The world marches precipitously towards two crises it appears it cannot avoid. The increasing concentration of wealth into the pockets of a small number of capitalists leaves a destitute and precarious existence for the working class. Disproportionate accumulation of wealth translates directly into disproportionate political power. The result is the current crisis in liberal democracy in the advanced capitalist states whose promises of a good life and equal political representation are increasingly vacuous and hollow. Following from the crisis of liberal democracies is the growing antagonisms between nuclear powers: the United States, China, and Russia. So long as the world remains ruled by the ceaseless drive to accumulate capital, none of those crises can be sufficiently resolved in the interests of the working class.
The Empty Promise of Capitalist Democracy
In any class society where ownership of the means of production are separated from those who work it, certain inevitable imbalances of power arise. Those who own the economy dominate its political systems. So in feudal society, the lords and church owned the land while the serfs worked it. It was the lords and church who held all political power in feudalism. Today, there may be no more feudal lords in the advanced capitalist states, but such structural inequities remain.
Capitalists own the means of production; workers do not and thus must sell their labor-power to a capitalist in order to make a living. There is an inherent antagonistic social relation between the capitalist and worker the origins of which can be located in a basic material fact. Every dollar paid to the worker is a dollar less of profit to the capitalist. Capitalists are incentivized to maximize their profits by paying their workers as little as possible and working them as hard as they can. To a capitalist, workers are a necessary but unfortunate cost of business who must routinely be subjugated to various methods of control and indoctrination.
In order to manage the inevitable antagonisms that result from subjecting the majority of the population to an inferior position in the class hierarchy, States are formed. States protect and serve the interests of the ruling class in any given society.
What is interesting is how controversial this nearly self-evident statement is for many academics, media pundits and journalists. The notion that the United States, far from being a bastion of democracy and freedom, is on the contrary a rather hollow democracy where the rich posses far more influence than the working class is routinely dismissed as mere anti-American propaganda. Without a hint of intended irony, often the revered wisdom and prescience of the Founding Fathers are trotted out as an example of the longevity and quality of American political institutions. How could a political system that has lasted so long and was gifted to us by such exalted figures not be the greatest, freest on Earth?
If one moves beyond mere worship of the secular cult of the Founding Fathers, reality tells a different story. The ruling class is typically far more conscious of its position of power than the classes over which it rules. This is just as true in 1787 as it is today.
In the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued that the new government “ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority” who were poor. The Senate was to be the political body which ensured the “permanency and stability” of the ruling class by making it difficult for the popular will to influence political decision-making. Echoing Aristotle, Madison understood that “if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure” as “an agrarian law would soon take place” which redistributed wealth and land to poor farmers. Therefore, “our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country,” meaning the interests of the class of wealthy businessmen, landowners, and slaveowners.
Little has changed in the 230 years since the Constitutional Convention. The United States is a plutonomy “where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few.” As for “the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many”, they account for “surprisingly small bites of the national pie.” Those are not the words of Karl Marx or other socialists, but rather those of the capitalist class itself. A 2005 Citigroup industry memo, which was supposed to only circulate among their wealthy clients, was leaked to the public. This document offers a rare look at how the capitalist class perceives itself, the role of government, and what it contemptuously calls the “multitudinous many.”
The Citigroup Plutonomy Memo rejoices that “capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes” among other factors “are likely to strengthen, entrenching and buttressing plutonomy.” The memo celebrates that “The behavior of the exceptionally rich drives the national numbers — the “appalling low” overall savings rate, the “over-extended consumer”, and the “unsustainable” current accounts that accompany this phenomenon.” However, the authors of the report “want to spend little time worrying about these (non)issues” as they do not “think they warrant any risk on premium equities.” Issues like appalling low household savings rates, “over-extended consumers” and “unsustainable” current accounts are merely non-issues. As they only negatively effect the “multitudinous many” and not the pockets of the rich, they are of no concern for the capitalist ruling class.
That the government exists to serve the interests of the wealthy capitalists is not just a notion shared by those capitalists themselves and their socialists critics. There is significant empirical evidence that supports this claim. In an exhaustive study, Princeton professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page found “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”
Of the 1,779 policy cases analyzed, the researchers discovered that a proposed policy change “with low support among economically-elite Americans… is adopted only about 18 percent of the time.” Even when 80 percent of the public was in favor of a policy change, that policy was implemented “only about 43 percent of the time.” The overwhelming evidence causes Gilens and Page to conclude “the responsiveness of the U.S. political system when the general public wants government action is severely limited.”
