greater claim on
community resources.
In sarvodaya, people are educated
for social consciousness, namely to ensure that they are aware of
wider obligations and connections, and see themselves as part of and
serving something greater. Discrimination is eliminated. At a
political level, the basic organising principle is self-rule at the
village level. Technology is chosen so that it maintains the
principles of the system, including equality and useful
work.
Principle 1: cooperation.
Sarvodaya is based on cooperation rather than conflict. The
key to getting things done is commitment, which is built through
community solidarity and education.
Principle 2: serving those
in need. This principle is at the core of sarvodaya: its
fundamental requirement is to eliminate discrimination and serve
those with greatest need. The use of trusteeship is intended to
prevent private wants taking precedence.
Principle 3: satisfying
work. Bread labour, namely everyone working to produce the
necessities of life, has the potential of being satisfying to nearly
all. However, there are other types of work that can be satisfying,
such as brain surgery and computer programming (though these can also
be soul-destroying if done just to make a living). These are not
bread labour, so how do they fit into sarvodaya? It is not clear
whether sarvodaya can be made compatible with the elaborate division
of labour (that is, occupational specialisation) common in
industrialised countries.
Some types of work can be
satisfying to the individual but may be the basis for inequality or
serving only those who are better off. Sarvodaya would need to have
mechanisms to limit such work or, alternatively, to ensure that
special privileges did not accrue to those doing such
work.
Principle 4: participation.
Being organised at a village level, sarvodaya is
participatory and self-managing. There is direct democracy at the
village level, with federations of villages up to the level of the
state. Exactly how decisions would be made at the higher levels is
not fully specified.
Principle 5: nonviolence.
The essence of sarvodaya is commitment to nonviolence as a
way of life and as a method of social change.
One possible clash with the
principles could arise from the role of the state, which is basically
a federation of village democracies. In some models of sarvodaya, the
state owns heavy industry as well as all other property that is
directly used under trusteeship. The state is not supposed to
interfere with society. But what about the individuals with
responsibility for operations at the level of the state, for example
heavy industry? Is there not a possibility that the greater power at
the state level could be corrupting, and used to increase the power
and wealth of officials? Since the state in current-day societies is
built around violence, namely the military and police, the way in
which a sarvodaya state would operate needs careful attention to
ensure that a different dynamic is possible. Alternatively, sarvodaya
might be reformulated without any state at all.
Sarvodaya has been the focus of
considerable organising in India and Sri Lanka since the
1950s.[4]
Sarvodaya adherents have gone into villages and worked at fostering
self-reliance through practical means such as constructing housing
and schools, installing energy systems and instituting soil
conservation measures. These practical measures also serve to awaken
individuals and groups to their own potentials for compassion,
sharing and cooperative endeavour or, in other words, personal
development and community building. Organisations and networks in
what can be called the sarvodaya movement have supported such village
work by recruiting volunteers, providing training and evaluating
progress.
In spite of the enormous
grassroots effort that has gone into promoting sarvodaya, the main
path of development in India and Sri Lanka has been capitalist, to a
large extent due to efforts by leading politicians. In India,
national leaders have given lip service to Gandhian ideals but in
practice given virtually no support to Gandhi's vision of village
democracy and self-reliance. This gives added weight to the
reservation about the role of a sarvodaya state: the state, being a
location of centralised power, is unlikely to provide much genuine
support for a decentralised economic structure.
Outside India and Sri Lanka,
sarvodaya is largely unknown. In developed countries, the principle
of serving those with greatest need clashes with negative or hostile
attitudes towards the poor and homeless, though serving the needy is
not an enormous leap from familiar traditions of welfare, charity and
mutual help. The idea of village democracy would require adaptation
to be relevant to urban and suburban living, but it is not so far
from notions of participatory democracy and experiences of community
organising. However, sarvodaya's commitment to bread labour is so
alien as to be almost incomprehensible. Occupational specialisation
is so elaborate in capitalist economies that bread labour appears
only possible in some reversion to an agricultural society. Therefore
this component would need some revamping to be relevant to a society
with a high division of labour.
As a vision for an alternative,
the possibility that sarvodaya might include a state can cause some
difficulty. Although a sarvodaya state, namely the culmination of
village democracies, is supposed to be very different from a
capitalist state, nevertheless the concept gives more credibility to
existing states than a model of stateless sarvodaya.
The greatest strength of sarvodaya
as both a vision and a strategy for change is its total challenge to
capitalist assumptions of inequality, competition, consumerism and
alienating work. To raise sarvodaya as an alternative is to question
the fundamentals of capitalism. Sarvodaya as a strategy for change
has the advantage of being modular: local initiatives can be taken
wherever possible, immediately, without waiting for wider
changes.
Several of sarvodaya's strengths
are also its weaknesses. Because it is such a contrast to capitalism,
it seems totally impractical in an industrial or postindustrial
society. The method of local development is fine, but in itself
contains no strategy for challenging the foundations of capitalism,
namely the synergy of state power and corporate bureaucracy,
including the influence of consumer goods, advertising and wage
labour.
Anarchism
As a political philosophy and
strategy for change, anarchism dates back to the 1800s, when in
European socialist circles it was the major contender with Marxism.
Whereas Marxism is primarily a critique of capitalism, anarchism is
principally a critique of the state.[5]
While many anarchists still
consider the state the main source of oppression, there has been a
gradual broadening of concern among anarchists, so that anarchism has
become a general critique of domination, including in its ambit the
state, capitalism, patriarchy and domination of nature, among others.
Given that many activists have taken on board feminist, antiracist,
environmental and other causes, what continues to distinguish
anarchist analysis is attention to problems with state
power.
The anarchist alternative to the
state can be called self-management which, contrary to the name,
means direct collective control over decisions, typically at the
level of workplaces and local communities. Rather than someone else
having decision-making power -- elected representatives, bosses,
experts -- groups of people have this power themselves. In
workplaces, self-management means workers directly making decisions
about what is produced, how the work is done and who does what. This
is also called workers' control.[6]
The word anarchy is commonly used
in everyday speech and the media to mean chaos. In contrast, anarchy
to anarchists means a society based on principles of freedom,
equality and participation, without government or domination. Far
from chaotic, it would be very well organised indeed -- organised by
the people in it.
Concerning capitalism, anarchism
does not have its own separate analysis, but pretty much adopts the
Marxist critique. Furthermore, anarchism shares Marxism's ultimate
goal, "communism" in its original sense of a classless society,
without a state. Where anarchism dramatically departs from Marxism is
in how to achieve a classless society. Since anarchists see the state
as a central source of domination, they completely oppose the
revolutionary capture of state power by vanguard parties -- this is
the core of the historical antagonism between Marxists and anarchists
-- and also reject socialist electoral strategies. Instead,
anarchists favour self-management as the means as well as the goal:
workers and communities should take control over decisions that
affect their lives. In either a gradual expansion or a rapid,
revolutionary upsurge in self-management, the existing sources of
state and capitalist domination would be superseded. Thus anarchists,
like Gandhians, believe that the means should reflect the
ends.
How an anarchist economic system
would operate has not been given a lot of detailed attention, partly
because it is assumed that the system would be set up by those
participating in it rather than according to a theorist's blueprint.
One general vision is of free distribution.[7]
Self-managed enterprises would produce goods for community needs.
These goods would be available to anyone who needs them, without any
system of monetary exchange. In order to coordinate production,
enterprises would share information. For making higher-level
decisions on all issues, the organising principle would be the
federation. Each self-managing group would send one or more elected
delegates to a delegate body which would make recommendations for the
groups to consider. Delegates are bound by their groups' decisions
and can be recalled at any time, unlike representatives who are able
to follow their own whims whatever the electorate prefers. The
federation structure can have many layers, with delegates from
delegate bodies meeting together and so forth. Delegate bodies would
not have the power to make binding decisions. The function of
federation is coordination, not rule.
It is now possible to consider
anarchism according to the five principles of nonviolent
economics.
Principle 1:
cooperation. With the system of self-management, decisions
are made collectively in a participatory fashion. While there can be
disagreements and disputes, the basis for economic decision making is
cooperation rather than competition.
Principle 2: serving those
in need. The system of free distribution is designed to
provide for human needs, in accordance with Marx's principle of "From
each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" (a principle rejected in actual socialist economies in favour of
economic reward according to contributions). Unlike sarvodaya,
anarchism does not make serving those in need a central moral
principle. Instead, satisfying needs is treated more as a pragmatic
issue, namely as a sensible goal that ought to be built into the way
the economic system works.
Principle 3: satisfying
work. Through self-management, work is organised by the
workers. This means that the way work is done can be designed to
provide work satisfaction, though of course efficiency and production
for human needs are also vital considerations. Work satisfaction
might be promoted through job rotation, multiskilling, automation of
unpleasant tasks, designing of production systems to offer individual
challenge and group interaction, and designing of tasks around
individuals' specific needs, abilities and capacities for
learning.
Principle 4:
participation. Self-management is a system for direct
participation by people in decisions that affect their lives.
Participation at higher levels is through delegates and federations,
and here there may be difficulties. Although delegates are supposed
to have no independent power, and delegates can be changed at any
time by the groups that selected them, in practice delegates may gain
considerable power. A group is likely to pick more articulate and
knowledgeable individuals to be delegates and, with their experience
on federated bodies, they are likely to become harder to replace.
Further up the federative structure, accountability is more
attenuated. Participation is thus strongest at the group level and
more problematical at upper federated levels.
Principle 5: nonviolence.
There have long been two strands within anarchism, those
supporting only nonviolent methods and those believing that some
armed struggle by the people will be necessary. The nonviolent strand
dates back to pacifist anarchists such as Leo Tolstoy, who was an
early inspiration for Gandhi. Those anarchists who accept a role for
people's violence usually see this occurring only in defence of
revolutionary changes against the violence of the state. The idea of
an armed vanguard seeking to capture state power is alien to
anarchism, since it opposes the state.
A popular conception of the
anarchist is of a terrorist who practises "propaganda of the deed" as
a means of sowing chaos. This is very far from most anarchist
thinking and practice. There are some individuals who have undertaken
assassinations and bombings and called themselves anarchists, but
usually they have little connection with anarchist groups and are
rejected by most anarchists. Nevertheless, anarchism has been tarred
with a violent image, which is convenient to and has been fostered by
its opponents on both the right and left.
Suffice it to say that only the
nonviolent strand of anarchism is fully compatible with the principle
of nonviolence. But violence is not central for even those anarchists
who believe armed struggle will be necessary in a transition to
self-management. In the usual anarchist model of economics, there is
no state, no standing army and no system of private
property.[8]
Anarchism was a considerable force
in the international socialist movement prior to World War I. It
reached its most dramatic expression in Spain, where it was behind
the 1936 revolution but within a few years was crushed by the fascist
armies led by Franco on the one hand and by the communists in the
republican movement on the other. A type of spontaneous anarchism is
apparent in many revolutionary situations, such as the Paris Commune
of 1871, the early stages of the Russian Revolution in 1917-1918,
Germany 1918-1919, Hungary 1956, France 1968 and Chile 1970-1971. In
such cases, workers and communities organise themselves to run
society, without a government.[9]
Another side to anarchist action
is cooperatives, which are enterprises in which the workers manage
everything without bosses. There are food cooperatives, media
cooperatives and manufacturing cooperatives.[10] Cooperatives could be considered to be a feature of a Gandhian
constructive programme. They are an attempt to "live the alternative" or, in other words, to use means for social change that contain
within them elements of the sought-after goal.
For all their strengths,
cooperatives have seldom been able to provide much of a challenge to
capitalist enterprises. Few cooperatives have the capital or size to
compete effectively, and with larger size there is a serious risk of
reverting to conventional working arrangements, with a hierarchy
developing and workers becoming like employees.
Another economic initiative with
links to anarchism occurs when workers take over existing enterprises
and run them without bosses. As noted earlier, this often occurs in
revolutionary situations, but it can happen at other occasions too,
especially when jobs or the entire enterprise are under
threat.[11]
Such instances of direct action by workers are commonly met by
concerted action by government and other companies to put owners and
managers back in command. Workers' control is a serious challenge to
capitalists and their government allies. It can occur in government
enterprises too.
In a wide range of areas, there
are initiatives and ongoing activities that can be interpreted as
practical manifestations of anarchism.[12]
Examples include:
- free schools, in which
teachers and students collaborate in learning[13]; - housing constructed by
dwellers, often in a community where mutual help is
provided[14]; - citizen control over town
planning; - workers collectively making
decisions to get things done at work despite bosses and
regulations; - voluntarily organised
children's play; - informal systems in families
and local communities for supportively responding to delinquent or
deviant behaviour; - sharing of information on the
Internet.
Although in recent decades there
have been many activities and initiatives that are compatible with
anarchism, groups that are explicitly anarchist have not been
prominent. There are quite a number of small groups, newsletters and
local activities, but the activity is usually low profile. To
complicate the picture, there are many individuals who call
themselves anarchists but who have little idea of anarchist theory or
practice and mainly use this label because of its antiestablishment
connotations.
Although the explicit anarchist
movement is not well developed, anarchist sentiments are quite common
in social movements, especially the feminist, environmental and
nonviolence movements, though members may not describe their beliefs
with the anarchist label. They are opposed to systems of rule,
whether capitalist, communist or representative, and support instead
methods of direct democracy such as consensus. They reject reform
solutions of achieving power through individual advancement or
parliamentary election, seeing bureaucratic hierarchies as part of
the problem. Their aim is to empower individuals and communities
rather than to gain power and use that power to "help" others.
This type of anarchist sensibility
is widespread. Activists would agree that in many countries it has
much more support than do vanguard left parties. This sensibility is
seldom due to the direct influence of anarchists or anarchist
writings. Rather, it appears to be a response to hierarchical systems
of power, reflecting a belief that a more egalitarian society is both
possible and desirable.[15]
Anarchism's greatest strengths are
its general critique of domination and its alternative of
self-management, which is both a means and an end. Although its
critique remains focussed on the state, anarchism has broadened its
ambit, a process that could easily be continued as new sources of
oppression develop or are discovered.
Unlike Marxism and feminism,
anarchism has only a small academic following, so anarchist theory
has not received all that much attention. In particular, anarchism's
critique of capitalism is undeveloped. The lynchpin of anarchist
critique is the state, but if the power of multinational corporations
is overshadowing that of states, anarchist critique needs updating or
augmenting.
Anarchism is built on an
assumption of rationality, and much anarchist activity centres around
providing information about problems with the state and the
advantages of self-management. Yet in a world in which commercial
speech and government disinformation are becoming ever more
sophisticated, and in which voices of rational critique remain in the
margins, anarchism may need something more than small-scale
alternatives and reliance on spontaneous self-management in
revolutionary situations.
Nonviolent action provides an
ideal complement to anarchist theory and practice. Anarchists have
often used nonviolent action but, as noted, many anarchists believe
that armed popular struggle may be necessary. By instead seeking an
alliance between nonviolence and anarchism, much more progress may be
possible.
Voluntaryism
Imagine a market economy in which
all interactions are based on voluntary agreements, and in which
there is no state or other agency that can use force to protect
property or enforce laws. That is the essence of
voluntaryism.
"The Voluntaryists are
libertarians who have organized to promote non-political strategies
to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory
and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles.
Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy
in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably
strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to
delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal
of the co-operation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately
depends."[16]
Voluntaryism is a spin-off from
libertarianism.[17]
Libertarians are opposed to government, but then divide into
libertarian socialists -- who are more or less equivalent to
anarchists -- and free-market libertarians. Free-market libertarians
oppose government, but most of them see a need for a minimal state
whose main role would be to protect private property and run the
legal system. Most of the other functions of the state would be
dropped, such as running schools, providing welfare, and regulating
workplace safety and pollution. All these functions would be handled
by the market. For example, enterprises would offer education
services and employees injured on the job could sue their employers.
Libertarians trust the market to solve many problems, such as
unemployment. For example, without minimum wage legislation, some
enterprises would find it profitable to provide jobs for most of
those presently unemployed. Charity would provide for those few still
in need.
Voluntaryists adopt much of this
model, but are opposed to the minimal state and the use of force to
defend property. Instead, they argue that all economic arrangements
should be entered into voluntarily. If one side breaks an agreement,
for example by not providing goods promised in exchange for services
rendered, then the aggrieved party could respond by not entering into
further agreements and by notifying interested parties about the
other side's behaviour. Since a bad reputation would have damaging
effects in the long term, there would be a strong incentive to keep
agreements.
But without the state, and without
military forces, what is there to maintain order? The answer for
voluntaryists is nonviolent action, for defence against aggression,
enforcement of agreements and opposition to oppression. Voluntaryism
can be considered to be a combination of a market economy and
nonviolent action.
Voluntaryism is highly principled
in terms of method. Because it is based on a rejection of the state,
voluntaryists reject any method of change that relies on the state,
including lobbying or voting. On the other hand, noncooperation with
the state, such as refusing to pay taxes, serve on juries or send
children to government schools, fits the voluntaryist model
perfectly. This is in contrast with the Libertarian Party in the US,
in which voting and getting elected are seen as means to gain power
with the ultimate end of reducing the scope of the state. In
voluntaryism, like sarvodaya and anarchism, the means are compatible
with the ends.
Principle 1:
cooperation. Voluntaryism is based on cooperative
arrangements in a competitive economy. If someone else is offering a
better deal, then there is an incentive to trade with
them.
"People engage in voluntary
exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only
individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the
parties to it. Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything
to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results
in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary
information needed to make intelligent economic
decisions."[18]
Principle 2: serving those
in need. Voluntaryism does not have a built-in method of
serving those most in need. For this, the system relies on voluntary
service. However, this is far more likely than in a capitalist
economy, since there is no state to monopolise welfare provision. The
routine use of voluntary agreements and nonviolent action would
provide a favourable environment for helping others. Nevertheless,
like other market systems, provision for those in need, especially
those who have no way of helping themselves, is not a built-in
feature of voluntaryism.
Principle 3: satisfying
work. A voluntarily run market system would create many
opportunities for satisfying work, because it would not be run by a
few bosses for their own ends. Enterprises, like all activities,
would be voluntarily organised, which would encourage cooperatives
and other egalitarian structures rather than bureaucratic ones. Hence
workers would have a strong influence on the work they did. They
could choose to work individually (at least in certain occupations),
in a small group or a larger organisation. This means that having
satisfying work is a reasonable prospect. However, the market would
drive down economic returns in areas where there are excess workers
or low productivity, providing an incentive for workers to shift into
other areas.
Principle 4: participation.
Since all economic and other arrangements are voluntary,
participation is built in to voluntaryism.
Principle 5: nonviolence.
Voluntaryism relies on nonviolence in place of the state or
any other form of organised violence. Nonviolent action is both a
method of settling disputes and for defending communities. Thus
nonviolence is both method and goal for voluntaryism.
Libertarianism has its greatest
level of support in the US, which may be because that is where belief
in the market is strongest. The Libertarian Party candidate has
received the third highest number of votes in a number of
presidential elections. Voluntaryism, though, is a tiny offshoot of
libertarianism and has no organisational presence. Its principal
vehicle is the newsletter The Voluntaryist, edited by Carl
Watner.[19]
Currently, then, voluntaryism exists primarily as an idea rather than
a movement.
Watner, though, argues that the
voluntaryist approach has been the de facto foundation of many
productive economic and social activities, such as the evolution of
industrial standards, private postal systems and
philanthropy.[20]
Another example is when corporations settle disputes using an outside
arbitrator, independently of any government requirements or
mechanisms.[21]
This is far cheaper and
quicker than fighting through the courts. Any corporation that
refuses the arbitrator's decision would lose credibility for any
future arbitration, which provides a strong check on bad
faith.
Watner argues that when activities
are organised cooperatively, without government regulation, things
usually work far more efficiently. It is when government steps in,
with laws and regulations, that problems arise, including higher
costs, unfair dealings and monopolies. While arbitration can be done
entirely on a voluntary basis, often the state steps in to regulate
the procedure, providing legal penalties for noncompliance. This can
be taken to be an example of capitalism either crushing or coopting
alternatives, as described in chapter 3, with the qualification that
capitalism in this case means "state-regulated monopoly capitalism"
or "actually existing capitalism."
