File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-06-08.010, message 173


Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:09:25 +0200
From: Jorn Andersen <ccc6639-AT-vip.cybercity.dk>
Subject: Permanent Arms Economy (was Re: Rosa Luxemburg)


Walter Daum wrote:

> Well, whether (or rather how) the permanent arms economy theory foresaw
> the return to crisis is a matter of interpretation at least. Cliff at
> one point argued that the competing powers would be forced to reduce their
> arms spending because it is a drain on accumulation and productivity. So
> arms would be less of a stabilizer and therefore crisis would return.

Walter is right. Cliff wrote in 1957 about the contradictions of
the permanent war economy:
  Thirdly, the Powers may compete so fiercely on the world market
  that each, in order to strengthen its position, would start to cut
  arms expenditure.

> In retrospect, arms spending did not decline, and its continuation
> contributed to the end of the postwar boom. So it could be argued that
> Cliff got it just about backward.

Maybe not quite. In the above quoted article Cliff (living in the West)
is most interested in how this could happen to Britain or the US.
(Which I will come back to.) The most obvious example, however, is the
role of arms economy in the downfall of the USSR.

First, one of the most important parts of Gorbachevs strategy for survival
was an attempt at reducing military costs: Withdrawing from Afghanistan,
a whole range of peace talks etc. etc. Of course such a reduction was a
very risky business which could not be done unilaterally.

Second, Reagans "Star War" project in the early 80's was started with the
stated purpose of forcing the USSR to either accept US-superiority or
follow suit - with the consequence of smashing USSR economy. The USSR was
not able to follow - but was not able to avoid deep economic crisis either.
The result is well known.

It would be wrong to limit this to only the USSR.
Clearly the "Star Wars" project would put an enormous drain on US economy
and was therefore abandoned. But actually the arms economy had become a
trap: The US could not afford the Star War - on the other hand cutting
down arms expenditure drew with it a lot of supplier industries. Either
way a deepening of the crisis was a certain result.

But also if we look at the period of economic boom as a whole it is
clear that the burden of the arms economy was carried uneven. This 
allowed West Germany and Japan to have much larger growth rates than
the US. Also it allowed a whole range of NIC's (Newly Industrializing
Countries) to rise. The effect of both of these factors were that the
US *economic* strength on a world scale declined during the period.
>From over 50% af world industrial production in 1945 to 31% in 1980
and it is still falling.

Arms economy is still an integral part of world capitalism today.
But where in the boom years it served to sustain the largest and
longest boom ever in the history of capitalism it now serves to
further deepen the crisis. And to make the world an even more
dangerous place to live in for the rest of us.

Jorn

-- 
Jorn Andersen

IS
Denmark



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005