@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ That is to say that it was born with class societies.
Subsequently, whether in Antiquity, the Middle Ages or in Modern Times, armaments and wars continued their career, the improvements of the former (old war machines, artillery, firearms, etc.) allowing the successes of the latter.
The progress of science and technology, accelerated from the eighteenth century, play a role but the relations of production are even more important.
The Prussian general and philosopher Karl von Clausewitz wrote in his master work, \emph{On War}, in 1827, during the period of the rise of capitalism in Europe, that war “is a conflict of great interests which is resolved only with bloodshed, and which differs only in this precisely from all the other conflicts that arise between men.
It has much less to do with the arts and sciences than with commerce, which is also a conflict of great interests, but it is much closer to politics, which is itself a kind of commerce with enlarged dimensions, in which it develops like the child in its mother's womb.”
The Prussian general and philosopher Karl von Clausewitz wrote in his master work, \emph{On War}, in 1827, during the period of the rise of capitalism in Europe, that war \enquote{is a conflict of great interests which is resolved only with bloodshed, and which differs only in this precisely from all the other conflicts that arise between men.
It has much less to do with the arts and sciences than with commerce, which is also a conflict of great interests, but it is much closer to politics, which is itself a kind of commerce with enlarged dimensions, in which it develops like the child in its mother's womb.}
He added in another place, studying the wars of the Revolution:
“We must attribute the new facts that manifest themselves in the military field much less to inventions and new military ideas than to this change in the social state and social relations.”
\enquote{We must attribute the new facts that manifest themselves in the military field much less to inventions and new military ideas than to this change in the social state and social relations.}
The term capitalism was of course ignored by Clausewitz but he had sensed the essential link between war activity and this regime.
Capitalism is at the origin of the arms races, the one that accompanied the wars of the Revolution and the Empire or the American Civil War in the nineteenth century, those that prepared and marked the two world wars of the twentieth century, the one that could have led to a Third World War and that still lasts, although many claim the danger of it averted.
@ -30,10 +30,10 @@ With the rise of liberalism, they will increasingly be produced by private compa
The quarrel between arsenals and private producers dates from this period. It is not over.
England is followed by the France and then the other European countries in this evolution.
“During the eighteenth century, as the English hobsbawn writes, iron foundries identified roughly with cannon casting.”
\enquote{During the eighteenth century, as the English hobsbawn writes, iron foundries identified roughly with cannon casting.}
It is true that his compatriots were ahead of the curve for the puddlage to transform cast iron into iron and steel and that the metal drilling and boring machine invented by Wilkinson in 1774 would be used well for the manufacture of weapons.
But France has also had its advances. General Jean-Florent de Vallière standardized in 1732 the caliber of the guns and their length (25 times that of the caliber).
In 1771, the military engineer Cugnot developed his “fardier”, a steam car intended to drag artillery pieces.
In 1771, the military engineer Cugnot developed his \enquote{fardier}, a steam car intended to drag artillery pieces.
These were modernized in 1776 by the inspector general of artillery Jean-Baptiste de Gribeauval:
the cannons of which he gave the model will equip all the armies of the Revolution and the Empire.
@ -42,20 +42,20 @@ The France being besieged by all the monarchies of Europe, the Jacobin Republic
The country became a powerful military store to supply them.
At the beginning of the war, contracts with the state were awarded by auction and only financial companies had the necessary capital.
Capitalism fed on the arms race. The mass raising was to provide a million men. But, Barère cried out in August 1793:
“It's not enough to have men... Weapons, weapons and sustenance! It is the cry of need.”
\enquote{It's not enough to have men... Weapons, weapons and sustenance! It is the cry of need.}
The Committee of Public Safety cannot be content to supply them with liberal capitalism.
The state took control of certain companies and created national factories on the model of those of the Ancien Régime.
In February 1794, the Extraordinary Commission on Arms and Powders was in fact a Ministry of Armaments on which mines and steel depended, manufacturing cannons, rifles and ammunition.
The cannons “in full” and new steels were poured. Thus it was possible to manufacture 240,000 rifles and 7,000 cannons per year, considerable figures for the time.
