A-Infos (en) Britain, Organise! #65 - congress document - the international situation

Permanent war as the paradigm of state and capitalist domination
Today the logic of domination and profit has the support of all the 
powers behind it, united only in their will to starve, humiliate 
and massacre the dispossessed classes. In addition, ideological 
mechanisms, the very same neoliberalism prevailing every where, 
are relatively secondary to the staging of a vicious fight to control 
and dominate, where the aims are immediate survival and the destruction 
of the enemy at any costs, even if that implies the destruction, in the 
short term, of the very possibility of life on the planet. 

In recent years we have seen the reaffirmation of the paradigm of `permanent war'. 
Emerging after the spectacular attacks on 
the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, it was 
perfected in the following period, defining a 
scheme that makes war a permanent feature 
of the political scene. The pretext for this 
war on terror has become the pivot of a 
warmongering politics aimed at asserting 
the `right' of the strongest, even if in 
contraction of the feeble international law, 
bringing into disrepute any residual media 
use of the UN.

The permanent, preemptive, global war is 
but the latest way in which the domination 
of the strongest is secured, asserting the 
goals of those using, exploiting and 
oppressing the biggest part of the planet's 
population. These objectives are defined 
according to positions in a very obvious 
game, even if they are ignored on the 
propaganda side. The main one is the 
control of the energy resources (not only 
oil, but also water and the necessary 
minerals for satellite control technology, 
either civil or military) and of the infra- 
structure of supply and communication. 
The war machinery used in the most 
strategic areas by North American interests 
guarantees that the USA maintains a 
primary role, on a purely economical level, 
in their competition with Europe, Japan, 
Russia, China and India, who do not have 
the military means or the autonomy 
required, to counter the hegemonic preten- 
sions of Washington. A plausible conse- 
quence of this could be the reshaping of the 
ambitions of the historical allies of the 
USA, leading to rethinking of the relationship 
with the hawkish American administration.

European countries, in the past few years, 
have played the role, always more difficult 
and ambiguous, of allies-competitors of the 
United States and of their warmongering 
policies. Having neither an offensive 
military force, nor the capacity for effective 
political coordination, the European Union 
countries gravitate between the intention of 
making their own military pole and, the 
alliance, on a competitive ground, with the 
belligerent policy of the USA. 
Italy has left behind the non-interventionist 
role typical of the Christian-Democrat 
period and that of supporter of Anglo- 
American imperialism, which was implied 
in its mediation between it and the Arab 
world. Today it has an active imperialistic 
role in the European and world chessboard, 
with interests of its own to pursue, facili- 
tated by its Mediterranean location: from 
the Albanian protectorate to the reconstruc- 
tion intervention on the war-devastated 
areas (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan...) 
through the lucrative participation in the 
manufacture and trade of weapons. The 
reshaping of the Atlantic alliances by the 
centre-right government is, in fact, comple- 
mentary to the regional imperialistic role of 
the Italian government, which in this way 
can try to be allowed a `free hand' on its 
protectorates, in exchange for the active 
support of the United States' warmongering 
policies.

From humanitarian war to permanent war
The end of the Cold War represents a very 
important change, not only because of the 
change from a bipolar world to a monopolar 
one, but also, and mainly, because of the 
need to reformualte the idea of the enemy. 
In fact, the fall of the `Empire of Evil' 
makes it impossible to continue thinking of 
the enemy as someone who threatens your 
existence, displaying a military power 
capable of destroying the planet and 
humanity. Of the two main features of the 
idea of the `enemy', that it be evil and have 
the ability and the will to be a direct threat, 
it is the second one that seems to be less 
relevant now, as no important danger 
directly threatens the only superpower. It 
was therefore impossible for the United 
States and its allies to think of war as of 
some extreme measure in the face of a 
deadly threat. From this point of view a 
new war paradigm starts forming, a new 
conception of the role and purpose of war 
machinery, which otherwise risked having 
its purpose quite redefined, as a result of a 
loss of legitimacy.

