Autonomous Action

Let’s Stop the Congress: Against the World Bank and IMF

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

 By imperialism we refer to a situation in which the ruling class of one country dominates the people and territory of another country.  In other words, there is a situation of external domination by an outside power.  This relationship assumes different forms in different contexts.  

As Anarchists we are opposed to imperialism because of the suffering and oppression that it brings.  We do not accept the argument that imperialism is a progressive force, whether this argument proceeds from the idea that imperialism “advances the productive forces”,  “intervenes to keep the peace”, “civilises” etc.  Imperialism is responsible for genocide, national oppression, attacks on working class conditions, war, underdevelopment, starvation, and poverty.   Imperialism is not, however, the only cause of these problems, and is itself the product of capitalism and the State (see below). 

The key imperialist powers are the dominant First World states and their ruling classes: Western Europe, the United States of America, Japan etc.  These are commonly called the First World, or the West, or the “core” or the metropolitan countries.  In addition to these countries, the main Eastern bloc countries such as Russia and China have also acted as imperialist powers. 

The other side of the coin are the countries and regions dominated by imperialism: Africa, East Europe, South Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Latin America.  These countries are often called the Third World, the South or the “periphery”, the “satellite” countries or “colonial and semi-colonial regions”. 

At the same time, the Third World is not a homogenous zone.  Some countries are more regionally powerful and economically dominant than others.  These countries often (but not always) act as the local enforcers and allies of the imperialist powers and are backed up by these powers.  This range of countries is sometimes referred as the industrialised Third World, the Newly Industrialising countries (NICs), or the “semi-periphery”.  Examples of semi-peripheral countries that act as the local partners of imperialism are South Africa and Israel.  Semi-peripheral countries which do not act overtly as the junior partners of imperialism include Poland, Brazil and South Korea.  

Although Apartheid/racial capitalism in South Africa shared many of the features of an imperialist relationship (particularly of the settler-colonial type) insofar as a settler-derived oligarchy (ruling class-dominated alliance of different White classes) historically exercised political and economic domination in the country (Apartheid/racial capitalism), Apartheid / racial capitalism was not strictly speaking an imperialist relationship.  This is because this system of domination was internally based.  It was not governed from outside in the manner typical of a settler-colony such as Zambia or Kenya.  Instead, the settler -dominated ruling class took local State power in 1910, took ownership over most of the economy in the subsequent decades and made the key political and economic decisions.  This fact is not changed by the point that the local ruling class (and its African allies the chiefs and homeland bourgeoisie) were backed by the imperialist powers.  Thus, there was not an external enemy to be expelled, but a localised situation of oppression to be confronted.   This is not to say that South Africa was independent of the broader world imperialist system, as it acted as a semi-periphery / junior partner of imperialism dominating the southern part of Africa.1

This repudiation of the theory and practice of imperialism is logically implied by anarchism’s rejection of coercive political structures and economically exploitative modes of production in favour of a freely constituted international federation of self-administrating communes and workers’ associations based on free libertarian stateless socialism.2

On the theoretical and practical level, theorist-activists such as Bakunin, Reclus and Berkman all condemned and fought against imperialism.  In the colonial world, anarchists played an important role in anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, notably those in Cuba, Ireland, Korea, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua and the Ukraine.  For example, the national hero of Nicaragua, Augustino Sandino, who led a revolt against the American occupation in the 1920s and 1930s was an Anarcho-Syndicalist; in Mexico, the Anarchists of the PLM, the IWW and the CGT consistently challenged American imperialism and anti-Mexican discrimination in Mexico, both before, during and after the Mexican Revolution; James Connolly, the famous martyr of the 1916 Easter rebellion in Ireland against British imperialism was an anarchist revolutionary union organiser in the United States and Ireland; in Korea the Anarchists were a key force in the struggle against the Japanese occupation that  begun in 1910 and even managed to establish a massive self-governed liberated zone in Manchuria in the 1930s; in the Ukraine, the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Nestor Makhno expelled the occupying Central Powers in 1918-9.  

In the imperialist countries, anarchists were also at the forefront of the fight against imperialism.  For example, in Japan, the prominent Anarchist Kotoku Shusi was framed and executed in 1910 after his Commoner’s Newspaper campaigned against Japanese expansionism; in 1909, the Spanish Anarchists organised a mass strike against intervention in Morocco (the “Tragic Week”); in Italy, the Anarchists consistently opposed Italian expansionism into Eritrea and Ethiopia in the 1880s and 1890s and organised a massive anti-war movement against the Italian invasion of Libya in 1911, and intervention in Albania in 1919.3

 CAUSES OF IMPERIALISM

 Imperialism existed before capitalism and the modern State.

However, imperialism has been a central feature of capitalism and the modern State since their emergence 500 years ago in Europe and their subsequent global expansion.  Indeed, this period has been characterised by imperialism on a scale unprecedented in world history.  Of these powers, Britain and France were pre-eminent, holding between them Canada, Australia, New Zealand, colonies in North and South America and the Caribbean, most of Africa, the Middle East, the Far East as well as the Indian subcontinent in its entirety.   Japan also embarked on colonial expansion in South East Asia, intervening in Korea, China and other countries.  Since the relative decline of the European and Japanese imperialist powers in the post- World War Two period, the United States has risen to pre-eminence as the dominant imperialist power.4

Imperialism in the modern period has been driven by two factors5

Firstly, there is an economic dimension to imperialism: the system arises in part to benefit the imperialist ruling classes (or at least important factions within those classes) by, for example, providing extra-high levels of profit from cheap labour and cheap raw materials, and blocking the access of rival ruling classes to these resources. 