The cannons \enquote{in full} and new steels were poured. Thus it was possible to manufacture 240,000 rifles and 7,000 cannons per year, considerable figures for the time.
After Thermidor, the tendency is to abandon this statism to return to liberal capitalism and the “suppliers to the armies”, which are getting richer.
After Thermidor, the tendency is to abandon this statism to return to liberal capitalism and the \enquote{suppliers to the armies}, which are getting richer.
Financial companies banned in 1793 were allowed again in 1795.
The 400,000 men raised by the Directory have sufficient armaments to face the armies of the coalition but it is against a background of speculation and concussion, evils that will sweep away this regime.
Under the Consulate and the Empire, industry modernized at least in some of its branches. The vastness of the market provided by the Empire and its vassals is very favorable to this progress.
Armament holds its place and makes the prosperity of some capitalists such as the manufacturer of cannonballs Jean-Nicolas Gendarme.
The Parisian banks helped to make a place for themselves in the sun a less efficient steel industry while its English rival and a copper industry supplying the imperial army and navy.
On the other side, “the war coincided with the emergence of Britain as the dominant industrial power in the world,” as A. D. Harvey (\emph{Collision of Empires}) notes.
On the other side, \enquote{the war coincided with the emergence of Britain as the dominant industrial power in the world,} as A. D. Harvey (\emph{Collision of Empires}) notes.
Military inventions are made there such as the new artillery munition invented in 1803 by Henry Shrapnel; shrapnel was successfully used in the bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 and Vimeiro in 1808.
English ships are reinforced with iron pieces. In 1806 out of 305,000 tons of iron produced in British factories 56,000 were for the war needs of the government.
From 1803 to 1815 the British manufactured 2,700,000 firearms and bought 293,000 abroad.
@ -67,10 +67,10 @@ Thus new methods of manufacturing weapons developed in Scotland by the Carron co
But the superiority of British capitalism over French capitalism appeared mainly financial.
In 1805, the French budget was the equivalent of £27.6 million, the British budget was £76.5 million, and in 1813 it was £46.5 million and £109 million respectively.
The Waterloo Campaign of 1815 cost the British government £21.3 million for its army, £12.9 million for extraordinary service, and £11 million for loans and advances to its allies.
The “cavalry of Saint George”, which British capitalism has always been able to make good use of, especially if it is accompanied by arms deliveries, makes it possible to win wars.
The \enquote{cavalry of Saint George}, which British capitalism has always been able to make good use of, especially if it is accompanied by arms deliveries, makes it possible to win wars.
\section{Development of capitalism and armaments during the nineteenth century}
\section[Development of capitalism and armaments]{Development of capitalism and armaments during the nineteenth century}
Capitalism continued to flourish after the Congress of Vienna of 1814-1815.
The Holy Alliance (September 1815) contained too many elements of the past to be entirely favorable to it, and the ideology of the Liberals was better suited to it.
@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ Its secular arm, the Quadruple Alliance (England, Prussia, Austria, Russia) of N
The uprisings of General Pepe in Naples (1820), Riego in Cadiz (1820), the Portuguese army (1820), Turin (1821), the revolutions of France, Belgium and Poland (1830), the movement of the canuts of Lyon (1831), the new revolts in Italy (1832), the riot
the cloister of Saint Merry in Paris (1832), a new revolt in Spain (1843), the agitation in Ireland (1843), the great strike of the Silesian weavers (1846),
the anti-Austrian demonstrations in Milan (1846), the Porto revolt in Portugal (1846-1847), all this required weapons for repression.
The economic and financial crisis of 1847 led to the “Spring of the Peoples” of Europe in 1848 which resulted in popular movements in Italy, Germany, Austria, the February Revolution and the June Days in France and real war operations in Bohemia, Austria, Hungary, the Kingdom of Naples, in southern Germany.
The economic and financial crisis of 1847 led to the \enquote{Spring of the Peoples} of Europe in 1848 which resulted in popular movements in Italy, Germany, Austria, the February Revolution and the June Days in France and real war operations in Bohemia, Austria, Hungary, the Kingdom of Naples, in southern Germany.