The sort of capitalism supported
by voluntaryists is indeed quite different from actually existing
capitalism. With no state to defend private property, it would mean
that large accumulations of capital would be impossible to sustain
unless others respected them. For example, workers in an enterprise
would have to reach agreement about entitlements to wages and equity
in capital. The full implications of the voluntaryist picture remain
to be worked out, but it is quite possible that large corporations of
the present sort would be unsustainable, because they would not have
state power to protect their far-flung operations if workers or
consumers decided exploitation was occurring and withdrew cooperation
or used direct action to push for changes. Furthermore, corporate
owners and managers would have a hard time exercising dictatorial
power since workers could withdraw to form separate companies or just
refuse to accept directives. The upshot might well be a proliferation
of much smaller enterprises, many of them self-managed internally,
held together by networks and systems of agreement, themselves
managed by enterprises that had built up high levels of trust. Just
as an arbitrator who makes fair-minded decisions is more likely to be
called on again, all sorts of "brokerage agents" -- the necessary
go-betweens in an efficient market -- would have a strong incentive
to be fair and be seen to be fair. This occurs already in areas such
as judging or umpiring for sporting events. All participants have an
interest in having fair judges, and those who are perceived as
talented and fair will be given greater responsibilities.
Although the law might appear to
be the source of order in communities, in many instances it is
unimportant to the way people behave. Robert C. Ellickson, in a study
of neighbourly dispute resolution in a ranching area in California,
showed that local people use informal methods in accordance with
local norms, even when those norms conflict with the
law.[22]
Voluntaryism thus has some basis in everyday behaviour.
As a strategy against capitalism,
voluntaryism has the advantage that it accepts the market -- which is
what capitalism's defenders portray capitalism as being -- while
rejecting the power of the state. Voluntaryism thus highlights the
violence that underpins capitalism. Voluntaryism builds on historical
and current experiences of voluntary agreements, a process that can
be expanded in small ways in all sorts of areas.
Voluntaryism, in its full-blown
form involving total noncooperation with the state, is difficult for
most people to follow, especially tax refusal, which is not easily
possible in most occupations. Most people rely on or accept
state-based services or impositions at least part of the time. If
voluntaryism is to gain a wider appeal, then partial adherence to its
principles would become common, as is the case with sarvodaya and
anarchism, where supporters "live the alternative" to varying degrees
depending on their circumstances.
A bigger problem is how
voluntaryism can widen its appeal. Should some sort of a movement be
built? How should it be structured? (Naturally, it would be a
voluntary arrangement.) Are there campaigns to be undertaken? What
should be the targets?
Voluntaryism has the greatest
natural affinity to libertarianism, but has attracted only a small
following by comparison. Is there scope for links with other social
movements such as environmentalism and feminism? It is interesting to
note that along with liberal feminism, socialist feminism and radical
feminism, one of the lesser but still significant strands of feminism
is anarcha-feminism, a synergy of anarchism and feminism. But there
is, as yet, no voluntaryist feminism. Is it a possibility? And are
there similar possibilities for other movements? If voluntaryism is
to become a powerful vision for an economic future, and a basis for
organising, then these are among the questions worth
exploring.
Demarchy
Representative government is based
on election of government officials who then make decisions that
citizens must obey. The power of the state is used to enforce
decisions. This system of rule is commonly called democracy, but at
best it is indirect democracy, since citizens do not make political
decisions themselves but only occasionally get to vote for
representatives. Furthermore, the representatives are not bound by
their election promises or by majority views in the electorate.
Representative government might be said to give the illusion of
popular control while ceding most power to elites, both those who are
elected (politicians) and those who are not (corporate executives,
government bureaucrats).[23]
Representative government thus is an ideal accompaniment for
capitalism, giving maximum legitimacy with minimal direct citizen
control.
In contrast, direct democracy or
participatory democracy is when people make decisions themselves.
Self-management is basically another word for direct
democracy.
One of the dilemmas of direct
democracy is how to maximise participation without using up
everyone's time. One method is the electronic referendum, in which an
entire electorate votes immediately on a measure after a television
debate. But even here participation is attenuated, since few people
can actually join the discussion, much less help formulate the
referendum proposal.
The anarchist solution is
delegates and federations. However, those who are not delegates are
not directly involved in higher-level discussions. The possible
danger is that delegates gain excess power through their positions,
and use this power to cement the resulting inequality.
Demarchy[24]
is built around a different solution to direct democracy's
participation dilemma. It is based around random selection and
separation of functions. Imagine a community of some thousands or
tens of thousands of people. Instead of there being a single
decision-making body -- an elected council, for example -- there
would be dozens of groups, each one dealing with just a single
function, such as transport, land, harvests, manufacturing,
education, arts, water, building, health and so forth. Each group
would be made up of perhaps a dozen individuals chosen randomly from
volunteers for that group. The groups would make decisions about
their particular area.
Thus, rather than everyone being
involved in every decision -- a sure prescription for overload with
direct democracy, or for concentration of power with representative
government -- every volunteer has an equal chance of being selected
for groups of their choice. Everyone would still have full
opportunity to lobby, write letters to newspapers, give testimony to
groups and in various other ways be involved in debating the
issues.
In demarchy, there is no state and
no bureaucracies. All decision making and implementation is handled
by the functional groups.
Some current systems of local
government, such as town meetings in part of the US and
municipalities in Norway, achieve high levels of citizen
participation and government responsiveness to people's
needs.[25]
Demarchy builds on the advantages of this scale of decision making
through random selection of decision makers and separation of
functions, both of which reduce opportunities for a few individuals
to entrench themselves in powerful and lucrative
positions.
The advantage of random selection
is that no one, however eloquent, devious or talented, is guaranteed
a decision-making role. Furthermore, no one who is selected has a
mandate. After all, they were selected by chance. So terms of office
would be limited, with a staggering of the random selections to
provide continuity.
So far demarchy is a model for a
political alternative. It can be extended to economics in various
ways. Functional groups responsible for economic matters, such as
industry and agriculture, could contract work to bidders, which could
be conventional enterprises or cooperatives. There could be
functional groups that make decisions about land, for example
requiring a rent for various uses or non-uses of types of land. There
could be functional groups regulating the money supply. The basic
principle is that groups of randomly selected citizens would decide
how the economy runs.
Demarchy is a challenge to
capitalism in two major ways. First, since it dispenses with the
state, there is no military and hence no ultimate resort to organised
violence to protect private property. Second, demarchy puts control
over the operation of the economy directly in the hands of
citizens.
Principle 1:
cooperation. Demarchy relies heavily on trust in other
citizens to make sensible decisions. Even those who are currently
members of a functional group cannot be a member of other
functional groups. This trust is bolstered by the process of random
selection and the limited terms of office, rather like the reasons
why citizens put trust in the jury system for criminal justice: there
is far less potential for bias and corruption than when a few
individuals have much more power, whether judges or
politicians.
The trust aspect of demarchy
suggests that cooperation would be more prominent than competition in
economic decision-making. Even if a market is used, it is a
grassroots-citizen-controlled market.
Principle 2: serving those
in need. Demarchy does not explicitly specify policies in
relation to need. Indeed, it is useful to note that demarchy is a
framework for decision making that does not specify the content of
decisions made. However, all the evidence available suggests that
citizen decision makers, who are typical of the community in most
regards, are more likely to be sensitive to those in need than are
elected representatives, who are for the most part wealthier, more
articulate and more power-seeking than average citizens. Furthermore,
those people who are most concerned about serving those in need would
have a strong incentive to nominate themselves, and other
sympathisers, for those functional groups that make the most relevant
policies.
Principle 3: satisfying
work. As in the case of serving those in need, demarchy does
not specify the nature of work but provides a framework that is
conducive to making work satisfaction a priority. Work satisfaction
is a high priority for most workers and there would be a strong
incentive for people interested in this to nominate for relevant
groups.
Principle 4: participation.
Demarchy does not guarantee anyone a formal decision-making
position, but instead gives everyone an equal chance of being members
of groups of their choice. In addition, anyone who wants to can join
in public debate, give testimony to groups and protest against
unpopular decisions. The level of participation in the groups can be
made as high as a community desires, by having more groups. In
reality, not everyone wants to be involved in decision-making
tasks.
On some controversial issues, such
as abortion and drugs, partisans will try to get as many supporters
as possible to nominate for the relevant groups, to increase their
odds of having greater numbers. But since groups hear testimony,
study evidence and discuss the issues in depth, not just any
supporter will do. To be an effective advocate of a position, a
partisan would need a deep grasp of principles and a sophisticated
understanding of arguments. A superficial prejudice could readily
break down in the face of new information and dialogue, including
awareness that those with contrary views are sincere and
well-meaning. Therefore, the process of mobilising supporters to
nominate for groups in controversial areas would have to be one
promoting genuine understanding. This would be, in essence, a
participatory process of community education, quite a contrast to the
usual dynamic of advertising, lobbying and getting the numbers, with
the aim of winning rather than educating.
Principle 5:
nonviolence. Since there is no state in demarchy, the only
way for the community to defend itself would be through direct
citizen struggle, whether armed or nonviolent. With no state,
demarchic groups have no means for enforcing their decisions, instead
relying on argument and public trust: if there were such a means, it
would be the equivalent of military forces. So the only really
self-consistent foundation for demarchy is nonviolent
action.
Historically, the closest thing to
demarchy in practice was democracy in ancient Athens.[26]
The Athenians used random selection for most public offices,
typically selecting 10 individuals, one from each of the ten tribes,
for a term of just one year. While any citizen could attend the
assembly, much business was carried out in the council whose members
were selected randomly. The Athenian system worked well for hundreds
of years. It gave priority to participation over competence, and with
multiple occupants of public offices, there were enough competent
people to make the system work. Ancient Athens was far from an ideal
participatory democracy, especially given that women, slaves and
foreigners were excluded from decision-making, but it does show that
random selection can serve as the foundation for a participatory
society.
Since the 1970s, there have been a
number of experiments with decision making by groups of randomly
selected citizens, especially in Germany, the US and
Britain.[27] Groups have been drawn together to look at challenging and
contentious policy issues such as energy scenarios, town planning,
transport options and dealing with mental illness. A typical "policy
jury" or "planning cell" involves 10 to 25 people meeting for three
to five days, hearing testimony from experts and partisans,
discussing options and making recommendations. These experiments have
been remarkably successful in showing the power of participation. The
randomly selected group members, many of whom had no prior knowledge
of the topic nor much confidence in their ability to contribute, soon
became enthusiastic participants. Most have reported very favourably
on the experience, while the groups have usually come up with
recommendations that seem sensible to others. What these experiments
show is that making ordinary citizens into decision makers in today's
world is a viable option. This provides strong support for key
aspects of demarchy.
However, there are only a few
people exploring demarchy and not even the beginning of a social
movement to promote this as an alternative. So demarchy for the
moment is primarily an idea. Furthermore, it requires much more
theoretical development, especially in its economic
dimensions.
Demarchy's greatest strength is
its model of participation that does not give anyone a formal
position of influence, no matter how brilliant, ambitious or
ruthless. Whereas a village leader in sarvodaya or a high-level
delegate in a federation of self-managing groups can use talent or
influence to gain a significant position, this is not possible in
demarchy, which is functionally decentralised.
A major weakness of demarchy is
that it is difficult to turn it into a strategy for change. Unlike
consensus or voting, which can be used with small groups, random
selection and functional groups only come into their own in larger
groups. This is not an overwhelming obstacle, though, since a local
community or a large organisation could decide to try it, but it does
mean that considerable effort is needed to build support. Another
difficulty is that leaders of challenger groups, such as women's,
environmental and peace groups, may not be supportive. After all,
they would not be guaranteed a special role when decision makers are
chosen randomly.
Comments on
alternatives
Sarvodaya, anarchism, voluntaryism
and demarchy are four possible alternatives to capitalism that are
compatible with nonviolence both as a means and an end. There are
other possible nonviolent alternatives, and no doubt further ones
will be developed in the future. The point of describing these four
is to show how alternatives can be assessed using a set of
principles.
It is noteworthy that in each of
the four models, the economic alternative is closely linked with a
political alternative. In sarvodaya, economic self-reliance is linked
with village democracy. In anarchism, self-management systems are
used in both economic and political domains. In voluntaryism, the
political realm seems part of the process of voluntary agreements. In
demarchy, random selection and functional groups are used in all
spheres. Partly this reflects the rather arbitrary distinction
between economics and politics, which always interact. In any case,
it suggests that the process of seeking an alternative to capitalism
should be tied to the process of seeking alternative decision-making
systems, both in the corporate sphere (including in organisations)
and in the sphere of governance.
One value in looking at
alternatives is to give guidance for strategy. For a nonviolence
strategy against capitalism, it is quite sufficient for most purposes
to use nonviolent action and foster grassroots empowerment. That is
very likely to move things in a useful direction. But at some point,
it is necessary to look at social arrangements: the way society is
and could be organised. More than looking at social arrangements, it
is essential to experiment with them. It takes an enormous amount of
trial and error to get the capitalist market working moderately well,
and even then there are periodic crashes. Similarly, elections
require a lot of social preparation, including education, rules,
agreements, expectations and the like. The same sort of trial and
error will certainly be needed to make any nonviolent alternative to
capitalism work decently. A rigid plan is not appropriate, but
general principles and some ideas for alternative arrangements can be
helpful. To use nonviolent action simply as a technique, without some
connection to creating different social arrangements, is a
prescription for reform without any change in the basic
system.
Examining alternatives gives some
idea of goals for a consistently nonviolent challenge to capitalism.
And because, in a nonviolence strategy, means need to be consistent
with ends, this also gives guidance about suitable strategies, the
topic of the remaining chapters.
Notes to
chapter 5
[1]
Kunal Roy Chowdhuri, "Gandhi's theory of sarvodaya socialism,"
Gandhi Marg, Vol. 15, No. 1, April-June 1993, pp. 62-77;
Amritananda Das, Foundations of Gandhian Economics (Bombay:
Allied, 1979); Romesh Diwan, "Income distribution theories and
Gandhian economics," Gandhi Marg, Vol. 6, No. 10, January
1985, pp. 707-720; Romesh Diwan and Mark Lutz (eds.) Essays in
Gandhian Economics (New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Foundation, 1985); J.
C. Kumarappa, Swaraj for the Masses (Bombay: Hind Kitabs,
1948); J. C. Kumarappa, Economy of Permanence: A Quest for a
Social Order Based on Non-Violence (Rajghat, Kashi.: Akhil Bharat
Sarva-Seva-Sangh-Publications, 1958, 4th edition); Jai Narain,
Economic Thought of Mahatma Gandhi (New Delhi: Sehgal, 1992);
J. D. Sethi, "Gandhian philosophy and theory of international trade,"
Gandhi Marg, Vol. 11, No. 3, October-December 1989, pp.
303-326; Rama Shankar Singh, "Elements in Gandhian economics,"
Gandhi Marg, Vol. 12, No. 4, January-March 1991, pp.
454-466.
[2] Quoted in Chowdhuri, pp. 66-67.
[3]
Romesh Diwan and Sushila Gidwani, "Elements in Gandhian economics,"
Gandhi Marg, Vol. 1, No. 5, August 1979, pp. 248-258,
reprinted in Diwan and Lutz, pp. 54-65.
[4] Detlef Kantowsky, Sarvodaya: The Other Development (New Delhi:
Vikas, 1980). The movements in India and Sri Lanka are different in a
number of respects but are grouped here for convenience.
[5] On
anarchism, see for example Daniel Guérin, Anarchism: From
Theory to Practice (New York: Monthly Review Press,
1970).
[7] Ken
Smith, Free is Cheaper (Gloucester: John Ball Press, 1988),
presents a case for free distribution, though not from an anarchist
starting point.
[8] This is the model of collectivist anarchism. An alternative model is
free-market individualist anarchism, which accepts private property.
Voluntaryism, discussed later, falls in this latter
tradition.
[9] See
Guérin, op. cit.; Michael Raptis, Revolution and
Counter-Revolution in Chile: A Dossier on Workers' Participation in
the Revolutionary Process (London: Allison & Busby,
1974).
[10] George Melnyk, The Search for Community: From Utopia to a
Co-operative Society (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1985); Jenny
Thornley, Workers' Co-operatives: Jobs and Dreams (London:
Heinemann, 1981). For a critique of cooperative practice, see Charles
Landry, David Morley, Russell Southwood and Patrick Wright, What a
Way to Run a Railroad: An Analysis of Radical Failure (London:
Comedia, 1985).
[11] Ken Coates, Work-ins, Sit-ins and Industrial Democracy: The
Implications of Factory Occupations in Great Britain in the Early
'Seventies (Nottingham: Spokesman, 1981).
[12] Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action (London: Freedom Press,
1982).
[13] Allen Graubard, Free the Children: Radical Reform and the Free
School Movement (New York: Random House, 1972); John Holt,
Instead of Education: Ways to Help People Do Things Better
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977); Jonathan Kozol, Free Schools
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972); Joel Spring, A Primer of
Libertarian Education (Montreal: Black Rose Books,
1975).
[14] John F. C. Turner, Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building
Environments (New York: Pantheon, 1977).
[15] This point is developed in Brian Martin, "Eliminating
state crime by abolishing the state,"
in Jeffrey Ian Ross (ed.), Controlling State Crime: An
Introduction (New York: Garland, 1995), pp. 389-417,
[16]
"Statement of purpose," The Voluntaryist, No. 1, October 1982,
p. 1. See also Carl Watner, "What we believe and why," The
Voluntaryist, No. 57, August 1992, pp. 1, 7.
[17]
Voluntaryists can also draw links with a number of prior thinkers,
such as the Stoics of ancient Greece. See Carl Watner, "Thinkers and
groups of individuals who have contributed significant ideas or major
written materials to the radical libertarian tradition," The
Voluntaryist, No. 25, April 1987, pp. 1, 7.
[18]
Carl Watner, "The fundamentals of voluntaryism," The Voluntaryist,
No. 40, October 1989, pp. 1, 3.
The Voluntaryist, PO Box 1275, Gramling SC 29348, USA. See
also Carl Watner (ed.), I Must Speak Out: The Best of The
Voluntaryist 1982-1999 (San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes,
1999), in which most of the articles cited here are
reproduced.
[20]
Carl Watner, "Voluntaryism and the evolution of industrial
standards," The Voluntaryist, No. 52, October 1991, pp. 1,
4-7; Carl Watner, "The most generous nation on earth: voluntaryism
and American philanthropy," The Voluntaryist, No. 61, April
1993, pp. 1, 3-7; Carl Watner, "`Plunderers of the public revenue':
voluntaryism and the mails," The Voluntaryist, No. 76, October
1995, pp. 1-7.
[21]
Carl Watner, "`Stateless, not lawless': voluntaryism and
arbitration," The Voluntaryist, No. 84, February 1997, pp.
1-8.
[22] Robert C. Ellickson, Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle
Disputes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1991).
[23] Benjamin Ginsberg, The Consequences of Consent: Elections, Citizen
Control and Popular Acquiescence (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1982); Thomas S. Martin, "Unhinging all government: the defects of
political representation," Our Generation, Vol. 20, No. 1,
Fall 1988, pp. 1-21; Edmund S. Morgan, Inventing the People: The
Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York:
Norton, 1988).
[24]
The word "demarchy" was coined by John Burnheim, whose book Is
Democracy Possible? The Alternative to Electoral Politics
(London: Polity Press, 1985) is the pioneering treatment of the
model. See also F. E. Emery, Toward Real Democracy (Toronto:
Ontario Ministry of Labour, 1989); Brian Martin, "Democracy without
elections," Social Anarchism, No. 21, 1995, pp.
18-51.
[25] On New England town meetings, see Jane J. Mansbridge, Beyond
Adversary Democracy (New York: Basic Books, 1980). I thank Ellen
Elster for comments on Norwegian municipalities.
[26] Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of
Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1991).
[27] Lyn Carson and Brian Martin, Random Selection in Politics
(Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999).
6
6
Nonviolence
strategy
Nonviolence
strategy
Go to:
A strategy is essentially a plan
of action for getting from a current situation to a desired future
situation. So a nonviolence strategy against capitalism is a plan of
nonviolent action for transforming capitalism into a
nonviolent alternative. Note that strategy is something in the
realm of ideas. Its implementation involves action.
To think about strategy, it can be
helpful to distinguish between the realm of actions and the realm of
ideas, though in practice they are interlinked. Consider first the
realm of actions. Figure 6.1 shows capitalism -- itself composed of
actions such as producing, selling and consuming -- becoming
something else: an actual nonviolent alternative. The means for this
transformation is nonviolent action.
Figure 6.1. Capitalism being
transformed into an alternative system through nonviolent
action
Figure 6.2 shows how the realm of
ideas applies to this picture. Analysis is a way of conceiving or
thinking about capitalism, while a goal is an imagined and desired
alternative. Strategy is the way of planning a way to get between the
current reality and the goal. To develop a strategy, it is necessary
to have some analysis of reality as well as some goal. To implement
the strategy, methods are needed.