In this way, the logic of `humanitarian' 
action is outlined. Instead of conflicting 
with the old rule of `non-interference in the 
internal affairs' of a country, curiously 
enough, it reinforces it. `Humanitarian' 
action turns out to be the useful excuse, 
always ready to be formulated in a more 
precise way in international law terms. The 
humanitarian principle invoked to justify 
the war in Kosovo contrasts with the `non- 
inference in the internal affairs' rule when i 
came to the massacre taking place in 
Chechnya or the war on the Kurds, not to 
mention the always bitter conflict between 
Palestine and Israel. The paradigm of 
humanitarian war points to the issue of the 
`just' war, that which is fought to impose a 
truth, an order and a world vision. It is 
however, a `dirty' war because its victims 
are the civilian refugees and inevitably 
leads to more deaths, tortures, rapes, more 
homeless people without hope, unwilling 
pawns in a game decided somewhere else, 
in the name of someone else's `truth'. This 
propaganda tool has been only marginally 
useful for the emotional mobilization 
needed to produce consensus in western 
populations, particularly Americans, 
because the `humanitarian' is clearly unabl 
to achieve the stated aims of the conflict. 
The experience of `humanitarian' war has 
shown abundantly that it is a perverse 
mechanism, which increases the evils that i 
meant to cure, staging a drama in which 
blood and destruction are the obscene 
scenery which hide the backstage from the 
viewer, the empty space behind the curtains.

September the eleventh provided the 
occasion, whether directly orchestrated or 
ignobly used, to make the qualitative jump 
needed for the development of the United 
States imperialist will: its assertion of 
unchallenged military superiority on the 
board game of the international relations. 
The idea of the enemy is again reshaped: it 
is evil, in fact very evil, and in a position to 
directly and defiantly strike against in the 
Unites States territory and that of its allies. 
It cannot be identified with any state 
institution, but is able to infiltrate, direct, 
adapt itself and make alliances with all 
those states which are not ready to accept 
the global leadership of the United States. 
An enemy like this opens the path to 
permanent war, against the `rogue' states 
and against all those who, from the interior 
threaten the world order. This enemy adopt 
the form of the Islamic extremist. Islamic 
extremism makes it possible to define an 
enemy, on the basis of the classic opposi- 
tion between friend and foe in western 
culture. It is an empty category, which only 
exists in opposition, because it lacks a sens 
and an identity of its own. In fact, it 
revolves around conservative Christianity, 
whether Catholic or Protestant, the most 
nihilistic liberalism and all the traditional 
forms of nationalism, racism, populism and 
democratic culture. 

In this war, which in its most recent version 
can also be `preemptive', the enemy does 
not need to prove its evil nature by any 
deeds, but it must be fought because it IS 
evil. The reasoning around which the attack 
on Iraq was organised is a good example of 
this. The presupposition of the possession 
of weapons of mass destruction is reason 
enough to declare a war. The evident 
dissymmetry between the attacker (who 
they `know' possesses weapons of mass 
destruction) and the attacked, falls in the 
realm of `just war' as it is carried out 
because the enemy is evil and, therefore, 
potentially dangerous. It is evil and there- 
fore a natural ally to the terrorism which 
attacks women, children and defenseless 
men. Never mind that this same definition 
could be applied to the policies of the 
United States and its allies. Is it not, in any 
instance, the aim in war to terrorise the 
population of the enemy State in such a way 
that resistance is crushed? The immoral 
nature of war leads to the immoral nature of 
state and to the impossibility of making a 
fair world order by just reforming the 
structure.

External war and internal war
The paradigm of permanent war makes 
victims not only amongst the populations of 
the `rogue' states of the time, but also 
amongst oppositionists of the existent order. 
Pacifists, antimilitarists, workers on strike, 
and antiracists are equated to terrorists in a 
propaganda operation that is reminiscent of 
the accusations of collaborationism made 
during the last century to anyone not 
accepting the logic of war, militarism or the 
State. In the United States, the passing of 
the Patriot Act, which opened the possibil- 
ity of extrajudicial detentions of mere 
suspects, as well as the later and substantial 
militarisation of American social life, are 
the unmistakable signs of the fact that the 
politics of never-ending war have finally 
infiltrated the very core of the biggest 
power. Security policies in recent years 
have seen a worldwide increase, demon- 
strated in the repressive measures on the 
`internal front', aimed to forcibly discipline 
workers, indigenous peoples and immi- 
grants, and to crush any opposition.

Internal war
The very terms of the internal war changed 
immediately after the collapse of Soviet 
`communism'. The fall of the `alternative' 
to private capitalism allowed the Statist 
system to present capitalism as the only 
future. In the same way, the threat of a 
popular coup has been redefined. Capital- 
ism, firmly supported by the State, has 
launched a staged attack against the modest 
workers' victories, characteristics of the 
social-democrat legacy. Thatcherism and 
Reaganism fully speeded up this attack, 
which, after the fall of the Soviet régime, 
has been a constant feature of the political 
and social scene. The neoliberal offensive 
has been applied to many fronts. The 
casualisation of working relationships has 
ended the stable employment conditions, 
which had enabled workers to develop 
collective, self-organised methods of 
struggle. Under the pretext of moderniza- 
tion and reduction of costs, many areas, 
traditionally left of capitalist logic, are now 
opportunities for exploitation. Privatisations 
of services, from healthcare to education, 
transport to communications, are examples 
of this process.