The second factor is the International State system.  In the same way that capitalist companies compete in the market, so too do States compete: for territory, for strategic advantage (e.g. sites for military bases), and for expansion.  This provides a pressure for national conflicts, war, foreign conquest and attempts at forcible assimilation of conquered peoples as the smaller States are swallowed up and the “greater” ones strive to increase their power and reach.

 IMPERIALISM IN THE PRE-1945 PERIOD6

 Imperialism has assumed different forms during the history of capitalism and the State.

Merchant Capitalism and Slave Labour.  This early stage of capitalism dates from the early 1500s to the late 1700s, and was characterised by the accumulation of capital through trade, plunder and the exploitation of European workers and peasants.  This was the period when capitalism began to forcefully expand itself into Africa, the Americas, and Asia.  Slave plantations were set up in the Americas and elsewhere, and supplied by an enormous slave trade.  The roots of modern racism may be found in this period: slavery generated racism - racism did not generate slavery.  A key feature of this period was the forcible articulation of non-capitalist modes of production as subordinate components of an emerging world capitalist system.  The riches acquired through plunder and trade, in conjunction with the exploitation of European artisans and peasants, laid the basis for the industrial revolution.   This period was associated with genocide in the Americas. 

Colonial Conquest: From the 1500s until the 1900s, capitalism and its State were involved in the conquest and colonisation of Africa, the Americas and Asia.  This period was associated with genocide in South Africa, Australia and elsewhere.

A major aim of the imperialists in this period was creating a source of cheap (often forced) labour, cheap agricultural and mineral raw materials (for First World firms) and also markets for First World manufactured goods.  This had a strategic dimension insofar as part of the point of colonial occupation was to deny rival imperialist ruling classes access to the markets and resources of one’s own colonies.   The pattern of trade established in this period was one in which Third World/colonial countries exported raw materials (mineral and agricultural) and imported finished products (machinery, tools etc.). 

This is a negative situation.  Firstly, Third World exports were typically based on the displacement of local economic activities such as growing food crops in favour of export -oriented activities such as growing cash crops.  One result of this was growing food security on the part of Third World peasants, who were now growing crops for export rather than focussing on food to satisfy their needs.  Secondly, a large number of Third World countries were producing fairly similar products for sale to a few huge monopoly corporations, who in turn manufactured the finished goods that were exported back to the First World.  This unequal situation allowed the large monopolies to drive down the prices of raw materials whilst driving up the costs of the finished goods that the Third World economies needed to survive.7

Africa was formally divided amongst the main European powers at the Conference of Berlin in 1884, and by the start of the 1900s partitioned and occupied (with the exception of Ethiopia, whose feudal ruling class was able to fight off the invasions).    In many cases, the indigenous ruling classes and elites collaborated in the colonial enterprise as they felt that it would be to their advantage to do so.  Again, not only were vast territories plundered, but local societies and economies were drastically and forcefully restructured into the world capitalist system by the imperialists.  Again, colonialism provided racist ideas with fertile ground.8

In general, two main types of colonies were established in Africa: the so-called “peasant” colonies, in which a tiny foreign ruling force, in conjunction with local chiefs, governed the colony (e.g. Ghana); and colonies of white settlement in which a sizeable White settler population dominated political and economic life (e.g. Algeria, Zimbabwe).  The ruling class in the settler colonies did not comprise all the Whites as many Whites were middle and working class and as the ruling class included those local people who held important positions in the State apparatus or economy (e.g. chiefs).  Nonetheless, the ruling classes were White-dominated with its leading members of European descent.  The White ruling classes deliberately sought to draw in allies from other White groups such as the middle class and working class by providing material benefits such as job reservation, exclusive trading areas etc.  We can refer to this alliance of all White classes and a section of the local elite as an oligarchy or power bloc.

 IMPERIALISM IN THE POST-1945 PERIOD

 Imperialism entered a new phase after the Second World War.  It is important to note that although this period saw the end of the formal colonial empires, key features of political and economic features of imperialism continued to exist despite the attainment of formal independence.  These include continuities in colonially-established economic relationships of “unequal exchange”, the continued global political dominance of the First World countries, and military interventions in the Third World on the part of imperialist powers.  This is why this period may be referred to as the “neo-colonial phase” of imperialism. 

 The key features of the neo-colonial period are:

(1) the end of the formal colonial empires and their replacement by relations of neo- colonialism,

(2) the rise to prominence of the USA as the central imperialist power,

(3) the development of a “semi-periphery” of more developed Third World countries allied to imperialism

(4) the emergence of the multinational corporations (MNCs)

(5) the creation of international organisations to enforce the system, notably the IMF and World Bank.  and

(6) the emergence of a second set of imperialist powers in the East bloc. 

*End of the formal colonial empires9

The formal empires were dismantled for a number of reasons.  Firstly, there was the economic exhaustion of the West European and Japanese powers.  Secondly, there was the pressure from the USA, which wanted access to the markets, material and labour of the old empires.  Thirdly, there were massive anti-colonial struggles in the period from the 1940s to the 1970s.  For example, uprisings and even insurrections took place in against Holland in Indonesia, against France in Indo-China and Algeria, and against Britain in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus and India.  These struggles paralleled an earlier wave of risings against colonial rule in the late 1700s and early 1800s that destroyed the formal colonial empires of Spain, Portugal, France and Britain in most of the Americas and the Caribbean.  

Generally speaking, the imperial ruling classes took care to manage the process of decolonisation in order to reach a settlement that helped secure the preservation of their own interests.  This typically meant: a long period of negotiation in which the masses became politically demobilised, negotiations with moderate nationalists, and the marginalisation, elimination or co-optation of hostile elements. 