Figure 6.2. Strategy against
capitalism. The top level portrays capitalism being transformed into
an alternative system through nonviolent action. The lower level
portrays thinking about this transformation.
To develop a nonviolence strategy
against capitalism, it makes sense that all components of this
process are consistent with a nonviolence framework. The analysis of
capitalism should be one developed from a nonviolence perspective.
That was the task in chapter 3. The goal -- an alternative to
capitalism -- should be a nonviolent alternative. Some possibilities
were discussed in chapter 5. Finally, of course the methods should be
nonviolent. These were covered in chapter 2.
Figure 6.2 shows a static picture,
but actually all components are subject to change. The analysis can
change due to new information or new perspectives. Also, the analysis
depends to some extent on the goal: because the goal is a nonviolent
alternative, the analysis should be from a nonviolence point of view.
Similarly, the goals depend in part on the analysis. By examining
what works and what goes wrong, such as the conventional
anticapitalist strategies covered in chapter 4, goals can be revised
or rejected.
Most importantly, the strategy
needs to be constantly reexamined and revised as the analysis and
goals change and as more people become involved and
contribute.
A strategy is much more than a
collection of methods. It involves organised goal-directed
activities, typically having roles for groups, campaigns and visions,
tied together to some extent. Examples are the Third World Network,
the campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and a
vision of support for poor peoples (rather than
exploitation).
How can strategies be assessed?
One way is to use the principles for assessing nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism, applying them in this case to strategy.
Here are the principles as stated in the previous chapter, adapted to
deal with strategy. These principles can be applied to both the
formulation and implementation aspects of strategy, namely both the
thinking and doing aspects.
Principle 1: Cooperation, rather than competition, should be the
foundation for the strategy.
Principle 2: People with the
greatest needs should have priority in the strategy.
Principle 3: A satisfying role
in developing and using strategy should be available to everyone who
wants it.
Principle 4: The strategy
should be designed and run by the people themselves, rather than
authorities or experts.
Principle 5: The strategy
should be based on nonviolence.
Principle 5 is the easiest to deal
with. Because the strategy relies entirely on nonviolent methods,
then the strategy is based on nonviolence, at least in the narrow
sense of absence of physical violence. The other principles bring in
other dimensions of nonviolence in the wider sense.
Principle 4 is very important.
There can be no presumption of formulating a grand plan for bringing
about an alternative, since that would be incompatible with the full
participation of those involved. The actual strategy has to be worked
out by participants, and that is yet to occur. Therefore, any
discussion of strategy by an individual, such as in this book, can at
most be a small contribution to a much wider process.
Indeed, any overarching plan is
vulnerable to attack or cooption, precisely because it is something
that can be observed and targeted. Far more threatening to capitalism
is a wide variety of challenges and alternative practices, each
contributing to a general change of belief and behaviour.
Nevertheless, it is not wise to
leave everything to spontaneous and uncoordinated initiative.
Thinking strategically is essential so that actions are effective.
The goal should be that strategy is democratised. All sorts of
individuals and groups need to think about and debate visions,
methods and paths, so that the "big picture" is not left to a few
high-level theorists or key activists.
Principle 3 -- providing
satisfying roles in developing and using strategy -- can be
interpreted as an extension of principle 4. Not only is strategy
democratised, but satisfying participation is available to all. That
means that the prestige roles and tasks should not be monopolised by
a few intellectual elites, experienced activists or pioneer
organisers. On the other hand, it is essential to recognise that
skills and experience are crucial in every aspect of social change,
including nonviolent obstruction, engaging in dialogue with
strangers, organising meetings, writing media releases and analysing
capitalism. To achieve principle 3 requires a process for involving
interested people in thinking and doing, developing their skills and
experience while not succumbing to the illusion that every committed
person can do everything equally well.
Principle 2 is a useful reminder
to keep the focus on those most in need. There have been many
revolutions made in the name of "the people" that only ended up
replacing one elite group by another.
Finally, principle 1 is that the
strategy should be developed and implemented cooperatively. That
seems obvious enough but the reality is that social movements and
action groups can become involved in competitions of various sorts,
including for recognition, priority or purity. One of the longest
standing conflicts is between those who think class struggle must
take priority over all other struggles, and those who think it should
be treated as one struggle among many. Whether or not a nonviolence
strategy against capitalism can be truly cooperative, it is a
worthwhile goal. However, this should be subordinate to other
principles such as being nonviolent.
For capitalism to be replaced or
transformed into a better social system will take decades or
centuries. To imagine that a brief revolutionary struggle can bring
about lasting change can be a dangerous delusion. It is far better to
think of strategies that bring short-term improvements while
contributing to long-term change. If things proceed more quickly than
expected, so much the better. But it is quite possible that
capitalism will become more powerful and pervasive in spite of all
efforts to the contrary. A strategy needs to be viable in that
circumstance too.
A check list for
campaigns
The five principles are quite
general. Furthermore, they were formulated for assessing nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism and so may not be ideal for assessing
strategy. On a day-to-day basis, activists are involved in
campaigning. For practical purposes, a check list for assessing
campaigns can be helpful. Here is one possible check list.
Check list for nonviolent campaigns against
capitalism
capitalism
1. Does the campaign help to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
3. Are the campaign's goals built
in to its methods?
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
The first point grows out of the
analysis of capitalism from a nonviolence perspective in chapter 3,
which pinpointed three key ways in which capitalism is maintained: by
ultimate resort to violence, through supportive belief systems and by
crushing or coopting alternatives. An effective nonviolent campaign
could be expected to address one (or possibly more) of these three
key areas.
Point 2, that a campaign is
participatory, can be seen as an outgrowth of the principle of
nonviolence, given that any nonparticipatory approach is open to
challenge by nonviolent action.
Point 3 about the compatibility of
methods and goals also can be interpreted as an aspect of the
principle of nonviolence, in that both the methods and goals are
nonviolent. Point 3 also applies to participation, which is part of
the goals and methods.
Point 4 grows out of the analysis
of capitalism and especially of the failures of conventional
anticapitalist strategies. Leninist strategies are now largely
discredited. The dominant mainstream strategies, which involve
working through the system to promote reform or gradual
transformation, are highly susceptible to cooption: they become taken
over by the system itself, so that there is little or no change in
the structure of capitalism. Therefore, it is wise to pay special
attention to a campaign's ability to resist cooption.
Others may wish to revise the
points on the check list or add their own. There may be points that
are specific to a particular country, issue or action group. The aim
here is not to provide a definitive list, but rather to illustrate
how such a list can be used.
It is important to remember that
check lists and sets of principles are simply tools to use to try to
improve effectiveness. They should not be treated as rigid
prescriptions or as means to end debate. Quite the contrary: they
should be used to encourage discussion. If they are a good choice,
they will encourage discussion of things that make a
difference.
In the following chapters,
campaigns and methods of various types are analysed. Chapter 7 looks
at workers' struggles, focussing on campaigns for better wages and
conditions, jobs, workers' control, green bans and whistleblowing.
Chapter 8 looks at sabotage, which is a method of struggle often
perceived as operating at the border between nonviolence and
violence. Chapter 9 deals with environmental campaigning, focussing
on the issues of pesticides, nuclear power and local antidevelopment
campaigning. Chapter 10 deals with social defence, namely nonviolent
community resistance to aggression as an alternative to military
defence. Although social defence is not normally seen as having
economic implications, it is relevant since it challenges the system
of violence that supports capitalism. Chapter 11 covers examples
relating to global trade, specifically the Multilateral Agreement on
Investment and genetically modified organisms. Finally, chapter 12
examines three economic alternatives -- community exchange schemes,
local money systems and voluntary simplicity -- assessing them as
strategies. In each case, the check list is used as a foundation for
discussing the potential of campaigns to challenge capitalism using
nonviolent action.
The campaigns examined in chapters
7 to 12 are some of the important avenues for a nonviolent challenge
to capitalism, but there are certainly others, including some
feminist and anti-racist campaigns, squatting[1]
and culture jamming.[2]
What knowledge is needed in order
to assess campaigns? Obviously it helps to have both intimate
experience of campaigning plus a full knowledge of history, arguments
and outcomes. But to demand such a comprehensive understanding would
mean that only a few experts and experienced campaigners could make
assessments. Actually, the questions on the check list do not require
such a comprehensive understanding. Often the answers come
immediately from an awareness of general features of the issue and
methods.
Let's look at the questions on the
check list to see what it's helpful to know for answering
them.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
For answering this question, it is
necessary to understand how capitalism is sustained by violence, as
described in chapter 3; what is involved in people accepting or
rejecting capitalism; and what a nonviolent alternative to capitalism
might look like, such as described in chapter 5.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
This question is straightforward:
how many and what sorts of people are involved, and what roles do
they play?
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
This is the ends-means question.
It can be tricky, since goals and methods are so often different. In
some instances answering the question is easy: if a goal is
participation, then the methods should be participatory. Answers are
more complex when there are multiple goals and methods. The examples
in the following chapters illustrate ways to use this question for
making assessments.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
This question can be difficult to
answer, since cooption can occur in many ways, some of which look
like success from the point of view of a particular campaign. It is
important to keep in mind the ultimate goal, namely transforming and
replacing capitalism. If the campaign does not continue to make a
significant contribution towards attaining this goal, then cooption
could well be responsible. The examples in the following chapters
illustrate how this question can be answered.
What I have done in the chapters 7
to 12 is to present rough assessments, based on my own experiences
and analysis, relying on studies when appropriate. These assessments
are certainly not definitive. Rather, they are intended to illustrate
the process of using the check list.
There is a vitally important
qualification to the assessments in the following chapters. They are
for the purpose of challenging, transforming and replacing capitalism
-- not for other purposes. A campaign might be extremely worthwhile
even though it doesn't oppose or hurt capitalism. So this process of
assessment is for a specific anticapitalist purpose, a point that
will be emphasised on various occasions.
Notes to
chapter 6
[1] Anders Corr, No Trespassing! Squatting, Rent Strikes, and Land
Struggles Worldwide (Cambridge, MA: South End Press,
1999).
[2] Kalle Lasn, Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America(TM)[ (New York: Eagle Brook, 1999) and the magazine Adbusters.
7
7
Workers'
struggles
Workers'
struggles
Go to:
The industrial revolution caused
incredible hardship on many workers and their families, with long
working hours, harsh and unsafe conditions, poor pay and brutal
treatment on the job, which can be summed up by the word
exploitation. In many parts of the world such exploitation continues
today. These conditions -- a commonality of experience -- helped form
a collective identity and a unity of purpose to change the
situation.
This commonality of identity and
purpose was the foundation for the rise of the organised working
class. Most of its gains were achieved through the power of
nonviolent action, supplemented by enlightened employers and
governments. Nonviolent action by workers includes strikes of various
types, bans on certain types of work, workplace occupations,
working-to-rule and pickets, plus a host of other actions that are
less specific to the workplace such as ostracism, meetings, marches
and fasts.[1]
Violence by workers has played only a small role in workers' action,
though violence by employers has been frequent.
The aim here is to assess workers'
struggles for their potential to undermine capitalism. Suppose we
start with the strike. Does a strike help to undermine capitalism?
That's a difficult question, because it depends on what the strike is
intended to achieve or, in other words, how it fits into the wider
picture. This suggests that it is not so useful to start with a type
of nonviolent action. It is more useful to look at the purpose of a
workers' campaign.
Wages and
conditions
Let's begin with a familiar
campaign: for higher wages and better conditions. The better
conditions might include improved lighting, safer machinery, clean
toilets, greater flexibility in working hours, employer-provided
child care facilities, and any of a host of other items. Better wages
and conditions are certainly beneficial to workers. The question is,
what potential do campaigns for better wages and conditions have for
transforming capitalism? The check list is a good place to
start.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
To begin: does a workers' campaign
for better wages and conditions undermine the violent underpinnings
of capitalism? Capitalists can rely on the power of the state to back
up private property. Does such a campaign challenge this? In nearly
all cases, the answer is no.
Next, does a workers' campaign for
better wages and conditions undermine the legitimacy of capitalism?
This is more difficult to answer, since capitalism's legitimacy is
not a fixed entity, but varies from person to person, issue to issue
and in other ways. A few examples may help. Imagine a highly
exploitative industry, with low wages and horrible conditions. The
industry's practices, if widely known, might discredit capitalism
more generally. A campaign to improve wages and conditions could
contribute to this by publicising the industry's practices. On the
other hand, if the campaign leads to improved wages and conditions,
then capitalism as a system may appear not so bad.
This points to a general feature
of legitimacy: if problems due to capitalism are fixed up promptly
and fairly, this actually increases capitalism's legitimacy. That
means, ironically, that workers' campaigns that succeed quickly
without much fanfare can lead to an increase in system legitimacy. In
contrast, drawn-out campaigns, especially those that fail, or
conspicuous problems where there is no campaign at all, can reduce
system legitimacy.
To take a somewhat different
example, the world's most serious industrial accident was in 1984 at
Bhopal, India, where release of poisonous chemicals from a pesticide
plant killed thousands of people and injured hundreds of
thousands.[2] This was bound to be bad publicity for capitalism, but it was
seriously aggravated by the failure of the owner Union Carbide to
make prompt and fair restitution. Quite the contrary: Union Carbide
made every effort to minimise responsibility. This means that Bhopal
is a "running sore" for the image of capitalism.
Consider a different sort of
campaign: some very highly paid and privileged workers -- such as
doctors or lawyers -- take industrial action to improve their
salaries even further. This does nothing to undermine capitalism's
legitimacy and in fact may increase it, because the "normal" salaries, before the campaign, might be perceived as due to the fair
operation of the market.
Thus, whether a campaign
undermines or strengthens the image of capitalism depends on
perceptions of fairness as well as on how the campaign is carried
out. This is further complicated by the fact that the operation of
capitalism has a big impact on whether people perceive particular
wages and conditions to be fair.
In general, campaigning for better
wages and conditions does not challenge the legitimacy of capitalism
at its foundations, including private ownership, the boss-employee
relationship and the market. Improved wages and conditions are
important, but occur within capitalism rather than against
it.
Finally, does a campaign for
better wages and conditions help build a nonviolent alternative to
capitalism? Except in special cases, the answer is no. So for point 1
on the check list, it can be concluded that campaigns for wages and
conditions seldom satisfy any of the options, except sometimes
helping undermine capitalism's legitimacy.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
The answer to this depends on the
campaign. A strike or a work-to-rule, to be effective, needs as many
workers as possible to participate. But sometimes a strike can be
effective if just a few key workers, in vital positions, take action.
So sometimes a workers' action can achieve immediate goals with
relatively low participation.
Another aspect to participation is
in planning and decision making. Is the campaign plotted by a few
trade union bosses and announced to the members, or are all planning
meetings open to all members, with special efforts to involve members
from all sectors of the workforce?
Some trade unions are more
autocratic and corrupt than the corporate executives they confront.
Union-led campaigns in such circumstances are seldom fully
participatory.
A further dimension to
participation is involvement of others besides the immediate workers,
including customers, workers elsewhere, other organisations and the
public at large. If teachers go on strike for higher pay, that does
not by itself generate participation by anyone else. But if the
campaign involves rallies and teach-ins with involvement by students,
parents, administrative staff and prospective employers, the
participation level is far higher.
One group often overlooked in
workers' struggles is the unemployed. A campaign for higher wages can
result in job losses. Trade unions typically look after their members
and neglect others.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
The answer here is "not very
often." A campaign to improve wages seldom has any potential to use
improved wages as the method! Quite the contrary: going on strike,
especially for an extended period, reduces wages.
For improving conditions, there
are some possibilities. Requests for rest breaks could be pursued by
taking the breaks, as a form of disobedience on the job. Demands for
safety measures could be pursued by workers bringing in equipment,
organising their own training and taking time on the job to follow
the desired procedures. A push for procedures to protect against
unfair dismissal could be accompanied by establishing a "workers'
tribunal" to judge the evidence for a dismissal, set up alongside
existing procedures. However, these sorts of initiatives are the
exception. Most campaigns for improved conditions rely on methods
such as bargaining with management or strikes, which as methods have
little in common with the goal.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
A campaign for better wages and
conditions, far from being resistant to cooption, can be interpreted
as an attempt to be coopted. After all, it is not a campaign
for workers to own and manage the enterprise themselves. Improvements
to wages and conditions are changes within the capitalist
framework.
In summary, campaigns for better
wages and conditions are unlikely to be effective means for
transforming capitalism into a nonviolent alternative, especially
because they do not challenge the foundations of capitalism and are
an open invitation to cooption. That said, such campaigns are vitally
necessary for the many poor and exploited workers of the
world.
Of course, campaigns for better
wages and conditions can be part of wider struggles to transform
capitalism. But they are unlikely candidates to be prime
movers.
This very general analysis of
these campaigns suggests two areas of potential strength. First,
participation can be broadened as much as possible, both among
workers and others, and include planning and decision making. This is
a good prescription for a broad-based workers' movement in any case.
Second, in some cases campaigns for better conditions can incorporate
ends within means.
Jobs
For most workers in a capitalist
economy, jobs are necessary to escape poverty and sometimes just to
survive. This is not universally true. Some jobs are so poorly paid
that those holding them remain in poverty. On the other hand, in some
countries unemployment payments are ample enough to provide a decent
life. Finally, of course, owners of capital do not require jobs in
order to make a lot of money. Still, for many people a job is seen as
absolutely essential for income. Furthermore, having a job is often
crucial for self-esteem.
Individuals seek jobs and so do
trade unions for their members. For governments, creating jobs is
seen as a fundamental goal. Nonviolent action is possible at any of
these levels but is most commonly pursued by trade unions, through
strikes, rallies, work-ins, work-to-rule and the like. Campaigns for
jobs have a high priority, but do they provide a challenge to
capitalism?
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
The answer to this question is
almost always "no." Having jobs or creating jobs does not provide any
challenge to the violent foundation of capitalism.[3]
Campaigning for jobs is little threat to the legitimacy of
capitalism, since allocation of work and income via jobs is the
standard way that capitalism is supposed to operate. If there is
massive unemployment, the legitimacy of capitalism can come under
threat, as occurs during periods of economic depression or crash. A
campaign to maintain or increase the number of jobs does not question
the job system. Quite the contrary, it endorses it. Finally,
campaigns for jobs, since they are built on the job system, seldom do
much to build an alternative to capitalism.
It is vital to distinguish between
jobs and work. A job involves providing one's labour power to an
employer in exchange for payment. A job, therefore, is part of a
market, namely a labour market.
Work is productive labour. Much
work is carried out without pay, such as subsistence farming and
parenting. In growing food for one's own needs and in rearing one's
own children, there is no employer. In producing cash crops and in
undertaking child care for pay, one is also working, but it is
reasonable to speak of having a job.
As well, jobs are possible that
involve little or no work. Many people in high-paying office jobs do
very little productive work. Many members of corporate boards receive
high pay for attending a few meetings. So, in summary, work is
possible without jobs and jobs are possible without work.
In a nonviolent economic system,
people's basic needs would be satisfied and there would be satisfying
work for everyone who wanted it. The job system is not a good way to
achieve either of these goals.
It is for this reason that
campaigns for jobs are not a challenge to capitalism. In contrast,
campaigns for satisfying work and for provision for those in greatest
need are much more of a challenge.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Job campaigns can be and often are
participatory, but the participation is usually restricted to
job-holders and their families, and perhaps a few others. The
existence of a significant level of unemployment means that workers
are pitted against each other for those jobs that exist. A campaign
to retain jobs in a particular sector of the economy may not attract
support from job-holders and job-seekers elsewhere.
Trade union bodies, though, can
help to create a more general concern about employment, and in some
cases there is mass action over job issues.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
The goal is more jobs. Work-ins,
where employees stay at the workplace continuing to do their work in
spite of employers seeking to terminate their jobs or to shut down
the entire workplace, are quite compatible with this goal. However,
the more commonly used methods, such as leafletting, meetings,
rallies, strikes and pickets, do not directly incorporate the goal of
more jobs.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
A successful campaign for jobs is
itself cooption into the capitalist system.
In summary, job campaigns, like
campaigns for better wages and conditions, are unlikely to be
effective means for transforming capitalism in a nonviolent
direction, especially because they do not challenge the foundations
of capitalism. They are a type of cooption. They are essentially
about making capitalism work a bit more fairly. Capitalism is
retained but with some adaptation for people's needs. Although they
do little to challenge the foundations of capitalism, job campaigns
are essential for the survival, standard of living and self-esteem of
many people and communities.
