1
D.2 What influence does wealth have over politics?
3
The short answer is: a great deal of influence, directly and
4
indirectly. We have already touched on this in [1]section B.2.3. Here
5
we will expand on those remarks.
7
State policy in a capitalist democracy is usually well-insulated from
8
popular influence but very open to elite influence and money interests.
9
Let's consider the possibility of direct influence first. It's obvious
10
that elections cost money and that only the rich and corporations can
11
realistically afford to take part in a major way. Even union donations
12
to political parties cannot effectively compete with those from the
13
business classes. For example, in the 1972 US presidential elections,
14
of the $500 million spent, only about $13 million came from trade
15
unions. The vast majority of the rest undoubtedly came from Big
16
Business and wealthy individuals. For the 1956 elections, the last year
17
for which direct union-business comparisons are possible, the
18
contributions of 742 businessmen matched those of unions representing
19
17 million workers. This, it should be stressed was at a time when
20
unions had large memberships and before the decline of organised labour
21
in America. Thus the evidence shows that it is "irrefutable" that
22
"businessmen contribute vastly greater sums of money to political
23
campaigns than do other groups [in society]. Moreover, they have
24
special ease of access to government officials, and they are
25
disproportionately represented at all upper levels of government."
26
[David Schweickart, Against Capitalism, pp. 210-1]
28
Therefore, logically, politics will be dominated by the rich and
29
powerful -- in fact if not in theory -- since, in general, only the
30
rich can afford to run and only parties supported by the wealthy will
31
gain enough funds and favourable press coverage to have a chance (see
32
[2]section D.3 for the wealthy's control of the mass media). Of course,
33
there are many countries which do have labour-based parties, often
34
allied with union movements, as is the case in Western Europe, for
35
example. Yet even here, the funds available for labour parties are
36
always less than those of capitalist supported parties, meaning that
37
the ability of the former to compete in "fair" elections is hindered.
38
In addition, the political agenda is dominated by the media and as the
39
media are owned by and dependent upon advertising from business, it is
40
hardly surprising that independent labour-based political agendas are
41
difficult to follow or be taken seriously. Unsurprisingly, many of
42
these so-called labour or social-democratic parties have moved to the
43
right (particularly since the 1980s). In Britain, for example, the New
44
Labour government which was elected in 1997 simply, in the main,
45
followed the policies of the previous Conservative Governments and saw
46
its main funding switch from unions to wealthy business men (sometimes
47
in the form of "loans" which could be hidden from the accounts).
48
Significantly, New Labour's success was in part dependent on support
49
from the right-wing media empire of Rupert Murdoch (Blair even
50
consulted with him on policy, indicating his hold over the government).
52
Then there are the barriers involved once a party has gained office.
53
Just because a party has become the government, it does not mean that
54
they can simply implement their election promises. There are also
55
significant pressures on politicians from the state bureaucracy itself.
56
The state structure is designed to ensure that real power lies not in
57
the hands of elected representatives but rather in the hands of
58
officials, of the state bureaucracy which ensures that any pro-labour
59
political agenda will be watered down and made harmless to the
60
interests of the ruling class. We discuss this in [3]section J.2.2 and
63
To this it must be added that wealth has a massive indirect influence
64
over politics (and so over society and the law). We have noted above
65
that wealth controls the media and its content. However, beyond this
66
there is what can be called "Investor Confidence," which is another
67
important source of influence. This is "the key to capitalist
68
stability," notes market socialist David Schweickart. "If a government
69
initiates policies that capitalists perceive to be opposed to their
70
interests, they may, with neither organisation nor even spitefulness,
71
become reluctant to invest [or actually dis-invest] in the offending
72
country (or region or community), not if 'the climate for business is
73
bad.' The outcome of such isolated acts is an economic downturn, and
74
hence political instability. So a government . . . has no real choice
75
but to regard the interests of business as privileged. In a very real
76
sense, what is good for business really is good for the country. If
77
business suffers, so will everyone else." [Op. Cit., pp. 214-5]
79
Hence Chomsky's comment that when "popular reform candidates . . . get
80
elected . . . you get [a] capital strike -- investment capital flows
81
out of the country, there's a lowering of investment, and the economy
82
grinds to a halt . . . The reason is quite simple. In our society, real
83
power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the
84
private economy; that's were the decisions are made about what's
85
produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes
86
place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so
87
forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the
88
political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's
89
zero -- but the differences are going to be very slight." This means
90
that government policy is forced to make "the rich folk happy"
91
otherwise "everything's going to grind to a halt." [Understanding
92
Power, pp. 62-3] As we discuss in the [4]next section, this is
93
precisely what has happened.