Although overall this strategy succeeded, and power was transferred in substantial measure to local ruling classes who would defend capitalism, the State and imperialism, there have been exceptions.  In cases such as Mozambique and Nicaragua and Iran in 1979 radical nationalist movements won independence, often on the basis of armed insurrection In these cases resources and industries were typically nationalised and some social reforms (e.g. health) instituted.  These struggles created not socialist societies but state capitalist regimes of various forms; however, by seizing imperialist property and by demonstrating a development path independent of the West (although often dependent on the East, and certainly not independent of world imperialism as a whole) they posed a threat to imperialism which was ruthless in its response.  Imperialism used blockades, sanctions, cutting foreign aid etc. and, in the last instance, force such as campaigns of destabilisation or even direct military invasion (e.g. the wars against Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq).10  The use of direct armed intervention by the USA, backed by Japan and Western Europe, seems set to increase with the collapse of the limited deterrent provided by the Soviet Union , an alternative imperialist power.11  See below for more discussion on the nature of Third World ruling classes.  

 *Rise of USA Dominance12

The USA took the opportunity provided by the crisis of the old imperialist powers to become the dominant imperialist country.  First it sought -through the Marshall Plan, which gave or lent to Western Europe and Japan $17 billion between 1947 - 1955, and through other aid programmes, to make the competing imperialist nations dependent on US capital.  Secondly it formed military blocs which it controlled such as NATO (1949) and SEATO (1954) to guard against the “spread of communism”, that is, to defend its spheres of influence from the Soviet and other East bloc capitalists.  Thirdly, it set up a New World monetary order based on the supremacy of the dollar.  The USA’s plans to create the  “American Century” began to unravel from the 1970s with the end of the post war economic boom, the re-emergence of Western Europe and Japan as major capitalist centres, and the rise of radical liberation movements both in the USA and the “Third World”.  Nonetheless, the USA remains the dominant imperialist power. 

 *Emergence of the Semi-Periphery13

As a whole, African and other Third World countries continued to rely on the export of agricultural and mineral products, and the import of manufactured goods.  In other words, the colonially-derived patterns of trade typically continue in the post-colonial period.  However, we must note the existence of what has been called the “semi- periphery”.  Although still at least partly subject to imperialist domination, some Third World countries have developed a sizeable locally owned industrial base which allows them to be less dependant on the production of agricultural and mineral goods (however, they were still dependent on exporting local products to import the capital goods and machinery that powered the new factories).  Often this development has been at least partly promoted by the imperial powers.  In some cases these countries, act as local enforcers for imperialist rule e.g. South Africa and Israel.  In other cases, they do not act as junior partners of imperialism, although their ties to the imperialist powers may be quite close e.g. South Korea, whose development was deliberately promoted by the USA in order to provide a buffer against the “spread of communism” (i.e. of Soviet and Chinese imperial influence) in South East Asia.  The semi-peripheral countries may also have investments outside their own borders, and even their own MNCs (e.g. South Africa’s Anglo American Corporation has operations in Zambia, Bermuda, Peru, Ghana and the USA).14

 *Rise of the Multinational Corporation (MNC)

One of the key features of neo-colonialism is the rise of the multinational corporation (MNCs).  The MNCs can be defined as gigantic corporations (owned either by the state or private capitalists) who have operations in more than one country.  These planet-spanning corporations are typically (but not necessarily) based in the imperialist countries.  

Many of today’s MNCs grew out of the small family-owned and controlled businesses of nineteenth-century Europe and the USA, which first expanded their operations in their countries of origin before expanding abroad.15  An important reason for expansion abroad was that within the First World countries the various nation-wide firms, together controlling the greater part of the economy, tended to collaborate with their competitors to keep prices up, wages at standard levels and the like.  However, rich pickings were to be made by the corporation that could outwit its competitors by controlling markets, the supply of raw materials or developing new products that made the old obsolete.  Result: some firms invested abroad in order to secure control over their raw material requirements, to control marketing outlets, and to forestall other corporations gaining control of raw material and markets.  This was the origin of the MNCs.  MNC s first moved into the Third World in the late nineteenth- and early twentieth- century, focussing in this stage on primary industry (raw material extraction and production).  In the 25 years after World War 2 (1939-45), there was an “unprecedented expansion” of MNC activity, initially led by US firms, but since the 1960s overtaken by European and Japanese firms.  This has often involved activity in the manufacturing sector as a general pattern.  MNCs tend to invest where the political and cultural influence of their home countries has been the greatest.16

The size of the MNCs is striking.  For example, a large and growing proportion of world production is controlled by a few hundred MNCs and by the year 2000 about 400 MNCs will own two thirds of the fixed assets of the entire globe.17  In terms of size, the largest MNCs have sales that exceed the Gross Domestic Product (total output) of most Third World countries (for example, in 1984, Exxon had sales of $73,6 billion, which exceeded the total output of Nigeria ($73,5 bn), Algeria ($50,7 bn), Libya ($30,6), Egypt  ($30,1), Morocco ($13,3) etc.).18  500 MNCs control 80% of all direct foreign investment.  MNCs also play a predominant role in trade.  For example, MNCs account for 90% of all trade in which the USA is involved and also dominate the marketing of Third World exports.19  MNCs also play a central role in developing and controlling new technology.  There are also MNC banks that have historically loaned money to the Third World.  With the onset of a world capitalist crisis in the 1970s, however, these banks have demanded faster repayment and charged higher interest rates. 

Assorted bourgeois ideologists and economists like to argue that the activities of the MNCs are beneficial to the Third World because they promote development and social peace; MNCs are examples of harmonious co-operation between the First and the Third World.  This view is pure fiction.20

Firstly, when serious conflicts with Third World governments (not to mention popular forces) take place (e.g. attempts to nationalise foreign firms in order to put them under the control of the local bosses and rulers), the MNCs can rely on their home governments’ ability to exert “pressure” to change the policy of Third World governments.  We have seen above what such “pressure” can entail.  In other words, the MNCs invoke the continuing power of the imperialist ruling classes to secure their interests. 