Consider now some other goals for
workers' struggles. One important goal is the right to organise
legally, especially to form trade unions. Going through the check
list, it turns out that the answers are much the same. The campaign
doesn't do much to challenge the violent underpinnings or legitimacy
of capitalism, nor much to build a nonviolent alternative.
Participation often has to be high in order to be successful, but it
might only be to vote in favour of having a union. Cooption is a big
risk, because with legal recognition of workers' organisations, there
is a greater possibility that trade union officials will act to
dampen worker radicalism. The officials often find that their power
is greater when workers "play by the rules," namely obey all laws and
regulations governing worker organisation.
There is one question for which
the answer could be different: Are the campaign's goals built in to
its methods? The goal in this case is an official worker
organisation. One way to seek this is to set up a "shadow" or
parallel organisation -- namely, an organisation that is run the same
way a legal one would be. This is often a powerful way to proceed,
since it gives participants ideal training for running an
organisation.
Workers'
control
For a strong contrast to campaigns
for better wages and conditions, jobs or the right to organise,
consider a campaign for workers' control, namely for the alternative
in which workers collectively and democratically control all aspects
of work in an enterprise, including who does what, who gets paid
what, and what gets produced. With workers' control, owners and
managers are eliminated or made irrelevant to the actual operation.
This is also called workers' self-management.[4]
There are various ways a campaign
for workers' control could proceed. It might be by lobbying
government to introduce it as a more efficient method of production.
It might come about by enlightened owners turning a company over to
the workers, as has happened on a few occasions, such as with the
Scott Bader Company in Britain. It might come about when workers join
together to buy out a failing company. Finally, it might come about
by a direct takeover by workers.
The focus here is on scenarios in
which direct worker action is the primary driving force behind
introduction of workers' control. Few governments have ever supported
it and few private owners have relinquished their role. The
exceptions most often occur during revolutionary upsurges, for
example during the Russian Revolution when workers took over
factories (making them into "soviets"). The Bolsheviks supported this
while it served the purpose of helping overthrow the existing regime
but introduced bureaucratic control once the party had solidified its
power.[5]
So to the check list.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Most obviously, workers' control
is a nonviolent alternative to capitalism, since it dispenses with
the need for owners and managers. One self-managed enterprise itself
does not constitute an alternative, but as a model, workers' control
provides a fairly comprehensive alternative, typically along
anarchist lines.
If workers do a reasonable job in
running an enterprise themselves, this undermines the legitimacy of
capitalism. The standard ideology is that organisational hierarchy is
essential for purposes of efficiency. A functioning workplace based
on participatory principles is a living rebuttal of this
ideology.[6]
This is one good reason
why workers' control is so often attacked by governments.
If workers' control is introduced
by workers buying an enterprise, or by owners voluntarily
relinquishing their role, there is no challenge to the use of state
power to enforce property rights. But if workers' control comes about
as a takeover of private property, without going through legal
requirements -- as in the case of a revolution -- then this also
becomes a challenge to the violent underpinnings of
capitalism.
In summary, workers' control
satisfies point 1 extremely well.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
If workers' control is brought
about through the initiative of workers, it is almost bound to be
participatory. On the other hand, if workers' control is a "gift" from owners or imposed by government, participation may be much
lower. Indeed, it may require considerable effort to convince workers
that it is a good thing.
Participation of the wider
community -- namely, those who are not workers -- is not automatic in
workers' control. If workers decide how to do their work, that
doesn't really affect others all that much. But what if workers
decide what products to produce? That certainly affects others, and a
fully partipatory campaign would involve community members in such
decision making.
One of the most famous workers'
campaigns involved the British firm Lucas Aerospace in the 1970s.
Responding to the possibility of job cuts, the Lucas Aerospace Shop
Stewards' Committee took the initiative to investigate and propose
possibilities for producing alternative products using the highly
skilled workforce. The alternatives proposed, including road-rail
vehicles, kidney dialysis machines and artificial limb control
systems, included some products that were socially beneficial even if
not as profitable as other options.[7]
The Lucas workers'
initiatives were repeatedly rebuffed by management but inspired many
people around the world. They do provide evidence that workers, if
given a say over what is produced, are likely to think more about
community needs than a traditional management.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
Compatibility between means and
ends is greatest when workers start exercising control as a method to
bring about workers' control. Compatibility is least when the method
is to lobby governments.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Workers' control seems like such a
radical alternative that cooption would be difficult, but the reality
is closer to the opposite. There have been a host of ways to give
workers some semblance of participation and control over their work
while falling far short of full workers' control.
One option is to have worker
representatives sitting on the board of management, along with
executives and owners. This is a type of "industrial democracy" modelled on representative government.[8]
It preserves the conventional structure of a corporation with board,
chief executive officer and various levels of management down to
workers at the coal face. The worker representatives on the board are
usually outnumbered but, more importantly, they often adapt to the
corporate way of doing things. They can serve useful purposes for
workers, to be sure, but they can also help management by soothing
the relationship between management and workers.
Industrial democracy can also be
introduced at lower levels, with various committees formed allowing
workers at different levels to be represented. Again, this can serve
useful purposes but may also give greater legitimacy to the
hierarchical structure, since workers seem to have some input into
decisions but are very far from controlling things fully.
Further down the hierarchy, it is
possible to have "semi-autonomous work groups," which are groups of
workers who make many of the decisions about how they do their work.
Rather than being given very narrow and rigid tasks by bosses, groups
of workers decide how to achieve a more general work goal, including
who does what and what methods to use. The groups are not fully
autonomous since the overall work goal is set higher up in the
enterprise.
Greater worker autonomy at this
level usually makes work far more stimulating, drawing on and
developing a wider range of skills, while interactions between
workers can offer great work satisfaction. As a result, productivity
is often much greater. However, bosses may be less than enthusiastic
since some managerial roles are eliminated.
From the point of view of most
workers, semi-autonomous work groups are a great improvement, but
they fall short of workers' control. If introduced as a result of
campaigning by workers, they provide a considerable challenge to
capitalism, but they can also be a form of cooption.
In recent decades, management
gurus in developed countries have touted the virtues of flat
hierarchies, self-managing teams, open organisations and a host of
other wonderful-sounding developments that move away from traditional
authoritarian management practice.[9]
These messages about the benefits of giving greater power to
employees can be interpreted in several ways. One response is that
this is nice rhetoric but that the reality has hardly changed in
workplaces.[10]
Another response is that changes in this direction make sense in a
world where flexibility and cost-cutting have become essential for
corporate survival. A third response is that moves to give greater
freedom to workers serve admirably to coopt any deeper challenge,
given the enormous job losses, career changes and general disruptions
of previous certainties caused by globalisation. For all the talk of
flat hierarchies and self-management, the changes being recommended
do little to challenge core features of capitalism.
In summary, campaigns for workers'
control can provide a powerful challenge to capitalism, especially if
the primary method is for workers to proceed by taking greater
control. Workers' control is potentially a full-scale alternative to
capitalism, and successful examples of workers' control provide a
powerful challenge to capitalism's legitimacy. A campaign for
workers' control can be highly participatory, especially if it
proceeds by direct implementation of control, in which case the ends
are incorporated in the means. However, cooption is a serious risk.
It is not so much that a workplace controlled by workers will be
given an offer of lesser control but more money: it is much more
likely to be attacked or undermined. Rather, various form of limited
participation and autonomy, including worker representatives on
boards and semi-autonomous work groups, may serve to pre-empt more
radical challenges.
On the other hand, limited forms
of worker participation and autonomy may improve work life
tremendously. This should not be ignored. It just needs to be taken
into account in assessing the potency of workers' control campaigns
for challenging capitalism.
A deeper issue is that many
workers, given collective control over the workplace, may not want to
work! Evidence from the French Popular Front and from the Spanish
Revolution in the 1930s suggests that workers resist work in
reformist and revolutionary situations, rather like they do in
conventional circumstances.[11]
If this applies more generally, it means the strategy of workers'
control requires creative rethinking and possibly
reformulation.
Green bans
In the early 1970s, construction
workers in the Australian state of New South Wales pioneered a new
form of workers' action. The militant trade union covering the
workers was the NSW Builders' Labourers Federation (BLF). Union
officials were approached by residents living near some park land
called Kelly's Bush, in Sydney, that was threatened by a proposed
building development. The officials proposed to the union membership
to put a ban on any work that impinged on Kelly's Bush, and this was
approved. Not long afterwards, all Sydney trade unions banned work at
the site. This was the first of what were called "green bans" --
industrial action in support of environmental goals.[12]
The employers tried to overturn
the ban, but at this period the BLF and the trade union movement were
too strong. There was a building boom and workers were in short
supply. Any developer that used non-union labour could suffer union
retaliation through refusal to work on existing sites. Furthermore,
green bans captured public imagination through creative tactics that
gained favourable media coverage.
The initial ban over Kelly's Bush
was soon followed by many more, including some massive projects. In
most cases, the primary motivation was to protect environmental or
heritage values. While the circumstances and details varied, there
were several fundamental features.
- There was wide local support
for a ban in the area affected, including endorsement at a public
meeting. Bans were not undertaken solely at the initiative of the
union. - The union membership
considered the proposal for a ban. Bans were not ordered by
officials on their own initiative. - Proposals for bans were
considered on a case-by-case basis.
After several years of dramatic
action, the leadership of the NSW BLF was toppled by the leadership
of the national BLF, acting in concert with the government and
employers. However, the example set in the green bans had by then
been taken up elsewhere in the country and was an inspiration around
the world. Union bans on development continue to be instituted to
this day.
There were special circumstances
in Australia that encouraged the rise of green bans. There was a long
tradition of militant trade union action that often went beyond the
narrow self-interest of the workers. The early 1970s were a period of
rising environmental consciousness, and some unions were leaders in
action on environmental issues. (Later on, employers were able to
create or exploit divisions between workers and environmentalists.)
The legal system did not offer effective opportunities to intervene
in the urban planning process. Therefore, middle-class
environmentalists had a greater incentive to approach trade unions
than might have otherwise been the case.[13]
The projects that were stalled or
blocked entirely by green bans came from both the commercial and
government sectors. In any case, government was very pro-development,
so that in nearly every case it was a struggle between government and
corporations on one side versus residents and workers on the
other.
Now consider green bans according
to the check list for anticapitalist campaigns.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Green bans undermine the
legitimacy of capitalism by emphasising the importance of
environmental and other non-market values, demanding that these be
taken into account rather than decisions being made simply on the
basis of profitability or bureaucratic fiat. Furthermore, by
involving residents and workers in decision making, green bans
challenge the assumption that owners and managers have the right to
do whatever they like.
Green bans have elements of a
nonviolent alternative to capitalism, namely participatory decision
making, but usually this is for the purpose of blocking development
proposals. There is little scope for actually taking charge of urban
planning. The bans do not challenge the state's control over
organised violence in support of property. The main value of green
bans in relation to question 1 is in undermining capitalism's
legitimacy.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Green bans involve citizen
partipation on the community side and worker participation at the
trade union side. Depending on the community groups and trade unions,
the actual level of participation can vary considerably. However, the
long-term success of green bans depends on a reasonably high level of
support from residents and workers. If bans are placed
inappropriately, workers may become disgruntled and residents
withdraw support.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
In as much as one of the goals is
participation in decision making about development, green bans build
this goal into its methods, which are quite participatory. On the
other hand, if the goal is environmental protection, the method is
separate -- a ban on development -- rather than constructive work
with the environmental areas in question.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Cooption is a great risk at the
community consultation side of the development process. There are all
sorts of procedures that give some semblance of participation:
opinion polls, meetings called by local government, planning
displays, calls for submissions, environmental impact statements and
a host of others. Most of the methods of community participation in
planning are at the low end of the "ladder of participation," closer
to manipulation or consultation rather than genuine citizen
power.[14]
If residents of local communities think they can influence decisions
through various official procedures, they are less likely to build
links with workers.
Green bans are less open to
cooption at the worker side. Employers strongly resist giving workers
-- especially blue collar workers -- any say in what work should be
done.
In summary, green bans appear to
have a great potential as part of a nonviolence strategy against
capitalism, especially in bringing together residents and workers in
ways that challenge the assumption that capitalism works
automatically for the benefit of all.
Whistleblowers
A whistleblower is someone who
speaks out in the public interest.[15]
The classic whistleblower
is an employee who discovers corrupt practice or danger to the public
and reports it to superiors, regulatory agencies, politicians and the
media. One of the most famous whistleblowers is A. Ernest Fitzgerald,
an employee in the US Department of Defense, who exposed vast cost
overruns in which the US government was paying exorbitant prices to
companies contracted to produce goods for the
military.[16]
There are police whistleblowers who report police corruption,
pharmaceutical company whistleblowers who expose the dangers of
certain medical drugs, tobacco company whistleblowers who leak
documents about what the company executives knew about the hazards of
smoking, church whistleblowers who expose sexual abuse by clergy, and
a host of others from every occupation and walk of life.
Whistleblowers usually come under
heavy attack from their bosses and by others who are threatened by
the revelations. Whistleblowers usually suffer reprisals, including
ostracism, threats, harassment, reprimands, demotions, punitive
transfers, referral to psychiatrists, dismissals and slander. As a
result of these sorts of attacks, it is common for their careers to
be set back greatly and their physical and emotional health to
suffer.
Most whistleblowers are remarkably
ineffective.[17] The problem they blew the whistle on remains unchanged, but instead
they come under attack in the classic "shoot the messenger" syndrome.
Whistleblowers often seek redress through official channels such as
grievance procedures, ombudsmen, legislators, anticorruption agencies
and courts, but seldom with any success.
This outcome can be understood by
thinking of an organisation as a system of power in which those at
the top exercise control over those further down.[18]
A whistleblower is someone who challenges the hierarchy, for example
by exposing corruption that is perpetrated or tolerated by those
higher up. To support the whistleblower is essentially to support a
challenge to the standard system of power. Instead of addressing the
problem, the whistleblower is attacked as a heretic who threatens the
normal operation of the system.
Whistleblowers have the greatest
impact when they go public, getting their message to large numbers of
people, often via the media. If they link up with social action
groups, this is a potent combination: whistleblowers have inside
knowledge and the credibility that goes along with this, while the
outside action groups are relatively safe from the types of reprisals
that can be visited on employees. For example, three nuclear
engineers in 1976 spoke out about the hazards of nuclear power,
giving an enormous boost to the anti-nuclear
campaign.[19]
Prior to that time, most insider experts had either supported nuclear
power or kept quiet. By speaking out, the engineers punctured the
apparent monopoly of expert support for nuclear power. When they
spoke out, they resigned from General Electric, realising that their
survival as employees would have been impossible. The impact of the
GE engineers was great because of the existence of a broad-based
antinuclear-power movement.
Employees who blow the whistle
challenge the organisational hierarchy; in many cases they challenge
corporate power, either as corporate employees or by exposing
government connivance with corporations, as in the case of A. Ernest
Fitzgerald. So there is a potential to challenge capitalism. In
assessing this challenge using the check list, the most potent type
of whistleblowing -- namely, when it operates in alliance with social
movements -- will be considered.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Much whistleblowing reveals flaws
in organisations, policies or individuals. It seldom sets out to
question the purpose of organisations or policies, but rather is an
attempt to get them working correctly, namely without corruption or
injustice. Nevertheless, whistleblowing can contribute to a general
undermining in public confidence in institutions. When there are
continual news stories about massive swindles by wealthy
entrepreneurs, often aided and abetted by governments, this
undermines belief in the automatic beneficence of
capitalism.
Sometimes whistleblowing can help
stop expansion of corporations into new sectors of activity.
Exposures of large-scale corruption by hospital corporations, for
example -- some companies have been fined hundreds of millions of
dollars for their transgressions -- can be a factor in stopping
expansion of corporatised medical systems.
Whistleblowing seldom builds an
alternative or challenges systems of violence. Fitzgerald's exposures
of waste by the Pentagon were intended to make the military more
efficient, not to dismantle it.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Whistleblowing is mostly an
individual activity, though it is far more likely to be effective
when carried out in groups. When whistleblowers liaise with social
action groups, there can be participation at the activist end, but
the whistleblowing itself is seldom participatory.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
The method of a whistleblower --
speaking out, typically through official channels -- is quite
different from the goal, which is dealing with a problem such as
corruption. Whistleblowing is indirect action, an attempt to get
someone else -- usually someone in a position of power -- to do
something about a problem.
On the other hand, it is possible
to interpret whistleblowing as an attempt to bring about a society in
which people are free to speak out without reprisal. In this,
whistleblowing combines means and ends.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Whistleblowers are more likely to
be attacked than coopted. The attacks serve both to discredit the
whistleblower and discourage others from speaking out. However,
cooption has a role in preventing people from becoming
whistleblowers. The whole system of official channels, including
grievance procedures, government agencies, parliamentary inquiries
and the courts, serves to encourage people who have a complaint to
use those channels. This takes them down a path that chews up time
and energy with little result. So, from the perspective of a social
movement that could benefit by building links with insiders who are
aware of problems, the existence of official channels serves as a way
of coopting employee dissent. It could almost be said that
whistleblowing through official channels is itself a manifestation of
cooption, when the alternative is linking with social activists or
becoming one.
In summary, whistleblowing is
seldom a great danger to capitalism as a system, though it can
sometimes threaten individual capitalists. The best way for
whistleblowers to help challenge capitalism is by teaming up with
social action groups.
Notes to
chapter 7
[1]
There is no definitive work on nonviolent action by workers. Lots of
material is available in writings on nonviolent action (see chapter
2), studies of workers' control (see below) and history of the labour
movement. See for example Root & Branch (ed.), Root & Branch: The Rise of the Workers' Movements (Greenwich, CT:
Fawcett, 1975).
[2] T.
R. Chouhan and others, Bhopal: The Inside Story. Carbide Workers
Speak out on the World's Worst Industrial Tragedy (Goa, India:
The Other India Press; New York: Apex Press, 1994); Sanjoy Hazarika,
Bhopal: The Lessons of a Tragedy (New Delhi: Penguin, 1987);
Paul Shrivastava, Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis (London: Paul
Chapman, 1992, 2nd edition).
[3] It
is possible to imagine rare exceptions, for example jobs in designing
nonviolent alternatives to the military.
[4] Gerry Hunnius, G. David Garson and John Case (eds.), Workers'
Control: A Reader on Labor and Social Change (New York: Vintage,
1973); Paul Mattick, Anti-Bolshevik Communism (London: Merlin,
1978); Ernie Roberts, Workers' Control (London: Allen & Unwin, 1973); Jaroslav Vanek (ed.), Self-Management: Economic
Liberation of Man (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975); H. B. Wilson,
Democracy and the Work Place (Montreal: Black Rose Books,
1974).
[5] Oscar Anweiler, The Soviets: The Russian Workers, Peasants, and
Soldiers Councils, 1905-1921 (New York: Pantheon, 1974). For an
insightful analysis of workers' control and revolutionary action, see
Carl Boggs, "Marxism, prefigurative communism, and the problem of
workers' control," Radical America, Vol. 11, No. 6 -- Vol. 12,
No. 1, November 1977 -- February 1978, pp. 99-122.
[6] Seymour Melman, Decision-Making and Productivity (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1958) is one of many studies showing that
productivity can be increased by extending workers' capability in
decision making.
[7] Hilary Wainwright and Dave Elliott, The Lucas Plan: A New Trade
Unionism in the Making? (London: Allison and Busby,
1982).
[8] Paul Blumberg, Industrial Democracy: The Sociology of
Participation (London: Constable, 1968); Martin Carnoy and Derek
Shearer, Economic Democracy: The Challenge of the 1980s (White
Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1980).
[9] For
example, Donald Ralph Kingdon, Matrix Organization: Managing
Information Technologies (London: Tavistock, 1973); Charles C.
Manz and Henry P. Sims, Jr., Business Without Bosses: How
Self-Managing Teams are Building High-Performing Companies (New
York: Wiley, 1993).
[10] On the changing rhetorics in management consulting, see Robert
Jackall, Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 137-144.
[11] Michael Seidman, Workers Against Work: Labor in Paris and
Barcelona during the Popular Fronts (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1991). For a briefer treatment, see Michael
Seidman, "Towards a history of workers' resistance to work: Paris and
Barcelona during the French Popular Front and the Spanish Revolution,
1936-38," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 23, No. 2,
April 1988, pp. 191-220.
[12] Jack Mundey, Green Bans and Beyond (Sydney: Angus and
Robertson, 1981).
[13] Richard J. Roddewig, Green Bans: The Birth of Australian
Environmental Politics (Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun,
1978).
[14]
Sherry R. Arnstein, "A ladder of citizen participation," AIP
Journal, July 1969, pp. 216-224.
