- Introduction
-
- The relation between imperialism and democracy
has been debated and discussed over 2500 years, from fifth century Athens to Liberty Park in Manhattan.
Contemporary critics of imperialism (and capitalism) claim to find a fundamental
incompatibility, citing the growing police state measures accompanying
colonial wars, from Clinton's anti-terrorist laws, and Bush's "Patriot
Act" to Obama's ordering the extrajudicial assassination of overseas US citizens.
-
- In the past, however, many theorists of imperialism
of varying political persuasion, ranging from Max Weber to Vladimir Lenin,
argued that imperialism unified the country, reduced internal class polarization
and created privileged workers who actively supported and voted for imperial
parties. A historical, comparative survey of the conditions under
which imperialism and democratic institutions converge or diverge can
throw some light on the challenges and choices faced by the burgeoning
democratic movements erupting across the globe.
-
- The Nineteenth Century
-
- During the 19th century, European and US imperial
expansion covered the world. In tandem, democratic institutions took root,
the franchise was extended to the working class, competitive parties emerged,
social legislation was passed, and the working class increased its representation
in the legislative chambers.
-
- Was the simultaneous growth of democracy
and imperialism a spurious correlation reflecting divergent and
conflicting underlying forces, one favoring overseas conquest and another
promoting democratic politics? In fact, there was a great deal of overlap
between pro-imperialist and democratic politics and not simply among the
elites.
-
- Throughout the 19th and especially in
the 20th century, important sectors of the labor and social democratic
parties and numerous prominent leftists and revolutionary socialists, at
one time or another combined support for workers' demands and imperial
expansion. None other than Karl Marx, in his early journalistic writings
in the New York Herald Tribune critically supported the British
conquest of India as a "modernizing force" breaking down feudal
barriers, even as he supported (with criticism) the European revolutions
of 1848.
-
- The ruling classes, the driving force of
imperialism, were divided: Some saw the democratic reforms, "citizenship",
as a means of raising mass conscriptions for imperial wars; others feared
that the democratic reforms would enhance social demands and undercut the
accumulation of capital and rule by the elite. Both were right: Along
with greater popular participation came virulent modern nationalism, which
fueled empire building. At the same time mass access to democratic
rights led to heightened class organizations, which threatened or challenged
class rule. Within the ruling classes, democratic institutions were seen
as an arena to peacefully resolve conflicts between competing sectoral
elites. But once they took a mass character they were perceived as political
threats.
-
- Imperial and class-based parties competed
for voters among the newly enfranchised urban workers and rural poor.
In many cases, imperial and class allegiances "co-existed" within
the same individuals. The question of which of the two, imperialist or class consciousness
would become 'operative' or 'salient' was in part contingent on
the success or failures of the larger competing political projects.
-
- In other words, when imperial expansion succeeded
in easy conquests resulting in lucrative colonies (especially settler colonies)
democratic workers embraced the empire. This was the case because empire
enhanced trade, namely profitable exports and cheap imports, while protecting
local markets and manufacturers. These in turn expanded employment and
wages for substantial sectors of the working class. As a result, labor
and social democratic parties and trade unions did not oppose imperialism,
indeed many supported it.
-
- In contrast, when imperialist wars led to
prolonged bloody and costly conflicts, the working class shifted from initial
chauvinist enthusiasm to disenchantment and opposition. Democratic demands
to 'end the war' led to strikes challenging unequal sacrifice. Democratic
and anti-imperialist sentiments tended to fuse.
-
- The conflict between democracy and imperialism
became even more apparent in the case of an imperial defeat and military
occupation. Both the defeat of France in the German-French war of 1870-71
and the German defeat in the Frist World War led to massive democratic
socialist uprisings (the Paris Comune of 1871 and the German revolution
of 1918) attacking militarism, ruling class domination and the entire imperial
capitalist institutional framework.
-
-
-
-
-
- The Imperialism and Democracy Debate and 'History from
Below'
-
- Historians, especially practioners of the
fashionable "history from below", exaggerated the democratic
values and struggles of the working class and understated the prolonged
and deep felt support among important sectors for successful imperial expansion
and conquest. The notion of 'inherent' or 'instinctual' class solidarity
is belied by the active role of workers in imperial conquest as soldiers,
overseas settlers, merchant mariners and overseers. Imperial collaborators
and empire loyalists were numerous among English and French workers and,
especially later, within the USlabor movement.