95
David Noble provides a good summary of the effects of such indirect
96
pressures when he writes firms "have the ability to transfer production
97
from one country to another, to close a plant in one and reopen it
98
elsewhere, to direct and redirect investment wherever the 'climate' is
99
most favourable [to business]. . . . [I]t has enabled the corporation
100
to play one workforce off against another in the pursuit of the
101
cheapest and most compliant labour (which gives the misleading
102
appearance of greater efficiency). . . [I]t has compelled regions and
103
nations to compete with one another to try and attract investment by
104
offering tax incentives, labour discipline, relaxed environmental and
105
other regulations and publicly subsidised infrastructure. . . Thus has
106
emerged the great paradox of our age, according to which those nations
107
that prosper most (attract corporate investment) by most readily
108
lowering their standard of living (wages, benefits, quality of life,
109
political freedom). The net result of this system of extortion is a
110
universal lowering of conditions and expectations in the name of
111
competitiveness and prosperity." [Progress Without People, pp. 91-92]
113
And, we must note, even when a country does lower its standard of
114
living to attract investment or encourage its own business class to
115
invest (as the USA and UK did by means of recession to discipline the
116
workforce by high unemployment) it is no guarantee that capital will
117
stay. US workers have seen their companies' profits rise while their
118
wages have stagnated and (in reward) hundreds of thousands have been
119
"down-sized" or seen their jobs moved to Mexico or South East Asia
120
sweatshops. In the far east, Japanese, Hong Kong, and South Korean
121
workers have also seen their manufacturing jobs move to low wage (and
122
more repressive/authoritarian) countries such as China and Indonesia.
124
As well as the mobility of capital, there is also the threat posed by
125
public debt. As Doug Henwood notes, "[p]ublic debt is a powerful way of
126
assuring that the state remains safely in capital's hands. The higher a
127
government's debt, the more it must please its bankers. Should bankers
128
grow displeased, they will refuse to roll over old debts or to extend
129
new financing on any but the most punishing terms (if at all). The
130
explosion of [US] federal debt in the 1980s vastly increased the power
131
of creditors to demand austere fiscal and monetary policies to dampen
132
the US economy as it recovered . . . from the 1989-92 slowdown." [Wall
133
Street, pp. 23-24] And, we must note, Wall street made a fortune on the
134
debt, directly and indirectly.
136
This analysis applies within countries as well. Commenting on Clinton's
137
plans for the devolution of welfare programmes from Federal to State
138
government in America, Noam Chomsky makes the important point that
139
"under conditions of relative equality, this could be a move towards
140
democracy. Under existing circumstances, devolution is intended as a
141
further blow to the eroding democratic processes. Major corporations,
142
investment firms, and the like, can constrain or directly control the
143
acts of national governments and can set one national workforce against
144
another. But the game is much easier when the only competing player
145
that might remotely be influenced by the 'great beast' is a state
146
government, and even middle-sized enterprise can join in. The shadow
147
cast by business [over society and politics] can thus be darker, and
148
private power can move on to greater victories in the name of freedom."
149
[Noam Chomsky, "Rollback III", Z Magazine, March, 1995]
151
Economic blackmail is a very useful weapon in deterring freedom. Little
152
wonder Proudhon argued that the "Revolutionary principle . . . is
153
Liberty. In other words, no more government of man by man through the
154
accumulation of capital." [quoted by Jack Hayward, After the French
157
D.2.1 Is capital flight really that powerful?