[15] David W. Ewing, Freedom Inside the Organization: Bringing Civil
Liberties to the Workplace (New York: Dutton, 1977); Myron Peretz
Glazer and Penina Migdal Glazer, The Whistleblowers: Exposing
Corruption in Government and Industry (New York: Basic Books,
1989); Alan F. Westin, with Henry I. Kurtz and Albert Robbins (eds),
Whistle Blowing! Loyalty and Dissent in the Corporation (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1981).
[16] A. Ernest Fitzgerald, The Pentagonists: An Insider's View of
Waste, Mismanagement, and Fraud in Defense Spending (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1989).
[17] C. Fred Alford, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational
Power (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001); Brian Martin,
The Whistleblower's Handbook: How to Be an Effective Resister
(Charlbury, UK: Jon Carpenter, 1999).
[18] Deena Weinstein, Bureaucratic Opposition: Challenging Abuses at
the Workplace (New York: Pergamon, 1979).
[19] Leslie J. Freeman, Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out (New
York: Norton, 1981).
8
8
Sabotage
Sabotage
Go to:
A blast furnace operator at a
steel mill purposely makes a slight slip-up, causing a cold
shut-down. An ex-employee cuts telephone cables serving half a
million people. A plumber puts small nails in the pipes of a new
building. A computer programmer deletes all copies of data on a
computer system. An anti-tobacco activist creatively disfigures and
rewrites a billboard advertising cigarettes. A member of Ploughshares
uses a hammer to dent the nosecone of a nuclear
missile.[1]
A forest activist surreptitiously pulls up survey stakes put in by a
logging company. An environmental activist pours sand into the fuel
tank of a bulldozer. An animal liberationist torches a laboratory
used for animal experiments.
These are all examples of
sabotage, which can be thought of as purposeful action to damage,
destroy or displace physical objects in order to achieve a social
objective.[2] There is a long history of sabotage by workers, for example to obtain
a break by forcing a halt to a relentless assembly line. Nonworkers
can "disrupt production" -- in other words interrupt business as
usual -- in a wider sense by a range of actions against physical
objects.
In the workplace, sabotage as a
strategy is commonly portrayed as resisting progress. In the late
1700s and early 1800s in Britain, in the dawn of the industrial
revolution, the livelihoods of cottage workers using handlooms were
threatened by mechanised looms in factories. Some of them responded
by smashing the factory machinery. Inspired by the example of leader
Ned Ludd, these workers were called Luddites. Since then, "Luddite" has been turned into a term of derision, treated as synonymous with
opposing progress.
However, this is a rewriting of
history by the victors: the capitalists. The Luddites were not just
machine-smashers; they were campaigning for a system that provided
satisfying work and income, a system which had come under attack by
the capitalist factory system, which in the early years obtained
higher output only through severe exploitation of
employees.
Sabotage has only occasionally
been an organised workers' strategy. There are a few who argue for
this approach, notably David F. Noble in his book Progress Without
People: In Defense of Luddism. He sees capitalism as a struggle
between capital and workers in which capital has all the weapons and
workers are not even in the fight. In his own words: "There is a war
on, but only one side is armed: this is the essence of the technology
question today. On the one side is private capital, scientized and
subsidized, mobile and global, and now heavily armed with military
spawned command, control, and communication
technologies."[3]
On the other side, workers are in disarray. Noble argues that the way
workplace technologies are constructed reflects the capitalist system
of power and, once constructed, these technologies help perpetuate
capitalism.[4]
For example, the assembly line subordinates workers to the pace and
tasks set by the line, reducing their opportunities to exercise
autonomous judgement and to design and run the production process
themselves. This is compatible with Gandhi's analysis of mechanised
textile production, which subordinates workers, compared to the
hand-spun cloth khadi, whose production meshes with community
self-reliance.
It can be said, in short, that
certain technologies embody capitalist social relations. Capitalists
choose or design machinery to serve their purposes, and in practice
the machinery gives owners and managers power over
workers.
Analysis of the role of technology
in capitalism is one thing. How to challenge this is another. Noble
observes that smashing the machines is one response by
workers.[5]
But is it effective?
From a nonviolence point of view,
sabotage falls into a borderline category. Nonviolent action always
means no physical violence against humans. Sabotage can be
interpreted as physical violence against physical objects. The type
of sabotage of interest here involves no direct harm to
humans.[6]
We can only be concerned with
direct harm, since indirect harm is possible with any sort of
nonviolent action. A boycott can lead to a business going bankrupt, a
far more serious harm than a few broken windows.
Among nonviolent activists, there
are different attitudes to sabotage. Some, taking a strong line
against any form of physical violence, would rule out sabotage
altogether. Others think it is fully legitimate, while an
intermediate position is that it depends on the
circumstances.
It is worth keeping in mind that
people do not always mean the same thing by the word "violence." In
the early 1970s, a group of researchers investigated attitudes to
violence by surveying over 1000 US men. Among their revealing
findings were that more than half the men thought that burning draft
cards was violence and more than half thought that police shooting
looters was not violence. The researchers concluded that "American men tend to define acts of dissent as `violence' when they
perceived the dissenters as undesirable people."[7] In other words, many of the US men used the label "violent" when they
thought something was bad and "nonviolent" when they thought it was
good. In contrast, from a nonviolence viewpoint burning draft cards
is a form of sabotage -- destroying physical objects -- and of course
shooting someone is definitely a form of violence.
Another way of defining sabotage
is as violence against property. This definition highlights ownership
rights under capitalism, since nearly every physical object is owned
by someone or something, whether individual, corporation or
government. Many people see violence against property as more
despicable than violence against humans.
There may be significant cultural
as well as individual variations in the way people respond to
sabotage, as indeed in the way that they respond to nonviolent
actions such as strikes and fasts. Responses will also vary greatly
depending on what the sabotage involves. A giant explosion wiping out
a shipping terminal is quite a different thing from deletion of a
computer file, which affects only a few atoms. Yet if the computer
file is of crucial importance -- for example, a list of labour
activists targeted for impending arrest -- its destruction may have a
greater impact than the destruction of the terminal.
Sabotage is a method and so cannot
be assessed in total independence from the goal of an action or
campaign. If the goal is improved wages and conditions, with little
fundamental challenge to capitalism, then use of sabotage is unlikely
to make the challenge any greater. What is possible, though, is to
look at how a nonviolent campaign is altered by use of
sabotage.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
In principle, sabotage can
contribute to any of these. Whether sabotage adds to or subtracts
from the campaign depends greatly on the circumstances, including
cultural attitudes to the particular action taken. In some countries,
property is seen as so sacred that any form of obstruction or damage
is vehemently condemned. Owners of a shopping mall might be just as
outraged by protesters handing out leaflets in the mall as by
graffiti on shop windows. A key element here is the attitude of third
parties: those observing the action, whether directly or through
reports, including the media. Damage to property can evoke incredibly
hostile attitudes. But again, does this mean the campaign is less
effective, for example in undermining capitalism's legitimacy? That
depends. No hard and fast conclusions can be drawn on this
point.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Many types of sabotage, because
they are dangerous and because they would be blocked if opponents
knew about them in advance, must be planned in secret. If
environmentalists announced they were going to put sand in fuel tanks
or spikes in trees, they would be intercepted and probably arrested
before succeeding. Many types of sabotage are kept secret from
beginning to end, with no admissions afterwards. Participation in
these sorts of actions is very limited, typically with no more than a
few people involved.
Ploughshares actions are direct
disarmament, such as damage to weapons systems, principally as a form
of symbolic protest, though sometimes the financial and logistical
costs to the military are substantial. In these actions, planning is
in secret but once the action is taken, the activists acknowledge
their responsibility and surrender to police. In these cases,
participation in the detailed planning is limited but wider
involvement in support for ploughshares actions is possible,
especially in court struggles.
Widespread participation is not
necessarily possible for any form of nonviolent action. In repressive
regimes, even meetings of a few dissidents can be illegal and lead to
surveillance and arrests. However, in anticapitalist struggles this
level of repression is unusual, so that a high level of participation
is often possible. When use of sabotage leads to a drastic reduction
in participation, that is a definite negative.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
It is hard to imagine a nonviolent
society in which sabotage is routine. If workers control the
production process, then there should be no incentive to damage
equipment. That means that sabotage as a method is unlikely to ever
reflect the goals of a campaign. Another way to express this is to
say that sabotage will seldom be a part of "living the
alternative."
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
At a commercial level, it is hard
to imagine cooption of sabotage. Will there be firms advertising "Sabotage Services at Your Disposal" seeking to employ members of the
radical environmental group Earth First!? In this direct sense, use
of sabotage in a campaign is resistant to cooption. But there are
other roads to cooption, notably via organised violence of the
state.
Sabotage is a standard military
method. Bridges are blown up and power lines severed. Today, in the "information age," militaries are deploying "information warfare,"
for example by spreading computer viruses in opponents' military
information systems. In the sphere of ideas, spreading of
disinformation -- carefully designed false or misleading information
-- has long been a standard tactic. This incorporates propaganda but
also includes techniques such as running clandestine radio stations
that are not what they seem to be. All these techniques can be and
are used against activists, who can be subject to intensive
surveillance and "dirty tricks."[8]
Cooption can occur when activists
start "playing the game" of deception, disinformation and dirty
tricks, engaging in a sort of competition in which the object is to
outwit and disrupt the opponent. One of the objects in this game is
to discredit the opponent and one way to do this is to make the
opponent appear, correctly or falsely, to be engaged in some
unsavoury activity. Police do this when they use agents to foment
violence during a protest in order to discredit the organisers in the
eyes of the public. One of the risks of sabotage is that nonviolent
activists may start to engage in underhanded tactics.
At a more serious level, sabotage can be a stepping stone to violence
against humans. If destroying an unoccupied boat is acceptable, what
about a building that probably is unoccupied? The line between
violence and nonviolence can become blurred more easily.
One way to assess the risks of
sabotage is to ask, would it be acceptable for the other side to use
the same techniques? One of the great advantages of nonviolence is
that if it is used against the "wrong people" the consequences are
not so disastrous as violence: the harm from occupation of a building
is far less than blowing it up and killing all the people in
it.
Consider the tactic of damaging
weapons, such as by Ploughshares activists. Most peace activists
would be most happy for anyone else to damage or destroy weapons. So
destroying weapons is a technique that is not harmful if used by the
other side. However, spreading a computer virus is a different story.
Having computer files destroyed by a virus is never welcome and can
be catastrophic for nonviolent activists as well as police and
corporations. So this form of sabotage is probably less suitable as a
form of nonviolent action.
In principle sabotage can be considered just another method of
nonviolent action but in practice it often has many disadvantages. It
is much less likely to be participatory and it never incorporates
goals into methods. It is open to cooption through engaging in games
of deception and damage. Finally, it has an ambiguous relation to
nonviolence.
However, there is a risk in
becoming fixated with the problems of sabotage simply because it is
perceived to be a form of violence, namely "violence against
property." This alone should not be the criterion for rejecting
sabotage. Every method of nonviolent action needs to be assessed for
its openness to participation, ends-means compatibility and
susceptibility to cooption. The circumstances have a strong effect on
how methods measure up according to these criteria. The key point is
that assessment of all methods should be undertaken, without
automatic acceptance or rejection in advance. Finally, to be
compatible with nonviolence principles, this assessment needs to be a
participatory one.
Notes to
chapter 8
[1]
"Ploughshares" is a term generically applied to principled peace
activists who, after taking direct action to damage or destroy
components of the military system, then surrender themselves to
police. See for example Liane Ellison Norman, Hammer of Justice:
Molly Rush and the Plowshares Eight (Pittsburgh: PPI Books,
1989).
[2] Pierre Dubois, Sabotage in Industry (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1979). For numerous examples see Martin Sprouse with Lydia Ely
(eds.), Sabotage in the American Workplace: Anecdotes of
Dissatisfaction, Mischief and Revenge (San Francisco: Pressure
Drop Press, 1992). See also The Black Cat Sabotage Handbook
(Eugene, OR: Graybill, n.d.) and the magazine Processed
World.
[3] David F. Noble, Progress Without People: In Defense of Luddism
(Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1993), p. 1.
[4] David F. Noble, America by Design: Science, Technology and the
Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977).
See also David Dickson, Alternative Technology and the Politics of
Technical Change (London: Fontana, 1974).
[5]
Noble thinks it would be presumptuous to provide a programme of
action for the labour movement. He does recommend intellectual work:
"In essence, if workers have begun to smash the physical machinery of
domination, so responsible intellectuals must begin deliberately to
smash the mental machinery of domination." (Progress Without
People, p. 51).
[6] Avoidance of harm to humans is emphasised in manuals for
environmental saboteurs: Dave Foreman and Bill Haywood (eds.), Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching (Tucson, AZ: Ned
Ludd Books, 1988, second edition); Earth First! Direct Action
Manual (Eugene, OR: DAM Collective, 1997).
[7] Monica D. Blumenthal, Robert L. Kahn, Frank M. Andrews and Kendra B.
Head, Justifying Violence: Attitudes of American Men (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, 1972), p. 86.
[8] For
excellent advice on how activists can respond to surveillance and
harassment, see Brian Glick, War at Home: Covert Action Against
U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It (Boston: South End
Press, 1989).
9
9
Environmental
campaigns
Environmental
campaigns
Go to:
The environmental ravages due to
capitalism are well known. They include air and water pollution, land
devastated by mining, clearing of land for cash crops, wiping out of
species due to commercial exploitation or destruction of habitats,
use of dangerous chemicals and radioactive materials, reduction of
stratospheric ozone due to aerosol sprays and other products, and
climate change due to burning fossil fuels.
The market system does not work
well to handle environmental problems, partly because the costs of
environmental impacts are seldom included in the costs of
production.[1] For example, there is no simple market mechanism to make automobile
manufacturers pay for the costs of ill health due to vehicle
emissions, traffic accidents, use of land for roads, greenhouse
warming or wars fought to ensure access to cheap oil. These costs are
borne by members of the public and the environment. So it can be said
that the profits are privatised (captured by owners and users) and
the environmental and health costs are "socialised" (borne by society
as a whole). In economic jargon, environmental costs are said to be
"externalities," namely things external to normal market
processes.
There have been extended debates
about the cause of environmental problems. One school of thought,
whose most prominent exponent is Paul Ehrlich, says that
overpopulation is the prime culprit.[2]
Another perspective, championed by Barry Commoner, is that use of new
technologies -- selected and introduced within a capitalist framework
-- is the driving force behind environmental assaults: even with the
same population, new chemicals, for example, cause more far-reaching
impacts.[3]
Much technological development is motivated by profits, so this
perspective attributes much environmental degradation to
capitalism.
Another debate is over the
relative roles of capitalism and industrialism. State socialist
economies such as the former Soviet Union caused enormous
environmental problems, including highly polluting cars, wasteful
industrial processes and devastating destruction of habitats such as
Lake Baikal.[4]
It is clear that state socialism can be at least as bad for the
environment as capitalism, so it is reasonable to argue that the core
problem is the cult of modern industry itself and not the economic
system in which it grows.
There is also a debate about
whether sound environmental practices are compatible with capitalism.
In other words, within a capitalist system, is environmental
sustainability possible?
While these debates are
fascinating, it is not necessary to resolve them for the purposes of
discussing nonviolence strategy against capitalism. It is sufficient
to note that environmental goals and campaigns often challenge and
constrain capitalist development. Indeed, environmentalism has been
one of the major sources of challenge to capitalist prerogatives in
the past several decades.
- Opponents prevented the
creation of a massive fleet of supersonic transport aircraft,
limiting production to a few Concordes. - Campaigns have shut down most
of the world's whaling industry. - Forestry campaigners have
opposed unsustainable and damaging forestry operations across the
globe. - Anti-freeway protesters have
challenged the expansion of road systems. - Opponents of nuclear power
have stopped the nuclear industry across the world. - Campaigners have pushed for
controls on production of carbon dioxide emissions to prevent
global warming. - Local citizens have stopped
innumerable commercial developments.
What is called the "environmental
movement" is a complex and varied set of activists, sympathisers,
organisations, campaigns and ideas, and might be better described in
the plural as "environmental movements." There are powerful
international groups such as Greenpeace, numerous national
environmental organisations and a host of local groups. There are
full-time activists, occasional participants, financial supporters
and passive sympathisers. There are individuals and groups that try
to live lifestyles with low environmental impact. There is an
enormous range of viewpoints among environmental
campaigners.
Nonviolent action is widely used
by environmentalists. This includes rallies, street theatre, symbolic
actions such as dumping nonrecyclable containers on the steps of the
manufacturer, blockading shipments of rainforest timbers, sitting in
front of bulldozers and occupying development sites. More
conventional techniques are also used by environmentalists, including
writing letters, giving talks, preparing teaching materials,
lobbying, advertising, drafting legislation, making submissions, and
suing polluters through the courts. A few environmentalists use
sabotage, such as putting spikes in trees that are a target of
logging, but always with a strong commitment to avoid harm to
humans.
In the immense diversity within
the environmental movement, there are some anticapitalist aspects,
quite a few that provide no threat to capitalism and some that
support capitalism. In the early years of the modern movement,
environmental concerns were often portrayed as a middle-class
preoccupation, for example to stop a factory or road that would
disturb the lifestyle of affluent suburbanites. Left-wing analysts
and parties at first derided environmentalism as contrary to the
interests of the working class: industry and jobs were considered
more important than the side-effects of industrial
development.[5]
Belching smokestacks were once seen as a sign of progress. As the
years passed, through, left-wing groups joined the environmental
bandwagon, seeing it as a means to challenge capitalism. However, as
noted earlier, socialist industrialism is not necessarily any better
environmentally.
Unlike a traditional left
approach, a nonviolence strategy cannot rely on the power of the
state to challenge capital, and likewise it cannot rely on state
power to solve environmental problems. In order to assess
environmental campaigns from a nonviolence perspective, it is helpful
to focus on particular environmental issues. Here, three areas are
examined: pesticides, nuclear power and local antidevelopment
campaigns.
Pesticides
Rachel Carson's famous book
Silent Spring, published in 1962, alerted the world to the
dangers of pesticides and was a key stimulus for the formation of the
environmental movement.[6]
Pesticides are chemicals designed to kill insects, plants, fungi, and
other life that is considered to be undesirable for human purposes,
especially agriculture and public health. Supporters argue that
pesticides are essential for these purposes whereas critics argue
that many uses of pesticides are unnecessary or harmful to the
environment and human health. The debate covers issues such as health
risks, costs and alternatives.
Manufacture and sale of pesticides
is a very large industry. A number of giant multinational chemical
corporations, such as Monsanto, produce the bulk of pesticides used
worldwide. To greatly reduce pesticide use would be to reduce
profits. Hence campaigns against pesticides are definitely a
challenge to a significant fraction of capital.
Critics of pesticides, or of their
excessive and inappropriate use, have used a variety of methods,
including investigation, education, publicity, lobbying, law suits,
meetings and promotion of alternatives. Although actions such as
strikes and occupations have not been as prominent as on some other
environmental issues, a full range of nonviolent actions can readily
be used to oppose pesticides and promote
alternatives.[7]
A nonviolent campaign against pesticides can be assessed using the
check list.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
The answer to this question,
applied to antipesticide campaigns, is likely to be "no." A campaign
certainly can challenge the legitimacy of pesticide manufacturers,
but this does not necessarily undermine capitalism's legitimacy
generally.
Of course, challenges to
pesticides can be extremely valuable even if they do not challenge
the capitalist system in any fundamental way.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
This depends on the campaign.
Antipesticide campaigns can be participatory -- for example involving
most members of a local community affected by pesticides -- but some
lobbying efforts have very low participation.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
Typical goals of antipesticide
campaigns are to reduce pesticide use to much lower levels and to
promote alternatives. Campaigns against pesticides cannot easily
build goals into methods, except in the trivial sense that activists
do not use pesticides in their campaigning. On the other hand,
promotion of alternatives, such as organic farming practices to
reduce pest levels, toleration of higher crop losses and use of
biological controls, all have great potential for incorporating ends
in means.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
The most effective form of
cooption in the pesticide area is government regulation. Regulations
on pesticide toxicity, use or distribution appear to deal with
problems but easily fail due to lax limits, poor enforcement and
negligible penalties for violations. Furthermore, regulations seldom
provide much encouragement for alternatives. Therefore, campaigning
that is oriented to improving regulation is enmeshed in an official
system that doesn't work very well.