There is a need for weapons for forces not only of reaction but also of liberation.
However, their regular production did not give rise to an arms race comparable to that of the Napoleonic years.
@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ In many respects, even more so than those of the Revolution and empire, it was a
Imperialism, arms race and World War I
\section{Imperialism, arms race and World War I}
Concentration is a natural tendency of capitalism that constantly puts it in contradiction with the principles of liberalism it professes.
The combination of industrial capital and banking capital, which has been called imperialism, into a single finance capital, increases the effects of this concentration by allowing the creation of huge joint-stock companies.
@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ The British battleships (dread noughts) ended up being monsters with a speed of
To this must be added cruisers, destroyers and other types of surface ships.
The race takes the form of a competition between the armor of ships and the penetrating power of modern shells or torpedoes developed before 1914.
Sea mines, already used during the Civil War, were perfected in the early twentieth century.
After the first real combat submarine the double-hulled “Narval” armed with four torpedoes, invented by the engineer Laubeuf (1899), the great powers all have submarines equipped with torpedoes ready on the eve of the war.
After the first real combat submarine the double-hulled \enquote{Narval} armed with four torpedoes, invented by the engineer Laubeuf (1899), the great powers all have submarines equipped with torpedoes ready on the eve of the war.
The air weapon is as old as the accession to power of capitalism since balloons flew over the Battle of Fleurus and a corps of aerostatiers of the Republic had existed from 1793 to 1798.
We then turned to free and then airship balloons like that of Henri Giffard in 1852.
@ -151,28 +151,30 @@ Thus Krupp presented at Crystal Palace in London a cylinder of 2 1/4 tons of ste
Weapons even benefit from processes that are considered too expensive for everyday use.
Thus the large ingots of special steels in the crucible are intended at Krupp, as at its competitors, for guns whose bore is the next step.
Everywhere large corporations play an essential role in the arms race.
“The trust leading to extermination, this is the last invention of modern capitalism,” exclaimed Jaurès to the Chamber of Deputies in 1909.
\enquote{The trust leading to extermination, this is the last invention of modern capitalism,} exclaimed Jaurès to the Chamber of Deputies in 1909.
If it is the big capitalist corporations that produce, it is the imperialist states that pay for the armaments.
In 1920, the economist Charles Gide quantified the annual military expenditure required by the preparation of the war among its main protagonists:
1883* 1913* Accroissement
France 789 1 471 86 \%
Great-Britain 702 1 943 177 \%
Russia 894 2 642 195 \%
Italy 311 749 140 \%
Germany 504 2 302 357 \%
Austria-Hungary 318 822 158 \%
* in millions of francs
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Annual military expenditure prior to World War I}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
\rowcolor{gray!20}
~ & 1883* & 1913* & Accroissement \\
\hline
France & 789 & 1 471 & 86 \%\\
Great-Britain & 702 & 1 943 & 177 \%\\
Russia & 894 & 2 642 & 195 \%\\
Italy & 311 & 749 & 140 \%\\
Germany & 504 & 2 302 & 357 \%\\
Austria-Hungary & 318 & 822 & 158 \%\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\centerline{* in millions of francs}
\end{table}
The acceleration of the arms race is evident in this picture.
It was lower for the France, which had started earlier, than for Germany and Great Britain.
@ -215,41 +217,45 @@ Theorists of future wars envisioned a massive use of tanks and aviation, which r
In the naval field, the debates between imperialist countries led to a limitation of the tonnage of cruisers and battleships to 525,000 tons for Great Britain and the United States, 315,000 for Japan and 175,000 for France and Italy at the Washington Conference in 1922;
those who saw it as a prelude to general disarmament had to admit their mistake.