Secondly, MNCs are central players in the system whereby the Third World exports raw materials and provides a market for First World goods.  As we noted earlier, this arrangement allows the systematic under-pricing of Third World exports and the systematic overpricing of Third World imports. 

Thirdly, where MNCs are involved in the manufacturing or industrial sector, not only do these investments have few links to other parts of the economy (and so do not have positive spin-offs e.g. jobs) but they centre on the super- exploitation of a low paid, coercively controlled and rightless workforce.  This allows the MNCs to reap higher than average (or “super”) profits not to mention undercutting the wage and welfare gains won by First World workers.  MNCs are notorious for their labour policies in the Third World. 

Fourth, MNCs also block or retard Third World development by extracting surplus (i.e. production above that needed to satisfy basic needs- and thus suitable for use in building productive resources, infrastructure, services etc.) from the Third World.  This is done by means of sending profits made back to the First World (for example, it is estimated that US MNCs sent 79% of their declared net profits out of Latin America between 1960- 1968), by manipulating prices charged in trade within the firm (“transfer pricing”) and by manipulating charges for patents, product and technology licenses, brand names, and management, marketing and technical services (Elson 1988).  A similar process happens through the repayment of loans to MNC banks and to the IMF and World Bank: in the 1980s, it was shown that there was a net capital loss from Africa to the First World banks, the supposed benefits of bank loans notwithstanding (see below for more on the IMF and World Bank). 

Finally, MNCs undermine local industries by “taste transfer”, that is, by promoting the replacement of locally produced goods (often labour-intensive, artisan produced) with more expensive imported ones utilising far less labour but requiring far more investment and foreign currency.  

 *Role of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank21

Institutions like IMF and World Bank are central to enforcing modern imperialism.  Founded in 1946 at Bretton Woods in the USA, the IMF and World Bank initially focused on rebuilding Western Europe and Japan after World War 2.  They were a key component of the USA’s attempts to create a dollar-centred international monetary system.  Then, from around 1971, the focus of IMF and World Bank shifted to the Third World, and especially to Africa.  Despite IMF and World Bank’s rosy views of themselves as neutral, purely technical aid agencies their role in these regions has been objectively imperialistic.  This is clear in both political and economic spheres.

 Pro-imperialist structure of the IMF and World Bank

Although most States in the world are members of the IMF and World Bank, and pay into the central coffers of these institutions, their decision-making processes are dominated by the imperialist countries of the First World.   Rather than a “one country, one vote” system, as can be found in United Nations organisations, a percentage of votes is granted according to the economic size and contribution of a given country, a system which favours the First World states: the USA has 19.9% of the total vote; the United Kingdom 6.9%; and the USA, Western Europe, and Canada combined have 53% of the vote.22

Pro-imperialist political role.23  The IMF and World Bank have always operated in the political interests of imperialism .  Aid and funds have historically been readily given to Third World regimes favourable and friendly to the USA and other imperialist States - like South Africa (before the sanctions campaign got underway- e.g. massive loans after the crushing of the 1976 uprising), the death squad ARENA regime in El Salvador, and Daniel Arap Moi’s regime in Kenya.  This takes place no matter how much the despicable and vicious crimes committed by these regimes are in stark contrast to the professed liberal, democratic and human rights concerns of the imperialists.  But more radical Third World states who fail to toe the imperialist line, or introduce social reforms that are seen as destabilising are refused loan facilities.  For example, the elected social democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile was refused assistance in its reform attempts.  (The USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the American MNC, ITT, subsequently assisted the military coup which overthrew Allende in 1973).  In this way the IMF and World Bank help ensure the perpetuation of capitalism, the State and imperialism.

Pro-imperialist economic role.24  The IMF and World Bank act to perpetuate the colonially-derived world division of labour which relegates most Third World countries to producers of raw ,materials and importers of finished goods.   They also act to further the interests of MNCs by promoting free market policies that facilitate the operations of the big companies by attacking worker rights, freeing capital movements and removing tariff barriers.  Since their founding, the IMF and World Bank have been committed to the construction and regulation of an international capitalist system of free trade and capital movements.   This aim is reinforced by the General Agreements on Trades and Tariffs (GATT) (now called the World Trade Organisation (WTO)) which was established at the same time as the IMF and World Bank with essentially the same aims.25

One key way of attaining these objectives is to  insisting that Third World ruling classes adopt the appropriate free-market policies as a precondition for financial assistance.  Another method is to try to influence government policy thinking as a whole by promoting free market ideology.  Consequently, the increasingly stringent conditionalities placed on loans made available by these institutions to African states as the economic crisis deepened emphasised policy reforms such as currency devaluation, trade liberalisation and reduction of the economic role of the State (in practice, this means cutbacks in public sector jobs, slashing welfare services, and removing wage and price controls).  Conditionality also involves the seconding of IMF and World Bank staff to government ministries to monitor the implementation of these policies, a marked parallel to colonial administration.  This package of policy prescriptions is called Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP).  These policy prescriptions are informed by the free market theory that the crisis of Third World States such as those in Africa economic crisis was rooted primarily in internal factors such as inappropriate State interventions in the economy and “bloated” civil service, all of which could be resolved by a growth path premised on neo-liberal prescriptions and emphasising reliance on Africa’s “comparative advantage” in the export of raw materials. 

To these economic conditionalities were added political conditionalities encompassing improved “governance” (more accountable, honest, legitimate, open and consensus-based government), which IMF and World Bank technocrats came to see as vital to the effective implementation of the economic reform programme.  This is not the same as even parliamentary democracy- the issue for the IMF and the World Bank is not the establishment of democratic States but of governments with an increased capacity and efficiency in implementing ESAPs.26  Overall, then, ESAPs function to facilitate the operations of MNCs and the continuation of the imperialist world division of labour.  