The route of promoting
alternatives directly also can be coopted, though with much more
beneficial results. The practice of organic farming involves
elimination of synthetic pesticides. Organic farming can be taken in
a collective direction, in which self-reliance, sharing and community
solidarity are key elements, and in which control over the process is
kept in the hands of the farmers. However, it can also be taken in a
commercial direction, in which case organic produce becomes simply
another means to make money. Companies can get involved by producing
naturally occurring pesticides. Thus organic farming has the
potential to be a significant challenge to capitalist agriculture but
also can be coopted into the capitalist marketplace. Campaigns around
pesticides can push in either direction.
In summary, campaigns against the
excessive use of pesticides do not have a great potential for
challenging capitalism, through they can be very valuable within
themselves. The most anticapitalist direction for antipesticide
campaigns is through promoting alternatives, especially in the
noncommercial aspects of organic farming movement.
Nuclear power
Nuclear power is the production of
electricity by harnessing the process of nuclear fission, using
uranium as the fuel. Proponents claim that it is a clean and cheap
method of power generation. Critics cite numerous disadvantages,
including the hazards of long-lived radioactive wastes, the risk of
nuclear reactor accidents, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by more
governments (since nuclear power technology and expertise is linked
to the capacity to produce nuclear weapons), high costs, the mining
of uranium on indigenous people's lands, and reductions in civil
liberties due to the need to protect against criminal and terrorist
use of nuclear materials.
The first nuclear power plants
were built in the 1950s. In the 1960s and 1970s, nuclear power was
well on its way to becoming a major power source, with hundreds of
large plants constructed, especially in the United States and Soviet
Union.
Unlike pesticides, which have been
manufactured primarily by corporations, nuclear power has been a
creature of states.[8]
Some of the very earliest plants in Britain and the Soviet Union were
designed to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, with electricity
as a by-product. Military research and development, plus government
sponsorship, were crucial in getting the nuclear option going. In
most countries, nuclear power has been totally owned and controlled
by the state, with corporations only involved in a minor fashion.
Partly this has been because of links to actual or potential military
uses of nuclear materials. As well, in many countries the electricity
sector has been government-run. Finally, the huge costs and the risks
of catastrophic accidents have discouraged private
investment.
Only in the US were corporations
involved in a big way in early decades. Even there, the government
eased the way through research and development, subsidies (such as
through government-funded uranium enrichment facilities) and legal
limits on insurance pay-outs in case of nuclear accidents. However,
it is possible that nuclear power could have gone down the route of
other technologies, such as telecommunications, that were first
developed by states, in the risky and expensive trial periods, and
later turned over to corporations once commercial viability was more
assured. Thus, much of the British nuclear industry was privatised in
the 1990s, with the government maintaining ownership of a portion
that could not be made profitable.
The movement against nuclear power
had its first stirrings in the late 1960s and expanded enormously in
the 1970s. It has been a grassroots movement, involving a range of
sectors of the population such as farmers in Japan, suburbanites in
the US and trade unionists in Australia.[9]
Often the focus has been against nuclear power plants that are
proposed or under construction, with opposition drawn from local
communities. There has also been substantial opposition even among
those far from any immediate risk. In Australia the main antinuclear
goal has been to stop uranium mining that is remote from most of the
population, and the movement has been as strong as anywhere
else.
The movement against nuclear power
has used a variety of methods of nonviolent action, including
meetings, rallies, vigils, blockades, strikes and site occupations.
Nonviolent action theory and training has played a large role in the
movement, while in turn the movement has served as a means for
spreading and developing understanding of and experience with
nonviolent action. This has especially been the case in the United
States and Western Europe, where nonviolence was the organising
principle for major campaigns, with careful preparation, nonviolent
action training, consensus decision making and fostering of
nonviolent discipline.[10]
While the antinuclear movement has
made great use of nonviolent action, to what extent is it
anticapitalist? A look at the check list is helpful at this
point.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Since nuclear power has been
largely an initiative of states, antinuclear campaigns do not do a
lot to undermine the legitimacy of capitalism. However, there is a
connection with state violence. A society built around heavy use of
nuclear power -- the so-called "plutonium economy" -- would require
an unprecedented level of surveillance and police powers in order to
guard against criminal and terrorist use of nuclear materials. Many
nuclear power programmes have been accompanied by draconian
legislation, special police forces and surveillance of nonviolent
nuclear opponents. In a nuclear state, any form of dissent becomes
criminalised. It is possible to imagine a plutonium economy in which
commercialisation of the nuclear fuel cycle is made possible by, and
gives the rationale for, intensification of the police powers of the
state.
The widespread introduction of
nuclear power thus could have led to greatly increased state power in
the service of capitalism. Antinuclear campaigning helps to prevent
such a development, and thus undermines the violent underpinnings of
a possible future nuclear capitalism. The case of nuclear power draws
attention to the value of stopping capitalism from getting much worse
or more deeply entrenched. Thus, although antinuclear campaigning has
been largely against the power of the state, it has an anticapitalist
dimension, namely prevention of a much more dangerous capitalism,
where the danger would come from environmental impacts, nuclear war
and attacks on civil liberties.
The movement against nuclear power
has been accompanied by a constructive programme, namely promotion of
an energy future based around energy efficiency, renewable energy
sources (such as solar and wind power) and design of communities and
lifestyle changes to reduce energy requirements.[11]
Some elements of this programme offer an alternative to capitalist
approaches, as described below.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Most of the grassroots antinuclear
campaigns have been participatory, with many opportunities for
involvement in a variety of ways. Campaigns built around nonviolence
principles have made informed participation a priority. On the other
hand, participation in some activities has been restricted, such as
expert testimony at inquiries and direct actions by
Greenpeace.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
While some participants have
reform goals, such as building safer nuclear plants, most have
opposed any use of nuclear power. An additional goal, sought by many
activists, is an energy system that is environmentally sound,
self-reliant and decentralised.
For the goal of a world without
nuclear power, the methods used have been compatible with the goal in
the trivial sense that they do not rely on nuclear
power.[12] But most campaigning that is simply ]against nuclear power
has not gone further in building a positive alternative into
methods.
Some campaigns for a "soft energy
path" are exemplary for combining means and ends: installation of
solar heaters and biogas cookers, promotion of solar design in
construction, elimination of wasteful packaging, use of bicycles, and
a host of other initiatives. These sorts of campaigns can be tied to
opposition to nuclear power as well as opposition to nonrenewable,
centralised energy sources including coal, oil and natural
gas.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
If antinuclear activists had been
satisfied with better safety audits, building nuclear plants
underground, or deeper burial of radioactive waste, then campaigns
would have been coopted long ago. Nuclear power, since it comes only
in the form of large power stations and always brings along other
elements in the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining,
enrichment and waste disposal, presents itself as an all-or-nothing
proposition. Most campaigners have demanded the nothing option,
making the movement fairly resistant to cooption.
Campaigning for a soft energy
future is far more open to cooption. Automobile manufacturers can
provide fuel-efficient cars; small companies can install solar hot
water heaters; electricity utilities can offer special "green energy" schemes to encourage renewable energy; manufacturers can produce
energy-efficient appliances. In short, a more energy-efficient future
is compatible with capitalism, though it may not be the most
profitable capitalist path. Many people would consider such an
energy-efficient capitalism a great improvement. This means that
cooption is a strong possibility.
The movement against nuclear power
has been remarkably successful in stopping a powerful industrial
juggernaut in its tracks, but whether it should be considered an
anticapitalist movement is a vexing question, given that nuclear
power has largely been a state initiative. To the extent that the
nuclear industry might have been privatised with the full advent of a "plutonium economy," the antinuclear movement has anticapitalist
credentials. The movement has been highly participatory and played an
important role in increasing the conscious use of nonviolent
action.
As a movement against a
form of technology, the movement has difficulty in incorporating its
goals into its methods, but the parallel movement for a self-reliant
energy future can be promoted with means-ends compatibility. However,
the path to a low energy future is easily susceptible to cooption. So
while the antinuclear movement may have stopped nuclear capitalism,
the likely alternative is nonnuclear capitalism, which is not nearly
as bad but is a far cry from a nonviolent economic system.
It is intriguing to speculate that
one reason for the important role of nonviolent action in antinuclear
campaigns is the role of the state, and especially of state
repression, in promoting the nuclear option. The state has been
involved because of the large scale, high costs and great potential
risk of nuclear developments. Nuclear power is not a small,
user-friendly technology that can be purchased at a local shop. As
noted in chapter 2, the theory of nonviolent action applies most
easily and obviously in the face of repression by clearly defined "rulers." Nuclear power fits this model more readily than most
technologies.
If nuclear technology had been
available in consumer-sized bundles -- such as plutonium-powered
watches and vehicles -- it might well have been accepted more
readily, even if it ended up killing millions of people. (A good
analogy is cigarettes.) By being large, concentrated, remote, run by
large organisations and overtly backed by state power, nuclear power
became an ideal target for nonviolent action.
This suggests once again the
difficulty of confronting capitalism, in as much as it is a system of
dispersed power. A careful analysis is especially important, since
obvious points of attack may not get to the roots of the
problem.
Local antidevelopment
campaigns
When community members organise
against a new development, such as a factory, apartment block,
housing estate, stadium, freeway, airport, or just the cutting down
of a few trees, the motivation is often self-interest, including
maintaining property values, preventing noise and air pollution,
ensuring nice views, reducing traffic congestion or preventing the "wrong sort of people" from moving into the neighbourhood. Local
antidevelopment campaigns are often dubbed with acronym NIMBY,
standing for "not in my back yard." The implication is that NIMBY
campaigners do not care if the development occurs somewhere else.
They just do not want it near where they live.
In spite of the derogatory
connotations of the term NIMBY, many local activists do care about
others. Local campaigning can be especially effective when it
combines principled opposition to certain types of harmful
development -- such as nuclear waste dumps or high temperature
incinerators -- with concerns about local impacts or racial
discrimination. In any case, local campaigns can be a potent mode of
resistance to capitalist initiatives. Therefore they are worth
considering.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
For most NIMBY campaigns, the
answer is no. There may be undermining of the legitimacy of
individual capitalists -- namely the ones promoting the development
being opposed -- but seldom of the system as a whole.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
This depends on the campaign. High
participation is important for campaign success.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
When, as is typical, the aim is to
stop a development and the methods include meetings, letters,
lobbying and rallies, there is little direct connection between goals
and methods. Often there is, in addition, a more general aim: for
local people to make decisions about local developments. One way to
capture this general aim in methods is for local community members to
develop their own participatory planning processes and to use them to
reach agreement on desired plans. An alternative plan is a good way
to help challenge an undesired development.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Cooption is always a serious risk
for local antidevelopment campaigns. Sometimes this occurs through
compromises: a height of a proposed building is reduced or better
emission controls are installed in a factory. Another method is
buying off opposition, as for example when developers pay high prices
to purchase existing dwellings targeted for removal. The community as
a whole can be bought off when the developer or government allies
provide facilities such as parks, pay higher taxes or make donations
to schools.
In a wider sense, cooption occurs
when developers go somewhere else: the development is not stopped but
instead displaced, often to a community that cannot resist as
effectively. The result is that undesirable developments often end up
in the poorest and most oppressed communities (though effective
resistance occurs in some poor communities).
By these criteria, local
antidevelopment campaigns are weak vehicles for challenging
capitalism, since they provide little fundamental challenge and are
easily coopted. However, while this is true of most local campaigns,
as a collective phenomenon they should not be ignored. Sometimes a
combination of NIMBY campaigns constitutes a strong challenge to a
type of development. A good example is disposal of high-level
radioactive waste. No community wants to host this particular "development" and cooption strategies have not proved successful. In
this case, local opposition results from and provides support to
wider antinuclear consciousness built by the movement against nuclear
power. Several of the limitations of individual NIMBY campaigns are
overcome when they are part of a wider struggle.
Notes to
chapter 9
[1] K.
William Kapp, The Social Costs of Private Enterprise
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950).
[2] Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (London: Pan,
1971).
[3] Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and
Technology (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971).
[4] Boris Komarov, The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union
(London: Pluto, 1981).
[5]
See, for example, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, "A critique of political
ecology," New Left Review, No. 84, March-April 1974, pp. 3-31;
James Ridgeway, The Politics of Ecology (New York: E. P.
Dutton, 1970).
[6] Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1962).
[7] Carol Van Strum, A Bitter Fog: Herbicides and Human Rights
(San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1983).
[8] Joseph A. Camilleri, The State and Nuclear Power: Conflict and
Control in the Western World (Melbourne: Penguin, 1984);
André Gorz, Ecology as Politics (Boston: South End
Press, 1980); Robert Jungk, The New Tyranny: How Nuclear Power
Enslaves Us (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1979).
[9] Jim
Falk, Global Fission: The Battle over Nuclear Power (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982); Wolfgang Rüdig, Anti-Nuclear Movements: A Worldwide Survey of Opposition to
Nuclear Energy (Harlow, Essex: Longman, 1990).
[10] On the US experience see Barbara Epstein, Political Protest and
Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970s and
1980s (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1991).
[11] For the technical side of this approach, see Amory B. Lovins, Soft
Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (New York: Ballinger,
1977).
[12] Where nuclear power is part of the electricity generating system, it
is hard to avoid using some nuclear-produced electricity without
disconnecting from the electricity grid. Avoiding this has not been
treated as significant in antinuclear campaigning.
10
10
Social
defence
Social
defence
Go to:
The power of the military and
police lies at the foundation of capitalism, as described in chapter
3. Without organised violence to protect the system of private
control and to contain challenges by workers and communities,
capitalism could not survive. Therefore, in examining nonviolent
challenges to capitalism, it is worth examining nonviolent challenges
to military and police power.
Organised nonviolent action can be
used as an alternative to military defence. Instead of using weapons
and troops to defend, a community would defend itself using
noncooperation, rallies, strikes, boycotts, occupations and other
forms of nonviolent action.[1] This is not a cheap and easy option: resources and training on a
scale similar to military forces might well be involved. Preparation
would include designing energy, transport, agriculture, communication
and other technological systems to be resilient against attack,
training in foreign languages and intercultural understanding,
fostering community solidarity, building links with sympathetic
groups in other countries (especially potential aggressor countries),
introducing comprehensive education and training in nonviolent
action, running simulations (analogous to military training
exercises), and setting up decision making systems and popular "intelligence" services to assess potential threats. Such a system
for defence using nonviolent action has been given various names,
including nonviolent defence, social defence, civilian-based defence
and defence by civil resistance.
No society has ever systematically
prepared itself for social defence. In this sense, nonviolence is in
an early stage of development, equivalent to violence before the
introduction of armies and organised weapons production. Therefore,
it can be said that a full-scale nonviolent alternative to the
military is yet to be tried.
One of the key implications of
promoting the capacity to use nonviolent action against aggressors is
that it provides skills and ideas for communities which they can use
against more local targets. In a social defence system, it would be
desirable for workers to know how to shut down production quickly and
completely, without damaging equipment. A crucial piece of equipment,
such as a computer chip, might be designed so that, when removed,
rapid resumption of production is impossible. A replacement could be
kept in a safe place such as another country. With this sort of
preparation, even torture would be useless to get production going
again.
If workers had this capacity to
shut down production, it could be used against employers. Indeed,
workers' control provides the best sort of defence against
repression, since a collectively run workplace is far harder for an
aggressor to control, without the managerial chain of command in
which top figures can be replaced or induced to support the
aggressors.
Network communication systems,
including telephone, fax and electronic mail, are ideally designed
for nonviolent resistance to aggression, since the aggressor cannot
shut down communication by controlling a few key points, as in the
case of major television and radio stations, traditionally the first
targets for capture in military coups.
If communities are self-reliant in
energy and food and have skills in mutual help, they are in a far
stronger position to resist being incorporated into a
corporate-dominated commodity culture. Thus, virtually all the
measures to build the capacity for nonviolent defence of a community
are equally valuable for building the capacity to resist capitalist
social relations and challenge the power of the state to support
capitalism.[2]
The very idea of social defence is
relatively new. Gandhi pioneered the use of nonviolent action as a
systematic strategy for social change, but he did not formulate a
comprehensive model of a defence system based on nonviolent action.
It was not until the late 1950s that a number of writers and
researchers began proposing social defence as a full-fledged
alternative.
As well as individual advocacy for
social defence, it has been promoted by organisations in a number of
countries, including Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France, United
States and Australia. The political party Die Grünen in
Germany has social defence as part of its platform. Due to efforts by
proponents -- Gene Sharp has been especially influential -- social
defence has been considered as a serious option in some newly
independent states, including Slovenia and Lithuania, though in the
end military systems have been adopted. Yet while acknowledging these
initiatives, overall it must be said that very little headway has
been made in making social defence a realistic policy option. The
military is powerfully entrenched, as might be expected given that it
is the ultimate defence against overturning various systems of
domination, including dictatorship, capitalism and state
socialism.
Though social defence as a policy
option has a low profile -- this is to put it politely, given that it
is hardly known among the general public -- nevertheless there are
some foundations being laid by nonviolent activists. The methods of
nonviolent action, from petitions to parallel government, are the
methods for a social defence system. So every time workers go on
strike, consumers join a boycott or environmentalists blockade a
polluting factory, they are practising skills and gaining insight
into methods that are the foundation of social defence. People with
personal experience in nonviolent action are almost invariably the
most receptive to the idea of social defence. They can more readily
grasp what it might involve and how it might operate.
Social defence is more than just
using nonviolent action. It requires planning, preparation, training,
infrastructure and network building. No one would expect an army to
have much of a chance if it had no plans, no method of recruitment,
no training, no communication system and relied on weapons picked up
on the spur of the moment. Likewise, a social defence system that
relies on spontaneous use of nonviolent action is not likely to have
much of a chance. To establish a social defence system requires more
than people having experience with nonviolent action: it requires
preparing the society in everything from intercultural skills to
emergency drills.
To promote social defence is
difficult because the very idea clashes with deep-seated assumptions
about defence and the necessity of meeting violence with violence.
For most people, "defence" means military defence.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Social defence, as an alternative
to the military, is a direct challenge to capitalism's violent
foundation. A number of the obvious measures that would strengthen
social defence, including self-reliance in energy, food, water,
health, housing and transport, are highly compatible with nonviolent
alternatives to capitalism. On the other hand, social defence makes
little direct impact on the legitimacy of capitalism.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Social defence can only be
successful with a high level of participation. This is unlike the
military option, which relies on a small number of soldiers to defend
or control a much larger population.
Because social defence is such a
threat to governments, it is likely that only a participatory
campaign has a chance of introducing it. However, there is not enough
experience with campaigning for social defence to draw a firm
conclusion on this point.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
There are two basic ways to
campaign for social defence. One is based on trying to convince
political and military leaders that social defence is a logical,
superior option for defending a country. This approach uses a method
-- rational argument aimed at elites -- that is different from the
goal, popular nonviolent action as a mode of defence.
A second way to campaign for
social defence is through community organising and nonviolent action.
This can include running social defence simulations, building
decentralised energy systems designed to survive blockades or
attacks, and promoting network communication systems for coordinating
resistance to aggression. This approach is, in essence, using the
methods of social defence in order to achieve social defence as a
goal.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Because social defence is such a
fundamental challenge to the power of the state, it is highly
resistant to cooption. A few governments have sponsored
investigations into social defence, but not a single one has made
substantial steps to introduce it.
However, cooption might become a
greater possibility if campaigns for social defence were much
stronger. One method of cooption is for governments to introduce a
small component of social defence as a complement or supplement to
military defence, as in the case of Sweden's "total defence" which is
primarily military but has as components economic defence, civil
defence, psychological defence and social defence. The radical
implications of social defence could be thwarted by a hierarchically
structured nonviolent defence system, managed by government elites or
perhaps contracted out to corporations.
What about cooption by capitalism?
Could there be firms selling "social defence services" to local
communities? It is hard to imagine. Full-scale capitalist cooption of
social defence would only be possible if capitalism attained such a
popular legitimacy that people would be willing to undertake
nonviolent action to defend it.
On the surface, social defence may
not seem to be a challenge to capitalism. As noted in chapter 2, few
nonviolence theorists have even mentioned capitalism: their main
focus has been systems of overt repression, such as dictatorship. Yet
because capitalism relies on violence at its foundations, social
defence is a deep-seated challenge: it gives people the tools to
confront and replace unjust social systems of any sort. Grassroots
campaigns for social defence provide the greatest challenge, since
they maximise participation, build ends into means and are more
resistant to cooption.
Notes to
chapter 10
[1] Anders Boserup and Andrew Mack, War Without Weapons: Non-violence
in National Defence (London: Frances Pinter, 1974); Robert J.