159
Yes. By capital flight, business can ensure that any government which
160
becomes too independent and starts to consider the interests of those
161
who elected it will be put back into its place. Therefore we cannot
162
expect a different group of politicians to react in different ways to
163
the same institutional influences and interests. It's no coincidence
164
that the Australian Labour Party and the Spanish Socialist Party
165
introduced "Thatcherite" policies at the same time as the "Iron Lady"
166
implemented them in Britain. The New Zealand Labour government is a
167
case in point, where "within a few months of re-election [in 1984],
168
finance minister Roger Douglas set out a programme of economic
169
'reforms' that made Thatcher and Reagan look like wimps. . . .[A]lmost
170
everything was privatised and the consequences explained away in
171
marketspeak. Division of wealth that had been unknown in New Zealand
172
suddenly appeared, along with unemployment, poverty and crime." [John
173
Pilger, "Breaking the one party state," New Statesman, 16/12/94]
175
An extreme example of capital flight being used to "discipline" a
176
naughty administration can be seen from Labour governments in Britain
177
during the 1960s and 1970s. Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister
178
between 1964 and 1970, recorded the pressures his government was under
181
"We were soon to learn that decisions on pensions and taxation were
182
no longer to be regarded, as in the past, as decisions for
183
parliament alone. The combination of tax increases with increased
184
social security benefits provoked the first of a series of attacks
185
on sterling, by speculators and others, which beset almost every
186
section of the government for the next five years." [The Labour
187
Government 1964-1970, p. 31]
189
He also had to "listen night after night to demands that there should
190
be cuts in government expenditure, and particularly in those parts of
191
government expenditure which related to social services. It was not
192
long before we were being asked, almost at pistol-point to cut back on
193
expenditure" by the Governor of the Bank of England, the stock
194
exchange's major mouthpiece. [Op. Cit., p. 34] One attempt to
195
pressurise Wilson resulted in him later reflecting:
197
"Not for the first time, I said that we had now reached the
198
situation where a newly elected government with a mandate from the
199
people was being told, not so much by the Governor of the Bank of
200
England but by international speculators, that the policies on which
201
we had fought the election could not be implemented; that the
202
government was to be forced into the adoption of Tory policies to
203
which it was fundamentally opposed. The Governor confirmed that that
204
was, in fact, the case." [Op. Cit., p. 37]
206
Only the bluff of threatening to call another general election allowed
207
Wilson to win that particular battle but his government was
208
constrained. It implemented only some of the reforms it had won the
209
election on while implementing many more policies which reflected the
210
wishes of the capitalist class (for example, attempts to shackle the
211
rank and file of the unions).
213
A similar process was at work against the 1974 to 1979 Labour
214
government. In January, 1974, the FT Index for the London Stock
215
Exchange stood at 500 points. In February, the Miner's went on strike,
216
forcing Heath (the Tory Prime Minister) to hold (and lose) a general
217
election. The new Labour government (which included some left-wingers
218
in its cabinet) talked about nationalising the banks and much heavy
219
industry. In August, 1974, Tony Benn announced plans to nationalise the
220
ship building industry. By December, the FT index had fallen to 150
221
points. [John Casey, "The Seventies", The Heavy Stuff, no. 3, p. 21] By
222
1976 the Treasury was "spending $100 million a day buying back its own
223
money on the markets to support the pound." [The Times, 10/6/76]
225
The Times [27/5/76] noted that "the further decline in the value of the
226
pound has occurred despite the high level of interest rates. . . .
227
[D]ealers said that selling pressure against the pound was not heavy or
228
persistent, but there was an almost total lack of interest amongst
229
buyers. The drop in the pound is extremely surprising in view of the
230
unanimous opinion of bankers, politicians and officials that the
231
currency is undervalued." While there was much talk of private armies
232
and military intervention, this was not needed. As anarchist John Casey
233
argues, the ruling class "chose to play the economic card . . . They
234
decided to subdue the rogue Labour administration by pulling the
235
financial plugs out of the economy . . . This resulted in the stock
236
market and the pound plummeting . . . This was a much neater solution
237
than bullets and forced the Wilson government to clean up the mess by
238
screwing the working class with public spending cuts and a freeze on
239
wage claims . . . The whole process of economic sabotage was neatly
240
engineering through third parties like dealers in the currency
241
markets." [Op. Cit., p. 23]
243
The Labour government, faced with the power of international capital,
244
ended up having to receive a temporary "bailing out" by the IMF, which
245
imposed a package of cuts and controls, to which Labour's response was,
246
in effect, "We'll do anything you say," as one economist described it.
247
The social costs of these policies were disastrous, with unemployment
248
rising to the then unheard-of-height of one million. And let's not
249
forget that they "cut expenditure by twice the amount the IMF were
250
promised" in an attempt to appear business-friendly. [Peter Donaldson,
251
A Question of Economics, p. 89] By capital flight, a slightly radical
252
Labour government was brought to heel.