ESAP’s are an attack on the Third World working class, working peasantry, and the poor.  Its effects on popular living standards are highly negative.  For example, in Zimbabwe, ESAPs led to price control relaxation resulted in dramatic rises in the inflation rate (running between 25% and 40%), a fall in consumer demand of up to 30%, a drop in average wages to the lowest levels since the early 1970s (due in part to wage restraint and high inflation), and at least 55,000 jobs losses up to 1995 (particularly in the civil service where 22,000 employees have been retrenched.27  These job losses have an especially severe impact in a country in which fewer than 20% of school-leavers each year are able to find employment in the formal economy:  and more than 50% unemployment in the formal sector.  ESAPs also involved severe cuts in spending on social services with health spending falling by 39% in 1994-5, expenditure on low-cost housing dropping by Z$4,3 million, and spending in the primary education sector at its lowest levels since independence.  In addition, the imposition of cost recovery principles requires that all but the poorest of the poor (those earning under Z$400 a month) have to pay school and clinic fees (at the same time, however, President Mugabe awarded himself, his top officials, and members of parliament salary increases ranging from 116% to 134%!).  It might also be noted that, in general, the export-orientation of an ESAP increases food insecurity as increasing amounts of land are given over to cash crop production. 

The IMF and World Bank also promote ecologically destructive policies, by encouraging countries to cut down and export resources such as rain forests (as part of the drive to export raw materials), or to import toxic waste (in order to raise foreign currency).  Laurence Summers, chief economist of the World Bank wrote in a confidential memo in December 1991:

“Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]?...  I think the logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that...  I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted...  The problem with the argument against all these proposals for more pollution in the LDCs (intrinsic rights, moral reasons, social concerns)...  is that they could be turned around and used against every bank proposal for liberalisation”.28

 Why are ESAPs adopted?

Given these negative effects of  IMF/World Bank policies, how is that that many (perhaps most) Third World countries have adopted them?  Several factors need to be taken into account.

Economic Crisis: In the African context, at least, a key factor is the economic crisis that began in the 1980s.  Africa is the poorest region of the world and the only one consistently getting poorer.  It would be fair to say that living conditions have declined over the last 30 years.  This situation reflects both “external” and “internal” factors.  By external factors we mean the effects of imperialism; these have mostly been examined above and include things like worsening terms of trade for Third World exports, the loss of capital to MNCs and higher interest rates on foreign loans.29  Internally, the main cause of the crisis has been the local ruling class.  The local ruling class is firstly, allied with imperialism and is thus directly culpable for the continuing negative effects of imperialism (see below).  Secondly, the ruling classes in Africa are strongly dependent on a State connection and / or position for the accumulation of wealth: through passing contracts onto friends and family, corruption (primitive accumulation directly from the State coffers), nationalising private property in order to put it in the hands of government rulers.30  This has negative effects, both economically (declining infrastructure, endemic corruption and inefficiency, the implementation of ineffective state-led industrialisation and economic development schemes) and politically (the centrality of the State to accumulation means that competition for State power is especially intense and typically culminates in the establishment of military rule or a one-party State as one faction of the  ruling class strives to monopolise access to the sources of power and wealth). 

Class Inequality.31  The crisis predisposes African governments to use the various loan facilities of the IMF and World Bank, which provide not only cash but also a “stamp of approval” that indicates to MNCs that a country is a safe investment . The point is that it is not the masses who turn to the IMF and World Bank, but the local rulers and bosses.  Faced with a crisis situation Third World elites find ESAPs a comparatively attractive option.  ESAPs allow the local ruling classes to install “adjustment” policies that (i) transfer the costs of the crisis onto the working people (e.g. cut backs on welfare spending, falling wages) and (ii) provide opportunities for retaining power as well as increasing profit through new links to MNCs, opportunities to buy up privatised State companies, lower corporate taxes etc.  Indeed, in countries like Zimbabwe the economic crisis was not severe enough to force the ruling class to adopt an ESAP: in fact, the ruling class willingly chose an ESAP because key factions within that class believed that the free-market policies of ESAP would promote economic growth (and therefore profit).32  This clearly shows that an ESAP is not simply the result of some sort of imperialist conspiracy imposed on innocent local elites, but rather a policy which accommodates the class interests of the local rulers and the imperialist bourgeoisie.  Nonetheless, it is certainly an additional advantage of ESAP that it allows the local bosses and rulers to claim that the policies that hurt workers are solely imposed by the IMF and World Bank demands.  The blatant biases in ESAP against working people are reinforced by the nature of negotiations over ESAP conditionality: these are conducted in total secret between local rulers and IMF and World Bank executives; ordinary people are denied any say at all.  

 *Rise of Eastern Bloc imperialism

The collapse of the old formal colonial empires, and the rise of the United States the main imperialist power was paralleled by the increasingly expansionist role of the so-called “socialist” countries of the Soviet Union and China.  Both of these states occupied neighbouring territories on the grounds of “historical affinity” (China in Tibet) or “spreading socialism” (the Soviet Union in East Europe and the Middle East).  As Anarchists, the very clear parallels between the imperialism of these countries and that of the United States and the West is not surprising, we have long recognised that these countries were not socialist but State-capitalist and thus subject to all the general laws and tendencies of capitalist / State development.