Burrowes, The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996); Gustaaf
Geeraerts (ed.), Possibilities of Civilian Defence in Western
Europe (Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1977); Stephen
King-Hall, Defence in the Nuclear Age (London: Victor
Gollancz, 1958); Brian Martin, Social Defence, Social Change
(London: Freedom Press, 1993); Michael Randle, Civil
Resistance (London: Fontana, 1994); Adam Roberts (ed.), The
Strategy of Civilian Defence: Non-violent Resistance to
Aggression (London: Faber and Faber, 1967); Gene Sharp with the
assistance of Bruce Jenkins, Civilian-Based Defense: A
Post-Military Weapons System (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1990).
[2] Martin, Social Defence, Social Change, chapter 14.
11
11
Global
issues
Global
issues
Go to:
The increasing power of
multinational corporations and the increasing pervasiveness of the
capitalist system around the world is commonly called "globalisation." Properly speaking, this should be called capitalist
globalisation, since there can be other types of globalisation, such
as of science and nonviolence.
Capitalist globalisation includes
increasing trade, rapid movement of investment capital, freely
adjustable exchange rates, movement of production to low wage regions
of the world, agreements on tariffs and other trade issues, global
communication systems, increasing size of multinational corporations,
and greater homogeneity in markets. Globalisation involves a shift in
power from local communities and small-country governments to
multinational corporations and the governments of the most powerful
economies.
Global marketing means that local
products and tastes are challenged by products and tastes from
multinational corporations, such as Coca-Cola, Hollywood movies,
synthetic pesticides, Toyota vehicles and professional golf. Along
with products comes the attraction of a consumer
lifestyle.
Critics of globalisation have
argued that it largely benefits the rich while impoverishing the poor
within both developing and developed countries, undermines local
traditions and reduces cultural diversity, fosters wants that cannot
all be satisfied, imposes unsustainable burdens on the environment
and reduces public accountability. In short, globalisation
intensifies and spreads some of the worst aspects of capitalism
without doing much to foster the social infrastructure and habits
that mitigate capitalism's excesses. There is globalisation of
corporate power but relatively little globalisation of philanthropy,
civil liberties, occupational health and safety or humanisation of
work.
Opposition to capitalism thus
entails opposition to capitalist globalisation. However, stopping,
slowing or transforming globalisation is only part of the struggle.
It is not much use opposing the power of multinational corporations
if the alternative is supporting exploitative local corporations or a
repressive government.
Globalisation is especially
damaging for poor people in developing countries.[1] Indeed, it can be seen as the latest manifestation of centuries of
exploitation, beginning with imperialism and colonialism -- in which
political subjugation was the foundation for economic exploitation --
and followed, after colonies gained independence, by neocolonialism,
in which economic exploitation continued via investment, loans, trade
and corruption. The notorious "structural adjustment programs" imposed by the World Bank on debtor countries have forced them to
adhere to a neoliberal economic model, subordinating local economies
to the markets of rich countries. Loans, unproductive development
projects and massive high-level corruption have perpetuated economic
subordination. Globalisation is a continuation and more efficient
form of this pattern of exploitation. These problems are well
documented.[2]
The question is what to do about them.
Although globalisation is
presented as a rational process, it contains many contradictions. For
example, the ideology of the market is that there should be free
movement of all factors involved in production, but labour is not
allowed the same country-to-country mobility as capital. Another myth
of market economies is that economic failure is punished by
bankruptcy, but in numerous cases large corporations in rich
countries are propped up by governments rather than allowed to
collapse. When governments of small countries cannot pay their debts,
they are not allowed to go bankrupt -- which would mean that foreign
banks and governments would lose their money. Instead, structural
adjustment programmes are imposed so that the people of the country
are forced to pay the debt.
Nonviolent action against
globalisation can occur in all sorts of ways, from protests against
McDonald's in India to setting up of local money systems. To
illustrate the potential of global-local campaigning, three issues
are examined here: the Multilateral Agreement on Investment,
genetically modified organisms and free software.
The Multilateral Agreement on
Investment (MAI)[3]
The MAI sought to codify a set of
investment "rights" for corporations. The idea was that when
multinational corporations deemed that regulations in a foreign
country interfered with their "freedom" to compete in the
marketplace, they could use the MAI to challenge them. Government
authority to regulate with regard to environmental, employment,
consumer and other issues would be curtailed. In an attempt to remove
all barriers to free flow of capital, the agreement would have forced
signatory countries to treat foreign competitors and investors as the
equals of national companies and investors. This had implications for
social welfare, the arts, research, non-profit organisations and much
more.
As an exercise in working towards
equalising the investment conditions faced by multinational
corporations across the globe, the MAI probably would have brought
about a "lowest common denominator" in the area of environmental,
consumer and labour laws, overriding more protective legislation.
While the proposal spelt out more certainty for investors, it meant
further uncertainty for marginalised workers and the poor who, in
many countries, are reliant on subsidised food, also under threat
from the MAI.
In 1995, a draft MAI was prepared
by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
representing the 29 wealthiest countries. Most of this work was done
in secret.
A wide cross-section of groups
opposed the MAI for a variety of reasons.[4]
The opposition included unions, environmental groups and green
parties, some other small political parties, church groups, consumer
and aid organisations. While there was certainly some right-wing
opposition, for instance the One Nation political party in Australia
and racist groups in the Netherlands, the bulk of the activism came
from left-wing and socially progressive groups who generally saw the
MAI as an attack on human rights and state sovereignty. They
anticipated that it would further erode environmental and worker
protection and indigenous people's rights, as well as restricting the
means for defending them.
Defending state sovereignty
against corporate domination has its down side: governments, after
all, frequently act against the interests of citizens and the
environment, including when supporting local capitalist interests.
Most social justice activists involved in the anti-MAI campaign
opposed both national and global oppression, but felt amply justified
in targeting the MAI because it would have undermined socially
beneficial national legislation while doing little to reduce
state-level oppression.
In 1997, a photocopy of the MAI
draft was leaked to Global Tradewatch, a citizens' organisation based
in the USA. Using electronic mail and the World Wide Web, Global
Tradewatch disseminated the information to numerous organisations,
commencing a chain reaction that involved more than 600 groups
worldwide.
There were public meetings,
campaign meetings, ringing up radio stations, writing to newspapers,
fundraising, placing newspaper advertisements, rallies and much more.
Thus global networking through the Internet worked synergistically
with local actions. Eventually action was significant enough to
generate attention in the mainstream media and alert a wider public
to the issues. The result was that the MAI was stopped, though
versions of it are still on the global corporate agenda.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
The MAI would have involved
powerful international enforcement of its trade provisions, including
strong trade and other sanctions against violators. Underlying this
enforcement is the power of the wealthiest states, especially the US
government. So in essence the MAI would have internationalised the
use of coercive power -- backed ultimately by the military and police
-- to maintain a globalised capitalism. The anti-MAI campaign thus
helped oppose an expansion of the violent underpinnings of
capitalism.
The MAI would have given much
greater legitimacy to the exercise of power by global capital. The
anti-MAI campaign's success helped prevent this greater legitimacy,
while the campaign itself challenged the legitimacy of globalisation.
On the other hand, it did not seriously question national
capital.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Based on global networking and
local organising, involving hundreds of organisations without a "central command," the campaign was highly participatory. Just about
anyone who could tap into the networking process could choose to be
involved. The contrast with the highly secretive and centralised
process involved in promoting the MAI was stark.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
Among opponents, the only obvious
common goal was stopping the MAI. Since the opponents did not use
investment agreements as a technique, at this trivial level the goals
were built into the methods. As for other goals, opponents had
enormous differences: some wanted to protect national cultural
industries, others to build alternatives to capitalism and yet others
to stop immigration and investment from certain foreign countries. A
separate assessment of methods and goals would be needed for
different groups within the anti-MAI coalition.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
This question is not easy to
answer. The MAI became the symbol of globalisation that needed to be
opposed, so it is unlikely to be resurrected under that name, since
it would again become the target for a global campaign. Because it
was promoted in secret and was a discrete, named proposal, it
provided an ideal target for opposition. So in this sense the
campaign was resistant to cooption.
But other, more incremental
processes of globalisation may eventually give the same outcome as
the MAI, such as transnational corporate mergers, global marketing
strategies and the transfer of production to regions with cheaper
labour. Campaigns against these are more open to cooption, though the
bigger problem is not cooption but that these processes have a lower
profile, operate gradually and do not seem to be so obviously
unacceptable. Creeping corporate domination is more difficult to
oppose than identifiable initiatives such as the MAI. The existence
of the name "globalisation", in as much as it has become shorthand
for increasing global corporate domination, helps in mobilising
opposition.
The anti-MAI campaign pitted two
types of globalisation: that based on large hierarchical
organisations operating in secrecy and the other based on a variety
of community groups promoting public education and citizen action.
The campaign had the great strength that, through a participatory
process, it forestalled a great expansion in the coercive backing for
international capital. However, to duplicate this success by stopping
more gradual processes of globalisation is much more challenging.
Many of the goals of the MAI are being achieved, more gradually,
through individual cases brought before the World Trade Organisation,
a process that is not so easily susceptible to activist
intervention.
Corporate ownership of life
forms
Scientists can now replace
components of the genetic structure of plants and animals, creating
new organisms that could not have been bred through conventional
means. For example, a gene from a fish can be spliced into the
genetic sequence for a cow or genes from bacteria can be put into
corn. By careful choice and through experimentation, new types of
organisms can be created with desired characteristics, such as cows
with less fat in their milk or corn that grows well in acidic soils.
The new organisms are described as genetically modified and the
enterprise is called genetic engineering or
biotechnology.[5]
Biotechnology has the potential
for enormous human benefit, for example by cheaply producing
life-saving drugs and creating crops that are more nutritious.
However, many of the actual uses of biotechnology are designed to
primarily serve vested interests. Three factors are important in
this.
First, biotechnology, though
initially funded by governments, is now largely a corporate endeavour
and is oriented to corporate imperatives. Instead of focussing on
producing crops that are more nutritious or can readily be cultivated
by poor farmers, corporations such as Monsanto have designed crops
that are highly resistant to pesticides. That means more sales of
pesticides. Another innovation is crops whose seeds are not fertile.
That means that farmers cannot set aside seed from the crop to sow
the next season's crop, but must buy new seed from the
corporation.
Second, biotechnology is highly
reliant on experts and sophisticated technology. It is not a "people's technology" that can be used by ordinary farmers or
community groups. The dependence of biotechnology on expertise makes
it easily recruited for corporate and government agendas.
Third, there are serious potential
risks in biotechnology. Plants have been created that produce the
naturally occurring pesticide Bt. However, this could well accelerate
the development of Bt-resistant pests, which would be devastating for
organic farming, which relies on judicious spraying of Bt. Even more
seriously, a new genetically modified organism could become a deadly
disease. The risk may be small but the consequences could be
enormous. This suggests that biotechnology, in its present form at
least, is intrinsically unsuited to being a people's
technology.
There has been concern about
biotechnology from its beginnings. In early years, some scientists
had serious reservations and this led to a period of tight controls.
However, government regulations gradually became laxer in the 1970s
and 1980s. In the 1990s, popular opposition began to develop in many
countries. In countries like India, farmers' organisations have
opposed the genetic exploitation of collective resources.
Pharmaceutical companies have searched through the natural genetic
resources of developing countries and, when finding something that
can be commercialised, have sought patents on the genetic sequences.
The companies are then in a position to sell the organism back to the
country, sometimes with minimal transformation. In this way, the
centuries of community wisdom that went into selecting and developing
a certain species are appropriated by corporations, a process that
has been called "biopiracy."[6]
In developed countries, critics
have raised the alarm about genetically modified organisms and there
is increasing concern among consumers. Corporate promoters oppose the
labelling of genetically modified food, since this would allow
consumers to reject it more easily. Activists and most consumers
favour labelling, which would open genetically modified food to
boycott. Some activist groups have engaged in sabotage, for example
by destroying genetically modified crops, including experimental
plots.
These campaigns combine concerns
in two related areas. One is about genetic engineering, with its
potential risks and corporate agenda. The other is about corporate
takeover of genetic resources through patenting. Patenting gives an
exclusive right to market an invention for a period of time, and is a
type of "intellectual property." Biotechnology as a corporate
enterprise depends on patenting.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Patenting of life forms and the
development of new life forms that are controlled by corporations can
be considered to be an expansion of the capitalist system to a new
domain. The property system is extended to cover genetics. If this
became established, it would be a wider scope for the violent
underpinnings of capitalism -- which are essential to protect
corporate property -- and a broader legitimacy to capitalism as the
appropriate framework for handling the new realm of genetic
modification. Therefore, campaigns against corporatisation of life
forms can be considered a challenge to both the violent foundation
and the legitimacy of capitalism, in the sense that they seek to
prevent these becoming wider and deeper than before.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Participation is low in some forms
of opposition, such as lobbying of governments and working through
international agencies and professional associations. It is
potentially very high in farmers' protests -- rallies in India
against multinational takeovers in agriculture have attracted up to
half a million people -- and consumer boycotts.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
Opponents of genetically modified
organisms do not use such organisms as part of their campaigning, so
methods and goals are compatible in a trivial sense. On the other
hand, some opponents of the corporate appropriation of the products
of indigenous communities have argued for collective intellectual
property rights for indigenous cultures, a clear case of fighting
fire with fire rather than water.[7]
While such an approach may achieve the goal of protecting indigenous
culture, it may also give greater legitimacy to intellectual property
generally.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
A campaign to oppose all
genetically modified food is hard to coopt, but a campaign to label
such food could readily be coopted by corporations agreeing to
labelling, but then winning over consumers by low prices,
advertising, special deals or attractive packaging. Tobacco companies
opposed having health warnings on cigarettes packets but were able to
maintain sales after warnings were required by law. Similarly,
biotechnology companies may be able to overcome consumer resistance,
though that remains to be seen.
Cooption might also be possible
through public participation in systems for evaluating genetically
modified products. For example, farmer representatives might be
brought onto government agriculture policy committees. However, these
forms of cooption currently seem both unlikely to occur and unlikely
to work.
In summary, opposition to
corporatisation of life forms is a challenge to the expansion of the
capitalist system to a new realm. There are many ways to oppose this
expansion, including distributing information, lobbying, organising
rallies and destroying genetically modified crops. Depending on the
methods used and the ways campaigns are run, there can be greater or
lesser degrees of participation, means-ends compatibility and risk of
cooption.
Corporatisation of life forms is
just one of the areas where capitalism is expanding on the basis of
monopolies over the use of information: so-called intellectual
property, which might be better described as monopoly privilege. The
major industries dependent on this include pharmaceuticals, filmed
entertainment (especially Hollywood), software and publishing.
Property rights in the use of intellectual material are especially
hard to justify since, once produced, it is cheap and easy to make
copies. This situation is normally a justification for making such
products public goods. Ownership is not needed to benefit from
reading a poem. Even if a million other people have copies, the
original version is not diminished. This is quite unlike shoes or
houses, where making multiple copies requires considerable labour and
resources.
In an economy based on cooperative
use of resources, intellectual products would be freely available.
This is far more efficient than the capitalist system of buying and
selling rights to intellectual products, which creates an artificial
scarcity and hinders both use and innovation. The public systems of
everyday language and scientific knowledge work extremely well.
Private ownership of words and formulas would reduce their use value,
dynamism and flexibility.
However, the belief that
intellectual producers deserve royalties and other benefits from
their creative work is deep seated, especially among intellectuals,
and allows corporate expropriation of intellectual work to occur
without much organised opposition. The development of campaigns
against a range of types of intellectual property is an important
task for anticapitalist struggle.[8]
Free software
One of the most highly developed
challenges to capitalist-owned intellectual property is the free
software movement.[9] Companies develop software for sale, and their efforts are
characterised by secrecy, competition and high cost to consumers.
Members of the free software movement develop software to give away.
They make the code openly available, allowing others to scrutinise it
and propose improvements. To prevent corporations copyrighting or
otherwise controlling the software, it is protected by so-called "copyleft," which allows others to use and adapt it freely but not to
claim any exclusive rights to it.
The free software movement has
been amazingly effective. Through voluntary contributions from
programmers around the world, a vast library of free software has
been produced. The most widely known is the operating system Linux,
which has become a serious challenge to commercial software --
primarily because it is so much more reliable -- but there is much
else available.
Considering its great
achievements, free software has low visibility. A reader of the
computer pages of newspapers -- where the advertising comes from
computer companies -- would hardly know free software exists, much
less that there is as much of it available as proprietary
software.
Free software can be
conceptualised as a campaign, though many of its participants are
involved simply because they enjoy programming challenges.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Free software is a potent
challenge to the legitimacy of capitalism because it shows that
voluntary, cooperative work can produce better products than some of
the wealthiest corporations in the world. Free software is also part
of a nonviolent alternative to capitalism, especially by challenging
the expansion of the intellectual property system to cover
software.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Participation in development of
free software is on the basis of competent contributions: programmers
can be involved if they have something useful to contribute. Others
can be involved by using and promoting free software.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
The methods are much the same as
the goals: development and use of free software. The main
contradictory element is the use of copyright law to create "copyleft" in order to protect free software from commercial
interlopers.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
The concept of free software is
often confused with "shareware" which, though it sounds like a
communal product, is actually commercial software that is available
on a trial basis. Computers often are sold with software provided
"free" (allegedly at no extra cost), but usually this is commercial
software. In these ways the concept of free software is confused and
appropriated by commercial software options.
Computer companies can adopt some
free software as part of their own software packages, thus embedding
the "free" elements in a commercial environment and obscuring the
possibility of a more complete package of free software.
Much free software is written by
programmers in their spare time who in their "day job" produce
commercial software in a far more alienated environment. If computer
firms could make programming more participatory and stimulating,
programmers might not be so attracted to the opportunity to be
involved with free software. However, since there are thousands of
programmers contributing to free software worldwide, this form of
cooption would need to be widespread to be effective in slowing the
free software movement.
In summary, the free software
movement is quite a challenge to capitalism, especially to the
expansion of the property system to software. It combines means and
ends effectively. As a practical alternative, it is participatory for
programmers and software users while ensuring the highest quality
products.
Global-local
campaigning
Capitalism has operated in a
national mode for a long time, with rival governments defending the
interests of national capital. Internationalism -- for example, the
fostering of free trade -- is usually only in the interest of the
most powerful capitalist countries. That continues to be the case
today, with corporate globalisation being promoted most vigorously by
the governments of the US and other wealthy countries.
The socialist movement, in
contrast, was internationalist from its start in the 1800s. The idea
was that workers had common interests and would unite against their
common oppressors, the capitalists. In practice, nationalism was
often a stronger force, especially in the case of war. Prior to World
War I, working class organisations were pledged to oppose war between
states, but after the outbreak of war, internationalist ideals were
forgotten as workers volunteered to fight against their counterparts
in enemy countries.
As corporate globalisation
proceeds, the need for globalisation of opposition increases, but
this inevitably involves action in local situations. Campaigns
against the MAI and against corporate control over life forms are two
examples of campaigns that can be described as both global and local.
Trade agreements and patents on life forms have global implications
and the proponents of these initiatives plan on a global scale.
Therefore opponents need to operate globally as well. This includes
targeting international forums, coordinating actions in different
parts of the world and trying to meld together participants from a
range of countries and constituencies. To achieve this, a local
dimension is vital. The impacts of corporate globalisation are felt
most acutely in local communities, and it is in such communities that
global campaigns must be built. Without local participation and
initiative, campaigners operating at the level of international
meetings and media can easily lose touch with grassroots concerns and
become more susceptible to cooption.
There is nothing all that new
about global-local campaigning. Colonialism was a process of
international exploitation, and independence movements were commonly
aided by sympathisers and support groups within the colonial power.
Many workers' struggles have had international dimensions, and the
struggle against nuclear power has involved national movements with
international networking. But with corporate globalisation, global
impacts are becoming more significant in many areas.
In between the global and the
local are a host of intermediate scales, including national and
regional and all sorts of networks. This means that there is
increasing organisational complexity in campaigning. Making campaigns
participatory is an extra challenge when groups from around the world
and from different cultures are involved.
Notes to
chapter 11
[1] John Madeley, Big Business, Poor Peoples: The Impact of
Transnational Corporations on the World's Poor (London: Zed
Books, 1999).
[2] Richard J. Barnet and John Cavanagh, Global Dreams: Imperial
Corporations and the New World Order (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1994); William Greider, One World, Ready or Not: The
Manic Logic of Global Capitalism (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1997); David C. Korten, When Corporations Rule the World
(London: Earthscan, 1995); Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (eds.),
The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn toward the
Local (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1996).
[3]
Portions of this section are adapted from Wendy Varney and Brian
Martin, "Net resistance, net benefits: opposing MAI," Social
Alternatives, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2000, pp. 47-52.