-
- The theoretical point is that the pre-eminence
of democratic over imperial consciousness and action
among workers is contingent on the practical material outcomes
of imperial policies and democratic struggles.
-
- Workers and Imperialism
-
- Empire building makes demands on workers
to produce more for less in order to export and invest profitably in colonized
regions. This led to capital-labor conflict, especially in the initial
phase of imperial expansion. As imperial rulers consolidated their control
over the colonized countries they intensified exploitation of markets,
labor and resources. Imperial exports destroyed local competitors. Profits
rose, wages increased and workers turned from initial opposition toward
imperialism to demanding a share of the increasing income of the export
oriented manufacturers. Labor leaders and trade unionists approved of
the policies of 'imperial preference', which protected local industries
from competition and privileged monopoly control of colonial markets.
They did so because imperial policies protected jobs and raised living
standards.
-
- Workers who were active in social struggles,
blacklisted or jailed, voluntarily moved or were exiled to colonized countries.
Once settled overseas, they were given privileged access to better paying
jobs as overseers, skilled employees or promoted to managerial positions.
Imperial based militant workers, once overseas, became colonial collaborators.
Many encouraged former workmates, relatives and friends to join them as
successful settlers or contract workers. The 'domestication' of workers
and the reconciliation of democratic and imperialist sentiments was a cause
and consequent of successful imperialism.
-
- Empire Loyalism: Not by Bread Alone
-
- While material benefits accruing
to workers from "successful imperialism" are one factor enhancing
workers' imperial consciousness, this was reinforced by symbolic gratification,
the sense of being a member of the "leading country in the world"
where "the sun never sets on the empire", was equally important.
It is rare to find a country where the majority of workers express "solidarity"
with the exploited miners, plantation workers or displaced peasants and
indigenous small landholders in the 'colonies'. The stronger the
hold of the colonial power, the greater the 'colonial opportunities',
the longer the colonial ties, the deeper the economic penetration,
and the stronger the sense of imperial superiority among the imperial
states' workers.
-
- It is not surprising that the British workers,
the unions and Labor Party raised few objections to the savagery of the
imperial opium wars against China, the imperial induced genocidal
famines in Ireland in the 19th century and India in
the 20th century. Likewise, the French workers' parties Socialists
especially were in the forefront of the post WWII colonial wars against
Indo-China and Algeria only turning against them in the face
of imminent defeat and internal disintegration.
-
- In the same vein, US successful colonial wars
against Cuba and the Philippines, its invasions of Caribbean and Central
American countries were supported by the American Federation of Labor
and many 'ordinary workers', even as a minority of radicalized workers
opposed these wars. The 'partial turn' of labor against US colonial wars
occurred during the Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan was
a result of prolonged losses and high economic costs with no victory in
sight. It should be added that US workers, in opposing the imperial wars, expressed
no solidarity with the national liberation and workers movements of
the colonized countries.
-
- Imperialism and the "True Democrats"
-
- To argue, as some on the Left have, that
imperialism does not coexist with "true" democracy, is to argue
that the last 150 years have been devoid of free elections, party competition
and citizens rights, however abbreviated, especially over the past decade.
The reality is that imperial intervention and expansion has drawn precisely
from citizens' sense of "obligation" to uphold the democratic
institutions, which has enabled imperial leaders to elicitlegitimacy and active
citizen support or compliance in waging bloody, even genocidal, colonial
wars.
-
- If democracy has not usually been an obstacle
to imperial expansion indeed a facilitator under certain circumstances
under what conditions have workers and citizens movements turned
against imperial wars? What has been the political response of the ruling
class when the majority of electorate has turned against imperial wars?
In other words: When the democratic institutions no longer function as
vehicles for imperial policies, what gives?
-
- From Imperial Democracy to Imperial Police State
-
- The past ten years provide important lessons
on the relation between imperialism and democracy in the United States.
-
- Beginning with the controversial political
circumstances surrounding known terrorists' gaining access to the USand
subsequently hijacking the airplanes on 9/11/2001, the US government
launched two major colonial wars and numerous overt 'clandestine' ground
and air attacks in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya and
other countries. The "global war on terror", launched under
the Bush regime, and implemented by non-elected senior militarist
Zionist officials in co-operation with NATO and Israel was supported
by the democratically elected Congress. For that matter the vast majority
of the electorate, influenced by an immense propaganda campaign of fear,
media manipulation and lies endorsed the wars on terror.