 *The United Nations33

The United Nations is not a neutral international peacekeeper, it is part and parcel of the imperialist system.  Overall, it is nothing more than a loose federation of different States, a convention of exploiters and rulers.  And from the start it has been dominated by the key imperialist powers who sit on the Security Council: the USA, the Soviet Union, France, Britain and China, all of which had the right to veto UN operations; the effect was to legitimise any spheres of influence enjoyed by these countries.  As a result, UN intervention depended on, and was shaped by the interests of these countries.  No action was ever taken against the Soviet invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia, or against the US war against Nicaragua.  Interventions either took place where they were essentially irrelevant to imperialist interests (e.g. Rwanda) or compatible with them (e.g. the Gulf War had UN support).   In addition, the UN solution for ending wars (when it actually does intervene) is to use the “official” channels: talking to governments and local warlords.  For example, UN aid to Rwanda in 1994 was often channelled through the former government officials who controlled the refugee camps in Zaire and who were themselves implicated in the genocide; it strengthened these individuals who were part of the problem.  Generally speaking, the UN seeks to reach “settlements” that are compatible with the interests of the imperial and local bourgeoisies, not the popular masses.  The UN was and is incapable of ending war because it is the creature of those who cause war: the ruling classes of the world.  

DO FIRST WORLD WORKERS BENEFIT FROM IMPERIALISM?

 We reject the idea that First World workers benefit from imperialism

According to this type of argument, these workers receive a share of the colonial booty and this improves their standards of living to levels that would not otherwise be possible.  This argument, which originated in large part with Lenin’s 1916 book, Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, is a recipe for disunity in struggle.  It is moreover inaccurate and unfounded.

This argument misrepresents living conditions in the First World.  For example, in the United Kingdom (UK) (Britain and Northern Ireland), which was historically one of the “greatest” imperial powers, at the start of the 1980s, the top 10% of the population received 23.9% of total income while the bottom 10% received only 2.5%.  The top 10% of the population also owned four fifths of all personal wealth, and 98% of all privately held company shares and stocks.  The top 1% itself owned 80% of all stocks and shares.  Meanwhile the bottom 80% of the population owned just 10% of the personal wealth, mostly in the form of owning the house they live in.  These economic inequalities correspond to material deprivation and hardship.  A study published in 1979 found that about 32% of the population of the UK (15-17.5 million out of a population of 55.5 million) were living in or near poverty.  A 1990 United Nations survey of child health in the UK showed that 25% of children were malnourished to the extent that their growth was stunted.34

This argument is theoretically and empirically flawed.  It provides no explanation of how the alleged transfer of wealth takes place.  It merely asserts that it happens.  Nor does it provide any proof of the alleged process.  

For example, it has been claimed that there were different wage rates for west African and Scottish miners in the 1930s and that, subsequently, the alleged disparities between the incomes of the two groups reflected a process whereby the Scots were somehow allegedly subsidised by the exploitation of the Ghanaians35.  However, it simply does not follow that from a demonstration that there were nominal differences in wage rates between two groups of miners that the one benefited from the exploitation of the other.  

Such wage figures are misleading as they are almost never adjusted to take into account the real value of the different currencies relative to one another, differences in the cost of living, the effects of inflation and so on.  As such, merely listing off figures does not actually establish that there were substantial differences in living standards between Third and First World workers.  In other words, it is risky to take different figures and, without contextualising them, use them as a basis for an argument.

Moreover, even if substantial wage gaps for workers in the same occupation in different countries were clearly shown to exist, it does not follow that they necessarily reflect a transfer of value from one set of workers to the other.  A mere demonstration of disparities does not automatically establish what mechanism accounts for these disparities.  At one level, there is no evidence of a correlation between imperialism and living standards in the First World.  For example, the nineteenth century is commonly recognised as one of the most extreme periods of mass impoverishment in British history, the period of child labour in the coal mines and so on, yet it is precisely during this period that British imperial power in Asia and Africa and the Caribbean was at its height.  Similarly, the welfare State, which provided some social insurance and benefits for First World workers and which marked one of the most substantial periods of working class material advance in the First World, took place after World War Two.  That is to say, the welfare State was established precisely the period in which the European colonial empires in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean collapsed.  Similarly, Western military interventions in the Third World have increased greatly since the late 1980s with the end of the Cold War, yet this same period has seen the greatest attack in working class conditions, and the greatest decline in real living standards in the First World, since the 1920s and 1930s.  

To take another example, Spain and Portugal are amongst the poorest countries in Europe, yet it is precisely these countries which had the longest standing colonial empires, dating from the 1400s to the 1970s.  At another level, a number of alternative explanations for the patterns of change in working class conditions in the First World have been well established.  These include: mass struggle which reached a revolutionary level (the key factor in the establishment of the welfare State); an economic boom (the greatest capitalist boom in history took place from the 1950s to the 1970s, resulting in increased crumbs available for social services without disturbing the underling patterns of income inequality); increased mechanisation in production (greatly increasing workers ‘productivity thus allowing bosses to pay slightly higher wages while extracting greater levels of surplus from workers than ever before; this actually means that the rate of exploitation in the First World has increased, not declined).  

It would be more accurate to claim that the interests of First World working people are actually harmed by imperialism. 

Firstly, the coercive forces and repressive techniques developed in the colonies and imperial dominions can and are utilised against working class resistance “at home”.  This coercive force is built up through taxes on the working people, consuming resources that would be far better used elsewhere e.g. on welfare.36  The clearest example of this was in the Spanish Revolution where the fascists used the Spanish colonial army from North Africa to launch their attack  in July 1936 and to slaughter Spanish the workers and peasants.

Secondly, the national chauvinistic and racist ideas promoted by the ruling class in order to generate support for imperialism act to divide the international working class and divert it from realising its true interests.37  These sorts of national hostilities are also promoted by Third World elites and nationalists who  also oppose the idea of international class struggle unity.  In this way, British workers are divided from French workers, and both are divided from Asian and African workers.  This allows the bosses and rulers to divide and rule the workers and peasants, whose interests across the whole world are in fact identical.   The more unity the bosses and rulers can try to build with local workers against a supposed foreign enemy, the lower the level of class struggle, and, therefore, the lower the wages and the worse the working conditions of the proletariat.  The real ally for the workers of one country are the workers of another country, not the local elites; the real enemy in a war is at home, in the form of the local ruling class.