Gilens and Page’s research covers the period between 1981 and 2002 – ending 8 years before Citizens United. The landmark Supreme Court decision may have opened the “floodgates for corporate cash” but the disproportionate influence of capitalists was always there. This is because, contrary to liberal conceptions of the State, the State is not some neutral entity which has unfortunately been hijacked by rogue crony capitalists. Rather, in the words of Marx, “the executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs” of the entire capitalist class.
Marching Towards the Mushroom Cloud
Capitalists use the nation states which they control to advance their imperial interests on a global scale. Before World War II, the principal imperialist power was the United Kingdom. At its height, the British Empire “comprised nearly one-quarter of the world’s land surface and more than one-quarter of its total population.” In spite of its overwhelming power, the cost of the empire combined with the damage caused by two world wars and decolonization movements led to the end of the British Empire.
But the collapse of the British Empire did not signal the end of imperialism. On the contrary, the world entered into a much darker and deadlier stage of imperialism. All the traditional major imperialist states – United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan – were devastated during the war. With its civilian, economic, and military infrastructure largely unscathed, by 1945 the United States became the principal imperialist power par excellence. Its sole competitor was the Soviet Union, which had a far smaller economy and military apparatus.
What separated this period of imperialism from those prior are two related developments. First, the scale of imperialist violence reached literally apocalyptic proportions by the end of World War II. The development of nuclear weapons forever changed human history. Wars have always led to unspeakable violence, civilian deaths, horrifying violations of human rights and dignity, and sometimes the full and systematic destruction of entire peoples. However, now in the era of imperialism with nuclear powers, war carries the risk of terminating human history in a radioactive cloud and nuclear winter.
The second development concerns with the way imperialist powers subjugate other countries. In the era of British imperialism, the establishment of colonies and direct acquisition and control of nations was the preferred method of subjugating oppressed peoples in the interests of profit. While the United States is no stranger to invasion and slaughter, its primary method of advancing its imperialist interests differs.
The United States prefers to “promote democracy and freedom,” which is a euphemism for covert subversion, interference in democratic elections, assassination, economic strangulation, and invasion to establish a capitalist-friendly government ruled by comprador elites. While the Cold War was “cold” between the United States and Soviet Union, the war was quite “hot” between the United States and much of the Global South. In the name of “democracy promotion” and “containing the threat of communism,” the United States ruthlessly destroyed Korea, invaded South Vietnam, criminally bombarded civilians throughout Indochina, installed a dictator in Indonesia and supported the genocide of East Timor, overthrew governments throughout Central and South America the most infamous of which was installing the Chilean fascist dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, and more.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became the world’s sole superpower. Its imperial planners were conscious of this unprecedented historically advantageous circumstance. In a September 2000 report by the neoconservative think-tank Project for a New American Century, the authors accurately observe, “At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals.” The primary challenge of the 21st Century is thus to “preserve and enhance this ”American peace.””
In order to maintain and enhance “American peace”, the authors recommend “fight[ing] and decisively win[ning] multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”, increasing military spending, “maintain[ing] nuclear strategic superiority” in addition to repositioning US forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Endless war is American peace. Orwell would not be shocked at such imperialist doublethink.
American imperialist planners and strategists are perceptive enough to understand the unmatched imperial supremacy of the United States is only temporary. The United States’ economic power has declined relative to other countries’ economies every decade since its height at the end of World War II. As Europe rebuilt itself, China also rapidly industrialized. Even Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein recognizes the inevitability of China economically surpassing the United States.
The United States responded to its relative decline with hysteria. As NATO expands to Russian borders in violation of verbal agreements between then Secretary of State James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev, the Russian boogeyman is resurrected. Americans are supposed to ignore the fact that the United States spends roughly 10 times more on its military than Russia does. Instead, we are told once again behind every shadow lurks a Russian conspiracy.