The answer to this war front opened by 
capitalism against humanity has been an 
increase in social confrontation on a global 
level with the working class fighting back 
with strikes and other forms of resistance. 
The anarchist movement has always been 
present in these struggles, its role strengthened 
by its original initiatives and its 
capacity to shed light on the global nature 
of the ongoing processes. Our resistance 
must be as global as capitalism is. 
Both the external and internal war have the 
same fronts and have been fought with the 
same determination and ferocity. The 
militarisation of social life has instigated 
legislation that goes beyond the limits of 
democratic normality, without facing much 
opposition from internal conflict. These are 
made possible thanks to the gigantic 
anesthetic operation emerging out of the 
terrorist `emergency'. Fear is a powerful 
factor that permits the criminalisation of 
any social resistance, however minimal. 
The recent security bills passed in France 
and Great Britain are examples of this, as 
they equate terrorism with any social 
struggles that are happening at this time in 
those countries.

Globalisation of struggles
So-called economic globalisation is but 
another stage in capitalist development, as 
it seeks to expand and spread the tentacles 
of exploitation more efficiently on a 
planetary level. For us, globalisation must 
mean globalisation of the class struggle. 
Inside the antiglobalisation movement, as is 
shown by the media, there are Christians, 
Marxists, Social- Democrats and other 
reformist groups which have too often 
collaborated with capitalism to make 
globalisation stronger. These are often the 
same groups which work for the development 
of capitalism in the Third World, 
interfering in communities and pushing 
them to destroy their own identity and self- 
sufficient economies. The consequent 
migrations from the poorer 
societies turn out to be only a 
cheap workforce in the First 
World, bringing down overall 
costs. A world in which immi- 
grants are defined as illegals, 
their freedom and human 
dignity denied, exists because of 
the lack of a piece of paper. 
Facing this, the IAF cannot help 
but keep its identity and 
objectives: generalised self- 
management of society, abolition 
of private property and the 
construction of an anarchist 
society. It is therefore very 
important that we back the 
anarchist movements in the 
poorer countries, opening 
autonomous communication and 
knowledge channels, beyond 
the system's mass media, as a 
first step towards a more 
widespread implantation of 
anarchism.

War against life
Capitalist production has lead to 
the declaration of a war against 
life itself; a war that threatens 
the survival of the whole planet 
This is happening on two fronts 
On the first, is the looting of 
resources, pollution and 
environmental devastation, the 
consequence of capitalist 
production. This system only 
considers profits, ignoring the 
fact that human beings are part 
of the ecosystem as well and 
that no one eats or breathes 
money. The other front is that of 
technological development 
following the agenda of the 
powers. On one side there is 
nuclear energy, whether civil or 
military, which can lead to a 
slow radioactive death or a 
devastating destruction. On the 
other, genetic manipulation 
colonises life, looting traditional 
knowledges. The duty of 
anarchists is to side with those 
peoples fighting these aggressions.

Against moral order and religion
Every form of institutionalised 
belief is hierarchical and 
authoritarian, trying to impose 
its own moral rules on every 
person. Anarchists are strongly 
opposed to all such belief 
systems. Pretending to represent 
a non-existent monopoly on 
moral values, religions subtly 
try to interfere in individuals' 
private lives. Religions threaten 
their autonomy, denying their 
ability to directly solve their 
own problems. Those who 
believe in a heaven to come will 
not do anything to get better 
conditions now!!! Religious 
wars are still being fought in the 
name of a God, hiding ambi- 
tions of domination and 
conquest, very evident in the 
close relationships between 
churches and States. Anarchists 
oppose all religions: Christian, 
Muslim...and any others. Our 
deep consideration for personal 
freedom does not prevent us 
from opposing religious beliefs 
and any form of hierarchy. As 
well as attacking individual 
autonomy, there is also the 
proliferation of rules eroding the 
freedom of, mainly, women and 
sexual minorities. These rules, 
that in many cases are also 
accepted by self-styled secular 
sectors of society, signal the 
reaffirmation of a religious and 
conformist ethics. They also 
bring about a strengthening of 
patriarchy, which is opposed by 
the anarchists as are all forms of 
domination.
_______________________________________________
Back to Organise! #65 contents