The negative effects of imperialism are especially evident in the era of neo-colonialism.  In this period, the MNCs are able to shift their investments around the world in search of the cheapest and most controlled labour; the threat of packing up and going where workers are more pliant is used to attack workers living standards across the world.  In other words, the existence of repressive Third World regimes who smash unions, shoot peasant organisers etc. (thereby pushing down labour costs) is in direct contradiction to the interests of First World workers as these regimes directly help cause job losses, plant closures, wage cuts etc. in the First World itself as MNCs transfer their investments elsewhere.  

Given that there is no evidence or theoretical support for the notion that First World workers benefit from imperialism, it is clear that the recipients of increased rates of surplus value due to low wages in some Third World contexts are capitalists, and not workers.  In other words, the super-profits are going to the bosses not the workers.  This strengthens the ruling class as a whole relative to the working class and working peasants. 

 WHY NATIONALIST POLITICS CANNOT DELIVER FREEDOM FROM IMPERIALISM38

 Nationalism is a specific political strategy for decolonisation that is based on the idea that all classes within a given nation or people must unite to achieve decolonisation and self-determination through some sort of people’s government.  Nationalism has historically been a powerful current in anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles across the world.  For example, in South Africa the African National Congress (ANC), the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) and the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) all subscribe to one or other variant of nationalist politics. 

We reject the idea and the assumption that nationalism is the “natural” form of anti-colonial struggle.  This idea is commonly put out in books and political commentaries which either claim that nationalism was the only way that colonised people responded to an imperialist relationship, or which use the word “nationalism” to mean the same thing as “anti-colonial struggle”39.  While clearly any serious politics has to address the issue of national oppression, it does not follow that the experience of national oppression automatically results in the dominance of nationalist politics.  In South Africa, colonialism met with large-scale political responses amongst the oppressed ranging from liberalism, to religious millenarianism, “tribalism”, and socialism.  In other contexts, anti-colonial struggles have been led by political forces ranging from Anarchism (Ukraine 1918-21) to religious fundamentalism (Iran 1978-9) to Stalinism (China 1948).  The dominance of nationalist politics in a given struggle needs to be explained and challenged, not assumed away as inevitable. 

As Anarchists we believe that nationalist politics are fatally flawed and are unable to deliver freedom from domination to the majority of people in the colonial and imperialist- dominated world.  For nationalists, freedom is achieved when an independent local government is established (as, for example, when the British colony of Gold Coast became independent Ghana in the 1950s).  While we defend the right of people to choose to have a independent State, and while we support the establishment of systems of free elections to governments as an immediate demand, we disagree with nationalism as it cannot provide freedom for the majority of people living under a situation of imperial domination.  

 Nationalist politics cannot deliver freedom from external domination.

Basic imperialist relationships continue to exist despite the establishment of an independent State.  The ex-colonial countries are integrated into the world capitalist system as small economies exporting raw materials, and as sites of cheap industrial labour.  Given that this world system is dominated by Western multi- national corporations who act as monopoly (sole) buyers of these commodities and who control access to modern technologies, given that, moreover, the metropolitan countries dominate the multi-lateral financial institutions (the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank) on whom many peripheral countries depend for development and fiscal loans, and given that, finally, countries such as the United States and France in particular have shown a continuing willingness to engage in military interventions in the Third World, it is clear that most  of the patterns metropolitan imperial domination continue to exist even after the attainment of formal independence.  Above we called these relationships “neo-colonialism”. 

This does not mean that there is no difference between direct colonial rule and neo-colonialism.  In the latter case, there is no direct rule from London from Paris; the local State can form alliances with a variety of different imperialist powers, thus increasing its scope for manoeuvre as well as its ability to exact more concessions and favourable terms from the imperialist ruling classes, particularly if it is strategically important (witness the manner in which Third World countries played off the Soviet and Western powers in the Cold War to accrue maximum advantages); and the international laws and public opinions on the right of  countries to govern themselves constrain the ability of imperialist powers to decree policy in the Third World.  In other words, neo-colonialism is a slightly weaker form of imperial control than direct colonial rule, although it is still a powerful form of imperialism.

 Nationalist politics cannot deliver freedom from internal domination. 

In addition to being subject to continuing external domination, the majority of the population of the post-colonial State also experience internal domination.  The State is a hierarchical structure of coercion that concentrates power in the hands of a small ruling class.  It defends the class system and the forms of oppression (e.g. sexism) that the class system generates.  Rule by the State makes it impossible for the mass of the people to actively participate in the decisions that affect their conditions of life.

In other words, decolonisation on the nationalist model delivers power to a new local ruling class.  It does not provide self-determination for the working class and peasant majority.  Even if nationalists take up socialist sounding slogans in order to win working class support, the interests of workers are not central to these movements, they are incidental.  The effect of nationalist politics is to hide the very real class differences that exist even amongst colonised populations, and in this way nationalism smoothes the way for a local elite claiming to speak for a homogenous “nation” to take power for itself.  In fact, it is the function of nationalist politics to deny the importance of class differences within the nation in order to facilitate the construction of a class alliance between local workers and peasants and local bosses and rulers.  Nationalism is a politics of the frustrated local elite who seek to build a mass base for their own class programme by arguing that class alliances and State power are the way to resolve the genuine anti-colonial grievances of the popular masses.

 WHY THIRD WORLD RULING CLASSES ARE PART OF THE IMPERIALIST SYSTEM

 The argument that there are no ruling classes in Third World countries because real power supposedly lies outside the borders is wrong. 