Annual world military expenditure (in billions of constant 1970 US dollars)
1908 9,0
1913 14,5
1925 19,3
1926 19,6
1927 21,5
1928 21,5
1929 21,7
1930 23,2
1931 21,9
1932 20,3
1933 20,1
1934 23,9
1935 32,6
1936 47,1
1937 58,8
1938 61,6
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Annual world military expenditure (in billions of constant 1970 US dollars)}
\begin{tabular}{|r|r|}
\hline
1908& 9,0 \\
\hline
1913& 14,5 \\
\hline
1925& 19,3 \\
\hline
1926& 19,6 \\
\hline
1927& 21,5 \\
\hline
1928& 21,5 \\
\hline
1929& 21,7 \\
\hline
1930& 23,2 \\
\hline
1931& 21,9 \\
\hline
1932& 20,3 \\
\hline
1933& 20,1 \\
\hline
1934& 23,9 \\
\hline
1935& 32,6 \\
\hline
1936& 47,1 \\
\hline
1937& 58,8 \\
\hline
1938& 61,6 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
While the economic crisis of 1920-1921 had been followed by a fairly rapid recovery despite the financial and monetary difficulties of the capitalist countries during the twenties, the crisis of 1929 made capitalism itself tremble on its foundations.
Hitler's seizure of power in January 1933 set Germany on the path of excessive rearmament with the restoration of military service in 1935, the reintegration of the Rhineland in 1936 and the prominent place of armament in Göring's Four-Year Plan.
@ -288,9 +294,10 @@ The end of the Second World War also marked the beginning of the nuclear age.
The Allies have won but only the Westerners recognize themselves in capitalism.
The USSR, whose Red Army bore the main weight of the land war in Europe and advanced as far as Berlin, appears to them as a foreign body that will have to be weakened and eliminated.
The United States has an atomic monopoly. Faced with the “Iron Curtain” they brought together the capitalist countries of Europe by the North Atlantic Treaty concluded in April 1949 and the resulting Organization (NATO) will dominate the years of the "Cold War".
The United States has an atomic monopoly. Faced with the \enquote{Iron Curtain} they brought together the capitalist countries of Europe by the North Atlantic Treaty concluded in April 1949 and the resulting Organization (NATO) will dominate the years of the \enquote{Cold War}.
They tried to complete their system by creating ANZUS (Australia-New Zealand-United States) in 1951, SEATO (South-East Asian Treaty Organization) resulting from the Manila Pact of 1954 and CENTO (Central Treaty Organization) born of the Baghdad Pact of 1955.
The creation of the People's Republic of China in 1949 and the Korean War (1950-1953) explain this military pactomania that the USSR feels as a desire for encirclement.
On both sides, a new arms race began. By 1948, world military spending had exceeded in constant currency that of 1938.
The Korean War gave them a boost: they almost doubled from 1950 to 1953 (see table), decreased a little from 1954 but remained at a high level.
The escalation resumed in the 60s: annual global military spending increased by 60\% between 1960 and 1970 and by another 20\% between 1970 and 1980.
@ -305,23 +312,27 @@ In the 70s, the United States launched a new class of 78,000-ton aircraft carrie
It was also the time of the Dassault F1 single-engine (1966) and the British V STOL Hawker-Siddeley Harrier tactical support single-engine (1969) with short take-off. Jet devices change from subsonic to supersonic.
The U.S. Air Command Strategy is equipped by Boeing with the B 36 and B 47 bombers, which can carry nuclear bombs, and the B 52 whose heavy bombs will cause so many victims in Vietnam from 1965 to 1973.
It was the United States that brought the world into the era of nuclear weapons.
These, first with fission (atomic bomb) and then fusion (hydrogen bomb or thermonuclear), quickly found their correspondents in the opposing camp (for the latter as early as 1953).
@ -336,59 +347,43 @@ Cruise missiles launched from aircraft or submarines became efficient in the ear
Tactical nuclear weapons have been multiplied, loaded on mobile carriers like the French Pluto put into service in 1974.
The Cold War between capitalist and socialist countries has given an ever-increasing scale to the arms race, which is reflected in the evolution of world military spending.
The “Trente Glorieuses”[Thirty glorious ones, refer to a prosperous period from the 50's to the early 70's in France] from 1945 to 1975 allowed the capitalist camp to finance the enormous mass of ever more sophisticated armaments that it opposed to its opponents who in turn had to follow it on this path.