254
Capital will not invest in a country that does not meet its approval.
255
In 1977, the Bank of England failed to get the Labour government to
256
abolish its exchange controls. Between 1979 and 1982 the Tories
257
abolished them and ended restrictions on lending for banks and building
260
"The result of the abolition of exchange controls was visible almost
261
immediately: capital hitherto invested in the U.K. began going
262
abroad. In the Guardian of 21 September, 1981, Victor Keegan noted
263
that 'Figures published last week by the Bank of England show that
264
pension funds are now investing 25% of their money abroad (compared
265
with almost nothing a few years ago) and there has been no
266
investment at all (net) by unit trusts in the UK since exchange
267
controls were abolished.'" [Robin Ramsay, "Mrs Thatcher, North Sea
268
and the Hegemony of the City", pp. 2-9, Lobster, no. 27, p. 3]
270
This contributed to the general mismanagement of the economy by
271
Thatcher's Monetarist government. While Milton Friedman had predicted
272
"only a modest reduction in output and employment will be a side effect
273
of reducing inflation to single figures by 1982," the actual results of
274
applying his ideas were drastically different. [quoted by Michael
275
Stewart, Keynes and After, p. 179] Britain experienced its deepest
276
recession since the 1930s, with unemployment nearly tripling between
277
1979 and 1985 (officially, from around 5% to 13% but the real figure
278
was even higher as the government changed the method of measuring it to
279
reduce the figures!). Total output fell by 2.5% in 1980 and another
280
1.5% in 1981. By 1984 manufacturing investment was still 30% lower in
281
1979. [Steward, Op. Cit., p. 180] Poverty and inequality soared as
282
unemployment and state repression broke the back of the labour movement
283
and working class resistance.
285
Eventually, capital returned to the UK as Thatcher's government had
286
subdued a militant working class, shackled the trade unions by law and
287
made the welfare state difficult to live on. It reversed many of the
288
partial gains from previous struggles and ended a situation where
289
people had enough dignity not to accept any job offered or put up with
290
an employer's authoritarian practices. These factors created
291
"inflexibility" in the labour market, so that the working class had to
292
be taught a lesson in "good" economics (in part, ironically, by
293
mismanaging the economy by applying neoclassical dogmas in their
296
Needless to say, the situation in the 21st century has become worse.
297
There has been a "huge rise in international borrowing . . . in
298
international capital markets since the liberalisation moves of the
299
1970s, and [a] significant increase in foreign penetration of national
300
central government bond markets." This means that it is "obvious that
301
no central government today may follow economic policies that are
302
disapproved of by the capital markets, which have the power to create
303
an intolerable economic pressure on the respective country's borrowing
304
ability, currency value and investment flows." [Takis Fotopoulos,
305
Toward an Inclusive Democracy, p. 42] We discuss globalisation in more
306
detail in [5]section D.5.
308
Unsurprisingly, when left-wing governments have been elected into
309
office after the 1980s, they have spent a lot of time during the
310
election showing how moderate they are to the capitalist class ("the
311
markets"). This moderation continued once in office and any reforms
312
implemented have been of a minor nature and placed within a general
313
neo-liberal context. This was the fate of the British Labour government
314
of Tony Blair, while in Brazil the government of Lula (a former lathe
315
operator, labour union leader and Brazil's first working-class
316
president) was termed "Tropical Blairism" by left-wing critics. Rather
317
than use popular mandate to pursue social justice, they have governed
318
for the rich. Given the role of the state and the pressures governments
319
experience from capital, anarchists were not surprised.
321
Of course, exceptions can occur, with popular governments implementing
322
significant reforms when economic and political circumstances are
323
favourable. However, these generally need popular movements at the same
324
time to be really effective and these, at some stage, come into
325
conflict with the reformist politicians who hold them back. Given the
326
need for such extra-parliamentary movements to ensure reforms
327
anarchists consider their time better spent building these than
328
encouraging illusions about voting for radical politicians to act for
329
us (see [6]section J.2 for details).
331
D.2.2 How extensive is business propaganda?