This argument sometimes pops up in the African context in the form of the claim that the holders of State power who currently govern the country are really only a “petty bourgeoisie” (a middle class).  As Anarchists we do not accept the idea that the only criterion for determining class status is ownership or non-ownership of productive resources.  Any group with State power is by definition part of the ruling class.  Moreover, the Third World elites do control substantial parts of the local economy, particularly by means of State ownership and control of key industries such as mines and railways.  As we discuss below, nationalisation does not equal socialism, all that it means is that a State capitalist rather than a private capitalist controls the means of production.  The claim that there is no “real” indigenous ruling class is also inaccurate as it ignores the massive disparities in wealth and power that exist within the Third World.  On the one hand, there is a small elite controlling the resources of the State such as the military.  On the other, a disproportionate amount of income accrues to a tiny section of the population.  In Chile in 1996, the wealthiest 10% received 41% of available income while the poorest 40% received only 13%; 28% of the population was below the official poverty line.  In Zambia in 1974 the top 5% received 35% of the national income; by 1983 the top 5% got 50% of the national income.  In Zimbabwe in 1991, the richest 3% got 30% of total incomes while 50% of the population got less than 15% of total annual incomes.  While the United Nations 1996 Human Development Report showed that 338 billionaires had more assets than the combined incomes of countries home to 45% of the worlds population, it also showed that about half of these billionaires were based in Third World countries.  Clearly, the argument that there is no Third World ruling class is a gross distortion of the facts40.

Nor do we see Third World ruling classes as nothing more than the tools of the imperialist ruling classes.  These classes have their own interests and agendas which do, however, tend to coincide with the interests of imperialism (see below). 

The local ruling class who vault into power in nationalist-dominated anti-colonial struggles may, obviously, mouth anti-imperialist rhetoric.  Indeed, it is likely to, given that it is the new elite’s claim to have defeated colonialism which legitimises its place in power.  Nationalism, “national unity” etc. may become the official ideology of the state.  Nonetheless, in objective terms, the new rulers are the allies of the imperialist ruling classes of the First World.

The local ruling class is dependent for its economic and political survival on the maintenance on close ties with imperialism.  They defend the colonially derived economic relationships which they inherit at independence: they need to export copper etc. in the medium term in order to keep their economies functioning, and thus, their State funded and their lifestyles luxurious.  They accumulate wealth by relying on the multinational corporations, who it joins in business ventures, sells land and mineral rights, taxes and so forth enters into joint business ventures, charges taxes (they also, as noted above, accumulate wealth more “dishonestly” by plundering the State coffers, passing business contracts onto their friends and family, and by nationalising property).  They are funded by IMF/World Bank loans and other forms of aid. 

This requires, in turn, that they continue to dominate and exploit the workers and the peasants who do the actual work in the agricultural, mining and manufacturing industries.  In other words, they maintain the old imperialist economic relationships, as well as the foundations of those relationships, which are the exploitation of the working people.  Moreover, when the masses rise up, the new local bosses and rulers are happy to call on the aid of their friends in the imperialist States to help crush the resistance, because both the local and imperialist ruling classes are opposed to worker and peasant resistance.  This is particularly evident in the ex-French colonies in Africa41.

It is therefore incorrect to characterise Third World ruling classes as anti-imperialist, or to call for their defence against imperialist aggression.  Firstly, these ruling classes are an essential part of the imperialist capitalist system as they provide the economic and political preconditions for continued imperialist domination throughout the ruling class.  It is these ruling classes who bludgeon workers, throw peasants off the land and shoot students.  Secondly, these ruling classes are unable to act in a consistently anti-imperialist manner as they are constrained by the continuing patterns of neo-colonialism, and as they are the direct beneficiaries of, and are dependent on, continuing imperialism to maintain their positions of wealth and power.  Given a choice between worker revolution and continued imperialist domination, they will always choose the latter as it is in their direct class interests.  For their part, the imperialist ruling classes will not undermine a local ruling class, even if it is something of a renegade (see below), if this raises the spectre of mass revolution.  On the contrary, the imperialist ruling class will put aside whatever conflicts it has with a local ruling class if continuing on a confrontational path threatens the bigger picture of continued State/capitalist rule.  Thus, the US-led forces withdrew from their assault on Iraq in 1991 when deserting soldiers joined with peasants and workers in the North and South of the country to establish workers councils (“shoras”) and raise radical demands.  This withdrawal provided Saddam Hussein with the opportunity to slaughter the local rebels42.

This is not to deny that conflicts will not arise between Third World and imperialist First World ruling classes.  Conflicts often arise.  The Third World ruling class may raise radical rhetoric which the imperialist ruling classes fear is too disruptive, or they may even nationalise foreign property in an attempt to bolster their own power-wealth position.  The local ruling class will probably resent being trapped in a role as suppliers of raw materials and may undertake efforts to industrialise the country.  In such situations, good examples of which are Cuba from 1959 onwards, and Nicaragua and Iran in the 1980s, the imperialist powers may intervene through means like sanctions, military action and other forms of pressure to bring the “renegade” local bosses and rulers back into line.  This is a clear example of the power of neo-colonialism in the world.  Nonetheless, all such conflicts are “secondary” in the sense that they are about the appropriate way to manage capitalism and the State, rather than about whether these structures should be preserved.  Both sides agree on “primary” matters such as the need to maintain class structures and the systems of exploitation and domination entailed by capitalism and the State.  All of the supposedly “radical” Third World regimes (China, Vietnam, Mozambique, Ghana etc.) were based on the repression and suffering of the mass of the people, that is to say, the workers, the poor and the working peasants.  At most power was transferred from local landlord and business elites to State elites.  Nationalisation does not equal socialism, it only means that a State bureaucrat rather than a corporate bu