-
- Given the unprecedented scope and
breadth of the wars, (a global war on terror), the vast increase
in military spending and the huge outlays for an all encompassing internal
repressive (security) apparatus (Homeland Security), a new executive-centered police
state was constructed which superseded the existing democratic
institution and rights of citizens.
-
- The trajectory of imperial politics moved
from early military successes to problematic prolonged occupation. This
led to escalating resistance, growing state expenditures , a deepening
fiscal crises , social decay and rising political opposition.
-
- As in the past, contemporary imperial wars
that are prolonged, costly and with no decisive victory in sight, have
led to citizen disenchantment, followed by increased open rejection. The
wage and salaried majorities who voted for imperial policymakers and backed
their enabling legislation, including laws (Patriot Act) which suspended
basic civil and constitutional rights, have turned away from the imperial
agenda. Today the democratic majority prioritize their class, economic
interests, especially in the face of a prolonged recession and unemployment
and underemployment of close to 20%. Beginning in 2008-2011 endless wars
and prolonged crises have set in motion a conflict between democracy and
imperialism.
-
- In other words, the democratic majority has
become an obstacle to the implementation and pursuit of imperial wars.
Imperial military activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
etc. did not lead to quick victories, the conquest of lucrative export
markets and take-over of natural resource. Jobs were not created and no
benefit accrued to employees and workers in the imperial country. High
expenditures for arms undercut public investments in labor intensive employment
in critically overdue infrastructures projects. The small number of dangerous
jobs in occupied countries was unattractive and too risky for the unemployed.
-
- In other words, unlike most previous imperial-colonial
wars, none of the plundered wealth was used to secure workers loyalty to
the empire. The burden of empire progressively undercut wage and salaried
workers' living standards. Over time, regressive taxation gradually eroded
any sense of chauvinist grandeur or superiority. Instead citizens of the
empire developed a political inferiority complex.
-
- Faced with determined Islamic opposition
and China's rising economic power, exaggerated bellicosity among a minority
and critical introspection among the majority took hold. Popular consciousness
of "something basically wrong" in Washington and Wall Street
took over. The earlier war chants and mindless flag-waving, as the armies
of Empire marched to Afghanistan and Iraq, were replaced
by angry defeatism directed at misleaders. Over 80% of the public
now articulates a negative view of Congress, rejecting both war parties.
Similar negative views are held toward the White House, the Pentagon and
Homeland Security.
-
- After a decade of war and four years of economic
crisis, mass protests erupted, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement
puts new options on the table, displacing the imperial agenda with a powerful
denunciation of the militarist-financial elite.
-
- The executive rulers, especially the judicial,
intelligence and police apparatuses increasingly implemented arbitrary police
state measures. Tens of millions are subject to surveillance by Homeland
Security. The police state intercepts billions of faxes, e-mails, web
sites and taps telephone calls. The link between imperialism and democracy
broke at the point where declining empire no longer could secure the
electorate's support or compliance.
-
- More and more bizarre terrorist plots were
fabricated by the intelligence agencies. The Iranian bomb plot against
the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington was the most primitive
and crude effort to regain public support for imperial militarism in the
Gulf region. Apart from the politically influential, but infinitely small,
pro-Israel Zionist power configuration, US public opinion is
not distracted from its domestic agenda; its quest for jobs at home and
opposition to Wall Street.
-
- As the conflict between imperialism and democracy
intensifies, the previous 'consensus" fractured. The White House
and Congress opt for imperialism backed by a profoundly anti-democratic
police state. The majority of the electorate presses forward, utilizing
their remaining democratic rights to change the political agenda from empire
toward a social republic.
-
- Conclusion
-
- We have argued that empire and democracy
have been complementary in times of ascendant imperialism. We have shown
that when wars of conquest have been short and inexpensive, and when the
results have been lucrative for capital and job-creating for labor the
democratic majorities joined in support of imperial elites. Democratic
institutions flourished when overseas empires provided markets, cheap resources
and raised living standards. Workers voted for imperial parties, held
positive opinions of executive and legislative officials, and applauded
the colonial war veterans (our troops). Some even volunteered and joined
the military. With vast citizen support for empire, the state more or
less 'abided' by the constitutional guarantees. But the marriage of democracy
and imperialism is not 'structural'. It iscontingent on a series
of variable conditions, which can cause a profound rupture between
the two, as we are witnessing today.