[4]
David Wood, "The international campaign against the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment: a test case for the future of
globalization?," Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 1,
2000, pp. 25-45.
[5] For critical views, see for example Kristin Dawkins, Gene Wars:
The Politics of Biotechnology (New York: Seven Stories, 1997);
Michael W. Fox, Beyond Evolution: The Genetically Altered Future
of Plants, Animals, the Earth -- and Humans (New York: Lyons
Press, 1999); Brewster Kneen, Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of
Biotechnology (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers,
1999); Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global
Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000); Martin Teitel
and Kimberley A. Wilson, Changing the Nature of Nature:
Genetically Engineered Food (London: Vision, 2000).
[6] Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge
(Totnes, Devon: Green Books, 1998).
[7] Tom Greaves (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous
Peoples: A Sourcebook (Oklahoma City: Society for Applied
Anthropology, 1994).
[8]
For some ideas about campaigning against intellectual property, see
Brian Martin, "Against intellectual property," in Information
Liberation (London:
Freedom Press, 1998), pp. 29-56.
[9] Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston MA
02111-1307, USA; gnu@gnu.org;http://www.gnu.org/.
12
12
Economic alternatives as strategies
Go to:
One fruitful way to develop
strategies is to work out components of the goal and then turn them
into methods. This approach has the great advantage that the goal is
built into the method, so that there is less chance of the strategy
serving the wrong ends.
Nonviolence itself exemplifies
this approach of using the goal as a strategy. The goal is a society
without organised violence, in which conflict is dealt with using
nonviolent methods. To achieve this goal, a key method is nonviolent
action. This gives experience in using nonviolent action, refines
understanding of nonviolence as a goal, and helps overcome reliance
on violent methods.
For a nonviolence strategy against
capitalism, turning goals into methods means working out a nonviolent
economic alternative to capitalism and then turning the
alternative--or a component of it--into a method for change. This can
be a highly effective approach.
One economic alternative is
promoting cooperatives, which are collective enterprises in
agriculture, manufacturing, retail, services or any of a number of
areas. In cooperatives, workers and users are in control, without
bosses. Decisions are made participatively, typically by consensus or
voting. Cooperatives are enterprises run by workers' control, a
strategy that was analysed in chapter 7. As a strategy, cooperatives
are more commonly built from scratch by a group of people committed
to a collective, self-managing approach, whereas workers' control can
occur by workers taking over an existing enterprise.
Here three other economic
alternatives[1]
are considered: community exchange schemes, local money systems and
voluntary simplicity.
Community exchange
schemes
A well-known community exchange
scheme is LETS (Local Employment and Trading System), a
not-for-profit, cooperative information service to coordinate local
exchange of goods and services.[2] Individuals who produce goods or undertake services receive "credits" that can be used to obtain goods and services from others who are
participating. Unlike the anonymous market, formal barter systems
such as LETS promote direct connections between people, fostering a
more cooperative approach. LETS supplements the money economy but
also challenges it, causing difficulty for the state to exercise its
power through taxation.
LETS has been introduced in
hundreds of communities in various countries. Usually the schemes are
small, but some are quite extensive. Some governments tolerate LETS
operations, while others obstruct or harass them. Government
regulations and harassment limit the expansion of LETS, but at least
as important is the attraction of the regular money economy for most
people.
Setting up and running LETS
schemes can be interpreted as a strategy against capitalism. In the
questions in the check list, the word "campaign" should be
interpreted as "building a LETS scheme."
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
LETS challenges the legitimacy of
capitalism because it is based on barter rather than currency,
because it is non-profit and because it is mostly exchange between
individuals, without large corporations. It also helps build a
nonviolent alternative because it is based on cooperation rather than
exploitation. LETS in its present forms is not a full-scale
alternative to capitalism. For example, LETS participants gain many
of their skills and tools of work through the conventional economy;
LETS-based communities seldom run entire education systems and
computer chip manufacturing. But LETS certainly can be a component of
a wider nonviolent alternative.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Definitely. In as much as people
engage in LETS, they are participating in the alternative. However,
it is typical for just a few people to be responsible for setting up
and administering LETS schemes, so there can be inequalities at the
level of design and operation.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
Yes.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Cooption occurs mainly through the
attraction of the money economy. Since LETS normally operates as a
partial alternative, with many participants also being involved in
the money economy, which is far larger and offers much greater
choice, there is a constant pull away from LETS as a full
alternative.
Local money
systems
Related to community exchange
scheme are local money systems.[3]
Both LETS and local money systems are challenges to the construction
of markets by states.[4]
Local money is planned, issued and controlled locally, rather than
being imposed by a central government. Local money is directly
connected to people in a community, greatly restricting the power of
national governments and large corporations, especially major banks.
It helps to make people aware of the social role of money,
challenging the idea that it is a neutral exchange
medium.[5]
In a number of cases, local money
systems were introduced in desperation by communities during economic
depressions, as an attempt to get the local economy moving. Sometimes
the currency automatically depreciates with time--for example losing
one percent of its value each day--so that people have a strong
incentive to spend it quickly. Local money is a direct challenge to
central government monopolies over currency, and central governments
typically shut down local money systems as soon as possible.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Local money systems challenge the
legitimacy of capitalism, but here distinctions between types of
capitalism become important. What can be called "actually existing
capitalism" is based on central government control over the money
system, in alliance with banks and the largest corporations. Local
money systems challenge the power of central government managers,
bankers and corporations. However, local money is compatible with
local capital. So it might be said that local money systems challenge
the legitimacy of "monopoly capitalism" while supporting the
legitimacy of "local competitive capitalism."
The same can be said of local
money as an alternative to capitalism: it substitutes a
different--namely local--version of capitalism for current national
and global capitalisms. Whether this will help to build a full-scale
nonviolent alternative to capitalism is difficult to
judge.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Experience suggests that many
local people may participate by using local money. The actual setting
up of local money is usually the initiative of a small number of
individuals, but it is possible to imagine a participatory process of
establishing and running a local currency. One model for this is
demarchy, discussed in chapter 5.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
Yes.
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Governments find local money
threatening and usually try to shut it down: repression is more
likely than cooption.
Thinking a bit more broadly, there
are cases of corporations that set up something like de facto
currencies, especially for their own workers. This includes company
loans, housing, cars and other services. In classic company towns,
dominated by a single large corporation, employees may have few major
economic interactions except with company-owned or sponsored
enterprises.
This suggests that a key to the
challenge offered by a local money system is the question of who
controls the system. If the local money is the initiative of or
dominated by a few local capitalists, there is little genuine
challenge to capitalism. But if there are elements of local community
control over the money system, this is potentially a major
challenge.
Voluntary
simplicity
One of the driving forces behind
capitalism is ever-increasing consumption. If people always want
better clothes, larger houses, fancier cars, more sophisticated
computer software, and any number of other goods and services, there
are ample opportunities for making money by providing for these
desires. Much advertising is designed to make people feel inadequate
and stimulate them to buy products to overcome this perceived
inadequacy, whether it is soft drinks, kitchen cleaning products or
holiday cruises. If most people want more than they already have,
they are more likely to work hard in order to make money to
spend.
However, if lots of people decided
that they are satisfied with a few basic, long-lasting possessions,
the economy would suffer. The voluntary simplicity movement aims at
cutting back on unnecessary consumption.[6]
- Instead of seeking a large
house or apartment, a lesser scale is preferred. - Instead of two or three cars
for a family, there is only one, or perhaps none with bicycles
instead. - Instead of buying lots of new
clothing, a smaller amount of clothing is kept, which may be
obtained second-hand. - Instead of purchasing large
collections of books and recordings, libraries are used
instead.
There is a great flexibility in
the ideal of simplicity. It might mean keeping only a very few
possessions, or just a reduction from the norm to something a bit
less.
The term "voluntary" is important.
This is not poverty that is forced on people because they have no
option. Rather, it is a choice to live simply, without the usual
array of appliances and services.
There are various motivations for
voluntary simplicity, including concern about the environmental
impacts of production, a personal preference for an uncluttered and
less hectic lifestyle, an escape from the treadmill of working to
earn money in order to consume, an expression of solidarity with
those who have less, and an unwillingness to support the
ever-expanding capitalist system.
For millennia, some individuals
have opted for voluntary simplicity, which is always relative to
current standards of consumption. It takes on special significance in
affluent societies and in affluent subcultures, since it challenges
the prevailing ethos of consuming as much as one can afford.
Voluntary simplicity gained some visibility in western countries in
the 1970s. It remains a preferred option for some individuals and in
some communities, but has not become a major movement.
1. Does the campaign help
to
* undermine the violent underpinnings of capitalism, or
* undermine the legitimacy of capitalism, or
* build a nonviolent alternative to capitalism?
Voluntary simplicity undermines
the legitimacy of capitalism as a system of ever-increasing
production and consumption. It is a threat, then, to the conventional
picture of capitalism. Of course, capitalism does not always work
well, and in periods of depression there is drastically reduced
output, which may cause widespread "involuntary
simplicity."
Voluntary simplicity contributes
to building nonviolent alternatives to capitalism, in as much as
these alternatives are based on satisfying needs rather than
pandering to unlimited wants. This applies especially to sarvodaya
(see chapter 5). Establishing a culture where people are modest and
realistic about their needs is a helpful step towards an economy
based on cooperation and helping those with greatest
needs.
2. Is the campaign
participatory?
Participants are those who opt for
voluntary simplicity. There might also be some who advocate voluntary
simplicity but, for the time being, do not participate as fully as
they might like.
3. Are the campaign's goals
built in to its methods?
Yes. Voluntary simplicity is an
ideal example of "living the alternative."
4. Is the campaign resistant to
cooption?
Voluntary simplicity can be
marketed as a consumer option, with special products designed for
those so inclined. However, this form of cooption has not been
prominent compared to tempting people to become conventional
consumers. Advertising becomes ever more sophisticated in targeting
insecurities and selling goods through the promise of fulfilling
fantasies. Consumerism is ever more convenient. Many goods are
produced so that, when they break down, it is cheaper and easier to
buy new ones rather than undertake repairs. As prices drop and
product convenience increases, voluntary simplicity may seem a
pointless form of self-deprivation. In addition to this, the
influence of peer pressure is very great. It can be extremely
difficult to be an isolated individual who practises voluntary
simplicity, living among others who do not question consumer culture.
For this reason, voluntary simplicity thrives in communities of
like-minded individuals. It can even become a matter of pride and
prestige to be seen to live a simple life.
Voluntary simplicity can be taken
up without much obstruction: state coercion is unlikely to be used to
force people to consume! It is part of a constructive programme that
mimics the desired alternative, namely a system which caters for
people's needs but not their greed. The greatest weakness of
voluntary simplicity as a strategy is its susceptibility to cooption.
The promoters of consumption have developed sophisticated means of
enticing people to join the consumer society. If a few people decide
to opt out for a simpler lifestyle, that is not a fundamental threat
to consumerism. Voluntary simplicity would be a greater threat if it
became a popular option and was linked to other strategies for
directly challenging and replacing capitalism.
Conclusion
Turning economic alternatives into
strategies is a powerful approach. The biggest challenge is to do
this on a significant scale. It is comparatively easy to take small
initiatives, but these are also easy to marginalise or
coopt.
For an individual to adopt
voluntary simplicity is a useful step. A much bigger challenge is to
turn voluntary simplicity into a social movement, with so many
converts that it is mutually reinforcing.
Setting up a small cooperative
enterprise may not be too hard though, to be sure, there can be great
difficulties. The larger challenge is to set up a network of
cooperatives so that they support each other, rather than having to
battle for survival alone in a hostile environment.
Promoting sarvodaya in individual
villages in India and Sri Lanka is one thing. It is a much greater
challenge to turn this into a global movement.
It is possible to become a
voluntaryist and to survive, as much as possible, through voluntary
economic exchange while refusing any dealings involving the
government. This is difficult enough. To make this an attractive
option for lots of people is much more difficult.
Thus, whatever nonviolent
alternative is envisaged, the biggest challenge is to develop it
beyond local initiatives.
Notes to
chapter 12
[1] A
useful review is Gary Moffat, "Building economic alternatives,"
Kick It Over, #29, Summer 1992, pp. 4-12.
[2] Richard Douthwaite, Short Circuit: Strengthening Local Economies
for Security in an Unstable World (Totnes, Devon: Green Books,
1996).
[3] Douthwaite, Short Circuit; Thomas H. Greco, Jr., New Money
for Healthy Communities (Tucson, AZ: Thomas H. Greco, Jr., PO Box
42663, Tucson AZ 85733, USA, 1994).
[4] Also important here are microfinance systems serving the poor, such
as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh: see Muhammad Yunus with Alan
Jolis, Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle against
World Poverty (New York: PublicAffairs, 1999).
[5] On
the non-neutrality of money see Nigel Dodd, The Sociology of
Money: Economics, Reason and Contemporary Society (London:
Polity, 1994). On the psychology of money, see Dorothy Rowe, The
Real Meaning of Money (London: HarperCollins, 1997).
[6] The Simple Living Collective, American Friends Service Committee, San
Francisco, Taking Charge: Achieving Personal and Political Change
through Simple Living (New York: Bantam, 1977).
13
13
Conclusion
Go to:
A nonviolence strategy against
capitalism needs to be built on nonviolent analysis, nonviolent goals
and nonviolent methods. The analysis of capitalism should be from a
nonviolence perspective, with special attention to the violent
foundations of the system. The ultimate goal is a nonviolent
alternative to capitalism, in which there is no organised violence.
The methods used to move towards the goal are the familiar techniques
of nonviolent action.
Many courageous and committed
people have undertaken nonviolent campaigns to challenge capitalism
or aspects of it. However, seldom has this been linked to any overall
strategy for nonviolent transformation of capitalism. Most nonviolent
analysis has focussed on cases of overt repression, aggression or
oppression, such as dictatorship, military attack and racial
discrimination. The exercise of power in capitalism is more
multilayered. Therefore an analysis of the dynamics of capitalism,
from a nonviolent perspective, is absolutely vital for developing a
nonviolence strategy.
The analysis in this book is one
example of how to proceed, but there are other possibilities. For a
nonviolent transformation of capitalism to occur, lots of people will
need to be involved, and they need to have a grasp of how the system
operates, how change can occur and what sorts of initiatives are
likely to be most fruitful. That means that a useful nonviolent
analysis has to be one whose fundamentals are readily understood. It
is unwise to depend on a few experts or gurus. Circumstances will
vary according to the local situation. Global capitalist dynamics
will change. Participants in nonviolent activism need to be able to
analyse, plan, evaluate and innovate. Nonviolent action is a
participatory approach to social change, and likewise the analysis to
accompany the action should be as participatory as
possible.
Nonviolence strategy should be
thought of as a tool, not a straitjacket. It is a way of thinking and
planning, but in all cases judgement is needed. Local situations
rarely fit the ideal model postulated in analyses. The perfect
campaign is seldom possible. Adaptations or compromises need to be
made. For these reasons, unthinking use of a formula for change is
potentially disastrous. Analysis and planning needs to be
participative, creative and adaptable. Understanding fundamentals is
important, but there is no automatic path to the "correct" action.
The analysis in this book is at a
fairly general level. As well as such general assessments, it's vital
to develop detailed strategies taking into account local history,
culture, experience, opposition, allies and a host of other factors
that are specific to the situation. That is something that can only
be done effectively by people with local knowledge and
experience.
Why nonviolence? For some people,
a moral commitment is the foundation for their adherence to
nonviolent principles. But it is also possible to support a path
based on nonviolence for pragmatic reasons. The strategies against
capitalism based on capturing state power, and using the state's
police and military power, have consistently failed. Nonviolence
strategy deserves a chance.
A nonviolence strategy against
capitalism has the great advantage that it is self-consistent: its
methods are compatible with its goal. If one believes in a
cooperative, egalitarian, nonviolent economic future, in which
priority is given to serving those in greatest need, then a
nonviolence strategy cannot be too damaging, because it incorporates
those features in its methods.
It is important to remember that
capitalism is not the only source of suffering in the world. There
are other major systems of domination, including state repression,
racism and patriarchy. Nonviolent action can be and has been used
against these systems, probably more effectively so far than against
capitalism. Nonviolence is thus a multipurpose approach to social
change. It does not set aside certain problems until "after the
revolution" -- a common approach among old-style socialists. For many
activists, other problems are more pressing or useful targets than
capitalism. Nonviolent anticapitalist struggle should not take
automatic precedence over other struggles, but instead should be one
struggle among many.
It is also important to keep the
focus on what the real problems are. Capitalism results in
exploitation, death, alienation and many other ills. It is these that
need to be opposed. Destroying and replacing capitalism is pointless
if there is the same level of suffering in the new system. The danger
is that the abstract entity "capitalism" is seen as the embodiment of
evil, rather than just as a system that causes unnecessary
suffering.
Can capitalism be reformed?
Certainly. It is far less damaging in some countries than others.
Should reform be the goal? That depends.
One of the greatest challenges for
activists is to live in a society, fully aware of its shortcomings,
while keeping alive the vision of a radical alternative, and
maintaining enthusiasm for actions that may only seem to move the
slightest distance towards that alternative. Reforms are more
achievable than revolutionary transformation and offer concrete
evidence that change is possible.
The term "capitalism" can give the
impression that capitalism is a yes or no proposition: either you
have it or you don't, so the only alternative to acceptance of
capitalist hegemony is total eradication through revolution. In this
way of thinking, reform is pointless. Actually, though, not all
capitalisms are equally bad. Reforms do make a difference to people's
lives.
Rather than saying that we live in
a capitalist society, it may be better to say that we live in a
society with many capitalist aspects.[1]
The goal then is to oppose and replace the damaging capitalist
aspects while promoting positive noncapitalist aspects. The challenge
is to make this a sustainable process.
One idea is to promote "nonreformist reforms," namely reforms that lay the basis for further
change.[2]
Nonviolence strategies are excellent candidates since they have the
advantage that ends are built into means, so reform is less likely to
undercut the potential for long-term change.
Campaigning and cultural
change
Chapters 7 through 12 discussed
campaigns, namely organised efforts to bring about change. Campaigns
are planned and are readily observed, making it easy to analyse them.
However, there is another approach to change, based on small, local,
individual actions.[3]
Manifestations of this sort of change include:
- not noticing or not commenting
on a friend or neighbour's purchase of fashionable clothes or the
latest appliance; - making information publicly
available, by leaflets, newsletters or the web, in violation of
intellectual property laws; - bending business rules in
order to help those in need rather than put profit
first; - spending extra time visiting
friends rather than earning more money; - refusing to buy goods from
especially exploitative companies; - not wearing clothing bearing
commercial slogans or symbols; - sharing
possessions; - doing things for others on a
voluntary or barter basis, rather than using money; - abstaining from unnecessary
purchases; - donating land, goods or labour
for communal benefit; - making critical comments about
capitalist ways of viewing the world.
These are examples of the many
possible "small ways" of acting that challenge or gently undermine
the capitalist framework. Do these provide a real threat to
capitalism as a system? They are not as easy to analyse as campaigns.
Some of the "actions" may be quite subtle, such as the tone of voice
used when friends discuss job options or when employees discuss
corporate policies. Yet such small actions may have, in combination,
significant effects.
The advantages of campaigns are
obvious: they directly confront social problems and build
alternatives. But because they are visible, they can be more readily
attacked or coopted. And because they involve collective action, they
are susceptible to internal conflict over status, positions and
control.
Small ways of acting avoid these
problems: they are too individual and fleeting to be the subject of
major counterattack. They can be done by anyone at virtually any
time, without requiring coordination or organisation. Their
shortcoming is that they often have little or no effect.
Campaigns and small individual
actions reinforce each other. Campaigns make issues visible, giving
encouragement for individual action. Small actions provide a
supportive climate for campaigning. In short, campaigning and
cultural change go hand in hand. It is easier to observe and analyse
campaigns. Perhaps it would be valuable to study and consciously use
some of the small ways of acting.
No one knows for sure how to go
about replacing capitalism with a better system. There are many
possible ways to proceed, and not enough assessment of what works and
what doesn't. It is almost certain to be a very long-term process.
Therefore it makes a lot of sense to learn as much as possible about
how best to go about it. There is a need for experimentation,
innovation and evaluation. There is a lot to be done. With
participatory approaches, there should be a lot of people to do
it.
Notes to
chapter 13
[1] J.
K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A
Feminist Critique of Political Economy (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,
1996).
[2]
André Gorz, Strategy for Labor: A Radical Proposal
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1967).
[3] Roland Bleiker, Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Add new comment