333
Business spends a lot of money to ensure that people accept the status
334
quo. Referring again to the US as an example (where such techniques are
335
common), various means are used to get people to identify "free
336
enterprise" (meaning state-subsidised private power with no
337
infringement of managerial prerogatives) as "the American way." The
338
success of these campaigns is clear, since many American working people
339
(for example) now object to unions ing too much power or irrationally
340
rejecting all radical ideas as "Communism" (i.e. Stalinism) regardless
341
of their content. By the 1990s, it had even made "liberal" (i.e. mildly
342
reformist centre-left policies) into a swear word in some parts of the
345
This is unsurprising and its roots can be found in the success of sort
346
of popular movements business propaganda was created to combat. As
347
Chomsky argues, due to popular struggles, "the state has limited
348
capacity to coerce" in the advanced capitalist countries (although it
349
is always there, to be used when required). This meant that "elite
350
groups -- the business world, state managers and so on -- recognised
351
early on that they are going to have to develop massive methods of
352
control of attitude and opinion, because you cannot control people by
353
force anymore and therefore you have to modify their consciousness so
354
that they don't perceive that they are living under conditions of
355
alienation, oppression, subordination and so on. In fact, that's what
356
probably a couple trillion dollars are spent on each year in the US,
357
very self-consciously, from the framing of television advertisements
358
for two-year olds to what you are taught in graduate school economics
359
programs. It's designed to create a consciousness of subordination and
360
it's also intended specifically and pretty consciously to suppress
361
normal human emotions." [Chomsky on Anarchism, p. 223]
363
This process became apparent in the 1960s. In the words of Edward
366
"The business community of the United States was deeply concerned
367
over the excesses of democracy in the United States in the 1960s,
368
and it has tried hard to rectify this problem by means of
369
investments in both politicians and informing public opinion. The
370
latter effort has included massive institutional advertising and
371
other direct and indirect propaganda campaigns, but it has extended
372
to attempts to influence the content of academic ideas . . . [With]
373
a significant portion of academic research coming from foundations
374
based on business fortunes . . . [and money] intended to allow
375
people with preferred viewpoints to be aided financially in
376
obtaining academic status and influence and in producing and
377
disseminating books." ["The Selling of Market Economics," pp.
378
173-199, New Ways of Knowing, Marcus G. Raskin and Herbert J.
379
Bernstein (eds.), p. 182]
381
Wealth, in other words, is employed to shape the public mind and ensure
382
that challenges to that wealth (and its source) are reduced. These
383
include funding private foundations and institutes ("think-tanks")
384
which can study, promote and protect ways to advance the interests of
385
the few. It can also include the private funding of university chairs
386
as well as the employment of PR companies to attack opponents and sell
387
to the public the benefits not only of specific companies their
388
activities but also the whole socio-economic system. In the words of
389
Australian Social Scientist Alex Carey the "twentieth century has been
390
characterised by three developments of great political importance: the
391
growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of
392
corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against
393
democracy." [quoted by Noam Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, p. 89]
395
By 1978, American business was spending $1 billion a year on grassroots
396
propaganda. [Chomsky, Op. Cit., p. 93] This is known as "Astroturf" by
397
PR insiders, to reflect the appearance of popular support, without the
398
substance, and "grasstops" whereby influential citizens are hired to
399
serve as spokespersons for business interests. In 1983, there existed
400
26 general purpose foundations for this purpose with endowments of $100
401
million or more, as well as dozens of corporate foundations. One
402
extremely wealth conservative, Richard Mellon Scaife, was giving $10
403
million a year through four foundations and trusts. [G. William
404
Domhoff, Who Rules America Now?, p. 92 and p. 94] These, along with
405
media power, ensure that force -- always an inefficient means of
406
control -- is replaced by (to use a term associated with Noam Chomsky)
407
the "manufacture of consent": the process whereby the limits of
408
acceptable expression are defined by the wealthy.
410
Various institutions are used to get Big Business's message across, for
411
example, the Joint Council on Economic Education, ostensibly a
412
charitable organisation, funds economic education for teachers and
413
provides books, pamphlets and films as teaching aids. In 1974, 20,000
414
teachers participated in its workshops. The aim is to induce teachers
415
to present corporations in an uncritical light to their students.