-
- Prolonged, losing, costly imperial wars that
increasingly erode living standards for over a generation have undermined
the consensus between imperial rulers and democratic citizens. Early signs
of this potential divergence were evident during the latter period of the
Korean War, when public opinion turned against President Truman, architect
of the Cold War and the US invasion of Korea. More evidence
emerged during the Vietnam War. Faced with a prolonged, losing war, which
imperiled the lives and opportunities of tens of millions of draft age
Americans, millions in civilian life and the military opted to end
the war and question imperial interventions. The repressive state was
still not organized sufficiently to terrorize and contain the democratic
upsurge of the 1970's. The end of the Vietnam war represented the high
point in democratic America's quest to counter imperialism and
rebuild the republic.
-
- Subsequent small, quick, low cost and militarily
successful imperial interventions in Panama, Grenada, Haiti and
elsewhere did not provoke any conflict between imperialism and democracy.
Nor did imperial clandestine and surrogate wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Angola, Mozambique, Afghanistan and the Balkans elicit any significant
democratic opposition since they were low cost (in lives and funding) and
were not accompanied by any sharp cuts in social expenditures and incomes.
-
- The onset of the current Afghanistan, Iraq,
and global offensive wars were seen by some imperial strategists in the
same light: Quick, low cost victories with few domestic costs. One highly
placed pro-Israel official in the Pentagon even argued that the invasion
and occupation of Iraq would be "self-financing" via
an oil grab.
-
- The 21st century wars turned out otherwise:
They followed the Korean-Vietnam pattern, not the Central American/Caribbean
pattern. Immensely costly, the 21st century wars have not led
to quick victories and, worse still, occurred in the midst of an unprecedented
economic crisis, without the manufacturing and market boom of the 1950's/1960's
which had cushioned the retreat from Korea and Vietnam.
-
- The divergence between imperialism and democracy
has become acute. Democratic dissent has increased andthe police
state has become more prominent and direct. Imperialism increasingly relies
on "fabricated domestic and external terror plots" to augment
the powers of the repressive machinery and rule by fiat. White House exhortations
ring hollow. The public puts less and less credence in their rulers' claims
of 'justifiable' arbitrary detentions, massive surveillance and extrajudicial
assassinations of US citizens (and even their children).
-
- We now face long-term, large-scale dangers, inherent in
imperial democracies. Not because of "internal contradictions"
but because sooner or later imperial powers meet their match in the form
of protracted struggles by anti-imperialist and national liberation movements.
Only, when imperials wars take their toll on the wage and salaried
majority, does the rupture between democracy and imperialism take place.
Then and only then are democratic forces set in motion to create a democratic
republic, with social justice and without empire.
-
- The present danger is that imperial structures
are deeply embedded in all the key political institutions and are backed
by an unprecedented vast and sprawling police state apparatus, called Homeland
Security. Perhaps it will take a major external political-military shock
to ignite the kind of mass democratic uprising needed to transform an imperial
police state into a democratic republic.
-
- A growing sense of isolation and impotence
affects the ruling regime in the face of overseas military defeats and
unyielding, deepening domestic economic crisis. The danger is that these
fears and frustrations could induce the White House to attempt to regain
popular support by attacking Iran under a manufactured pretext.
A US/Israeli assault on Iran will result in a world-wide
conflagration. Iran could and would retaliate. Saudi and
Gulf oil wells would go up in flames. Vital shipping lanes would be blocked.
Gas prices would skyrocket while Asian, EU and US economies
crash. Iranian troops with their Iraqi allies would lay siege to the USgarrisons
in Baghdad. Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest
of the Moslem world will take up arms. US forces would surrender or retreat.
The war would shatter the US Treasury. Deficits would spiral out of control.
Unemployment would double. This likely sequence of events would trigger
a massive democratic movement and a decisive struggle between an emerging
republic struggling to give birth and a decaying empire threatening to
drag the world into the inferno of its own demise.
|