While American politicians greatly exaggerate the Russian threat, they truly fear a growing China. To combat the rise of China, under President Obama the United States pursued a policy of economic containment and military redeployment. In a Foreign Policy article titled “America’s Pacific Century,” then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated President Obama’s “pivot to Asia” strategy. “Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests”, writes Clinton. She explains, “Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia.”
The United States did not wish to lose influence in the region to China’s rapid economic growth. President Obama found a willing partner in South Korea whose leaders “feared that East Asia’s expanding network of export production would continue to draw investment out of Korea, further weakening the country’s manufacturing base” (Martin Hart-Landsberg, Capitalist Globalization, 96). As Hart-Landsberg accurately writes, “an agreement with Korea would help counter China’s growing economic influence in Korea” (97). And thus the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement was signed.
The second major part of containing and attempting to control China’s economic growth was the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP was an ambitious plan to solidify Western corporate control and power among 12 member countries comprising 40% of the world’s GDP (Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand, Chile, United States, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada and Japan). This would have pressured China to adopt liberal economic reforms to join the TPP so its economic growth could be “harnessed” by the United States. This is in conformance with the United States’ long-term goal of incorporating “China and other emerging countries into a trade order that the United States dominates, according to the rules that it sets.”
Aware of the TPP’s objective, Chinese leaders did not submit willingly to its assigned subordinate position in the American global trade order. As Barry Naughton, Guy de Jonquières, and Graham Webster write in Foreign Policy, the TPP “also pressures China to come up with alternatives that will be attractive to its neighbors while also serving its own interests.” In response to US efforts to corner it, China seeks to expand the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and implement its One Belt, One Road economic expansion policy.
President Trump’s withdrawal from the TPP greatly angered imperial planners. Writing for the Brookings Institution, Joshua P. Meltzer condemned Trump’s opposition to TPP: “The US administration has failed to articulate a trade and investment agenda for Asia that can compare to the TPP or China’s ambition for BRI [Belt and Road Initiative].” The result “has significant economic and strategic consequences for the United States, none of which are good.”
Trump’s opposition to the TPP should be viewed neither as the enactment of an enlightened foreign policy nor as a significant change in US-China relations. Trump did not oppose the TPP because of its Investor-State Dispute Settlements, which “essentially allows corporations to sue governments in order to strike down laws that they feel threaten their profits or potential future profits.” He opposed the TPP in vague terms offering little more than he “didn’t like the deal” and preferred bilateral trade deals. Furthermore, Trump’s $200 billion tariffs on China threatens to escalate the trade war and further deteriorate relations with the regional power.
Since Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to China, the United States has followed a grand strategy of dividing Russia and China. Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, articulated a policy of “triangular diplomacy” in which the United States drove a wedge between China and the Soviet Union supporting the former against the latter. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, American imperial hubris contributed to undermining its own successful strategy. Military interventions in Iraq and especially Libya angered Russia. American interference in the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts further drove Russia away from any possible rapprochement with the United States. Lastly, the sanctions against Russia and tariffs against China “have played a role in driving Russia and China closer together,” as James Ellingworth writes in the Chicago Tribune.
The Necessity of Socialism
The consequences are dire not just for Americans, but for the entire world. The United States is determined to remain on the imperial throne dictating the rules of trade for the benefit of a small number of American capitalists. However, with its relative economic power declining, the United States loses its ability to dictate economic agreements with large competitor states like China. As its belligerent military and economic actions push two nuclear powers closer together, a dangerous geopolitical crisis brews.
The American working class can only avoid these dangerous developments by taking matters into its own hands. Workers need to build broad and powerful anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist organizations capable of confronting capital at the origin of its power: in our workplaces. The power that capitalists have over workers has led us to our present, dangerous circumstances. It is time for workers to emancipate themselves from the dictatorship of capital. In its place, only the fullest and freest democracy encompassing both political and economic life must be established.
Socialism is the answer to the domination and plunder of our country and others by the capitalist ruling class. Instead of a plutocratic political system whereby a handful of wealthy American oligarchs rule under the facade of representative democracy, we need a socialist system. With both economic and political power in the hands of the working class, workers can collectively and democratically decide to use society’s enormous wealth to provide a good existence for all its members. Until then, the dictatorship of capital will prefer to spend $1.2 trillion renovating the means by which human history could be terminated while cynically asking how we can provide free healthcare for all.
Why Socialism? 