416
Funding for this propaganda machine comes from the American Bankers
417
Association, AT&T, the Sears Roebuck Foundation and the Ford
418
Foundation. As Domhoff points out, "[a]lthough it [and other bodies
419
like it] has not been able to bring about active acceptance of all
420
power elite policies and perspectives, on economic or other domestic
421
issues, it has been able to ensure that opposing opinions have remained
422
isolated, suspect and only partially developed." [Op. Cit., pp. 103-4]
424
In other words, "unacceptable" ideas are marginalised, the limits of
425
expression defined, and all within a society apparently based on "the
426
free marketplace of ideas."
428
This process has been going on for some time. For example "[i]n April
429
1947, the Advertising Council announced a $100 million campaign to use
430
all media to 'sell' the American economic system -- as they conceived
431
it -- to the American people; the program was officially described as a
432
'major project of educating the American people about the economic
433
facts of life.' Corporations 'started extensive programs to
434
indoctrinate employees,' the leading business journal Fortune reported,
435
subjected their captive audiences to 'Courses in Economic Education'
436
and testing them for commitment to the 'free enterprise system -- that
437
is, Americanism.' A survey conducted by the American Management
438
Association (AMA) found that many corporate leaders regarded
439
'propaganda' and 'economic education' as synonymous, holding that 'we
440
want our people to think right'. . . [and that] 'some employers view. .
441
. [it] as a sort of 'battle of loyalties' with the unions' -- a rather
442
unequal battle, given the resources available." These huge PR campaigns
443
"employed the media, cinema, and other devices to identify 'free
444
enterprise' -- meaning state-subsidised private power with no
445
infringement on managerial prerogatives -- as 'the American way,'
446
threatened by dangerous subversives." [Noam Chomsky, Op. Cit., pp.
449
By 1995, $10 billion was considered a "conservative estimate" on how
450
much money was spent on public relations. The actual amount is unknown,
451
as PR industry (and their clients, of course) "carefully conceals most
452
of its activities from public view. This invisibility is part of a
453
deliberate strategy for manipulating public opinion and government
454
policy." The net effect is that the wealth of "large corporations,
455
business associations and governments" is used to "out-manoeuvre,
456
overpower and outlast true citizen reformers." In other words: "Making
457
the World Safe from Democracy." [John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton,
458
Toxic Sludge is Good for You!, p. 13, p. 14 and p. 13] The public
459
relations industry, as Chomsky notes, is a means by which "the
460
oppressors . . . instil their assumptions as the perspective from which
461
you [should] look at the world" and is "done extremely consciously."
462
[Propaganda and the Public Mind, p. 166]
464
The effects of this business propaganda are felt in all other aspects
465
of life, ensuring that while the US business class is extremely class
466
conscious, the rest of the American population considers "class" a
467
swear word! It does have an impact. The rise of, say, "supply-side"
468
economics in the late 1970s can be attributed to the sheer power of its
469
backers rather than its intellectual or scientific merit (which, even
470
in terms of mainstream economics, were slim). Much the same can be said
471
for Monetarism and other discredited free-market dogmas. Hence the
472
usual targets for these campaigns: taxes, regulation of business,
473
welfare (for the poor, not for business), union corruption (when facing
474
organising drives), and so on. All, of course, wrapped up in populist
475
rhetoric which hides the real beneficiaries of the policies (for
476
example, tax cut campaigns which strangely fail to mention that the
477
elite will benefit most, or entirely, from the proposed legislation).
479
Ironically, the apparent success of this propaganda machine shows the
480
inherent contradiction in the process. Spin and propaganda, while
481
influential, cannot stop people experiencing the grim consequences when
482
the business agenda is applied. While corporate propaganda has shaped
483
the American political scene significantly to the right since the
484
1970s, it cannot combat the direct experience of stagnating wages,
485
autocratic bosses, environmental degradation, economic insecurity and
486
wealth polarisation indefinitely. The actual objective reality of
487
neo-liberal capitalism will always come into glaring contrast with the
488
propaganda used to justify and extend it. Hence the rising budgets for
489
these activities cannot counteract the rising unease the American
490
people feel about the direction their country is taking. The task of
491
anarchists is to help the struggle, in America and across the globe, by
492
which they can take their country and lives back from the elite.
496
1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB2.html#secb23
497
2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD3.html
498
3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html#secj22
499
4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD2.html#secd21
500
5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD5.html
501
6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ2.html
added
removed
txt/secD2.txt