To revive the arms race, its supporters in the United States periodically put forward alleged shortcomings of these (for example the “missile gap” justifying the creation of new types of missiles).
Annual world military expenditure (in billions of constant 1980 US dollars)
1948 146,3 1968 473,0
1949 153,5 1969 481,4
1950 166,2 1970 472,5
1951 241,9 1971 472,7
1952 310,2 1972 478,7
1953 318,6 1973 480,0
1954 286,5 1974 482,0
1955 288,1 1975 483,4
1956 286,0 1976 522,5
1957 291,2 1977 531,9
1958 286,7 1978 547,1
1959 297,8 1979 561,8
1960 295,7 1980 567,1
1961 324,9 1981 579,6
1962 356,3 1982 615,1
1963 371,0 1983 631,6
1964 366,7 1984 642,6
1965 366,7 1985 663,1
1966 403,8 1986 681,0
1967 445,2 1987 701,4
\section{End of the Cold War and maintenance of military-industrial complexes}
The \enquote{Trente Glorieuses}\rfootnote{Thirty glorious ones, refers to a prosperous period from the 50's to the early 70's in France} from 1945 to 1975 allowed the capitalist camp to finance the enormous mass of ever more sophisticated armaments that it opposed to its opponents who in turn had to follow it on this path.
To revive the arms race, its supporters in the United States periodically put forward alleged shortcomings of these (for example the \enquote{missile gap} justifying the creation of new types of missiles).
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Annual world military expenditure (in billions of constant 1980 US dollars)}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{crcr}
\hline
1948 & 146,3 & 1968 & 473,0 \\
1949 & 153,5 & 1969 & 481,4 \\
1950 & 166,2 & 1970 & 472,5 \\
1951 & 241,9 & 1971 & 472,7 \\
1952 & 310,2 & 1972 & 478,7 \\
1953 & 318,6 & 1973 & 480,0 \\
1954 & 286,5 & 1974 & 482,0 \\
1955 & 288,1 & 1975 & 483,4 \\
1956 & 286,0 & 1976 & 522,5 \\
1957 & 291,2 & 1977 & 531,9 \\
1958 & 286,7 & 1978 & 547,1 \\
1959 & 297,8 & 1979 & 561,8 \\
1960 & 295,7 & 1980 & 567,1 \\
1961 & 324,9 & 1981 & 579,6 \\
1962 & 356,3 & 1982 & 615,1 \\
1963 & 371,0 & 1983 & 631,6 \\
1964 & 366,7 & 1984 & 642,6 \\
1965 & 366,7 & 1985 & 663,1 \\
1966 & 403,8 & 1986 & 681,0 \\
1967 & 445,2 & 1987 & 701,4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section[End of the Cold War, maintenance of the MIC]{End of the Cold War and maintenance of military-industrial complexes}
The arms race at the time of the Cold War opened a new stage in the evolution of capitalism.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not mistaken when he spoke in 1954 of a “military-industrial complex.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not mistaken when he spoke in 1954 of a \enquote{military-industrial complex.}
The close interweaving of finance capital and large military structures characterizes the imperialism of the second half of the twentieth century.
The same names of societies dominate it that present the tendency towards concentration and integration inherent in the capitalist regime.
Thus in the United States, Mr. Donnell Douglas, a firm resulting from a merger, works for aviation, electronics and missiles, General Dynamics has the same branches plus military vehicles and missiles, General Motors of course manufactures all kinds of land-based devices but extends its activities to missiles, electronics and aircraft.
@ -420,45 +415,52 @@ Eternal contradictions of imperialism.
Among these contradictions between Europeans and the United States, the one concerning the Western European Union is not the least.
Created by the Paris Agreements of 1954 as a substitute for the defunct European Defence Community, this WEU was chosen in the Maastricht Treaty of 1991 as the military structure of the European Union.
But at the same time it is considered the “European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance” under American leadership. The result is very happy contortions of the Maastricht text.
But at the same time it is considered the \enquote{European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance} under American leadership. The result is very happy contortions of the Maastricht text.
Who will prevail from submission to US imperialism or the desire of capitalist states to maintain sufficient military independence at the risk of confrontation with it?
The wave of neoliberalism has also passed on the arms industries.
Thus, the Royal Ordnance Factories, arsenals created in England long before the birth of industrial capitalism, were privatized in 1988 by Mrs Thatcher.
From this point of view, the fact that the Directorate General of Armaments (DGA), the Industrial Group of Land Armaments (GIAT), the Directorate of Naval Construction (DCN) and the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in France depend on the State represents a real heresy in the eyes of neoliberals, heresy that should end with their privatization as quickly as possible.
The trade unions' defence of arsenals is opposed to this.
The real problem is the diversification of activities and the conversion to civilian production of an arms industry that is oversized in relation to real needs.
The twenty-five largest Western companies producing armaments in 1990 and 1995 (Arms sales in millions of US dollars)
1990 1995
1 Me Donnell Douglas (US) 9020 Lockheed Martin (US) 13800
2 General Dynamics (US) 8300 McDonnell Douglas (US) 9620
3 British Aerospace (GB) 7520 British Aerospace (GB) 6720
4 Lockheed (US) 7500 Loral (US) 6500
5 General Motors (US) 7380 General Motors (US) 6250
6 General Electric (US) 6450 Northrop Grumman (US) 5700
7 Raytheon (US) 5500 Thomson (Fr) 4630
8 Thomson (Fr) 5250 Boeing (US) 4200
9 Boeing (US) 5100 GEC (GB) 4100
10 Northrop (US) 4700 Raytheon (US) 3960
11 Martin Marietta (US) 4600 United Technologies (US) 3650
12 GEC (GB) 4280 Daimler Benz (Ail) 3350
13 United Technologies (US) 4100 Direction des Constructions navales (Fr) 3280
14 Rockwell International (US) 4100 Litton (US) 3030
15 Daimler Benz (AU) 4020 General Dynamics (US) 2930
16 Direction des Constructions navales (Fr) 3830 TRW (US) 2800
The Cold War came to a head with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a project for anti-missile bases in space launched in 1984 by President Reagan and whose major arms interests were expecting an abundant windfall.
They reaped many benefits, but this project was never realized. A similar project covering European countries is currently under discussion, but there is no shortage of contradictions here too.
@ -467,27 +469,30 @@ Talks between the two powers were underway (START) when the first disarmament ag
The first START treaty had just been announced in July 1991 in London when the events of August in Moscow led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December and the end of the Cold War.
The arms race imposed by capitalism on its adversary has largely contributed to the latter's economic difficulties and thus prepared for its fall, although it is not the only cause.
With the East-West tension gone, it was questionable whether the enormous accumulation of armaments and the expenditure devoted to them would not gradually disappear, allowing peoples to receive the “dividends of peace”.
With the East-West tension gone, it was questionable whether the enormous accumulation of armaments and the expenditure devoted to them would not gradually disappear, allowing peoples to receive the \enquote{dividends of peace}.
It was a misunderstanding of capitalism. Although the Warsaw Treaty was dissolved in 1991, NATO continued to exist and expand to Eastern Europe.
Global military spending, after reaching an all-time high of \$1 trillion in 1989, began to narrow from 1990 onwards and in 1996 hovered around \$700 billion.
NATO's military spending (including France) fell by 31\% between 1989 and 1996 but remains enormous.
U.S. military research and development spending fell by 25 percent between those two dates, Germany's by 21 percent, France's by 19 percent, and Britain's by 15 percent.
Evolution of NATO military expenditure (in billions of US dollars at constant 1990 prices)
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
United States 331,2 323,9 320,4 306,2 269,0 284,1 269,1 254,0 238,2 226,4
@ -513,7 +518,7 @@ Will imperialisms in the time of globalization continue to reach an agreement am
Under capitalism, weapons are commodities but not commodities like any other.
Indeed, any other commodity requires a market with a more or less large number of consumers. Arms producers have only one customer: the state.
Whether they come out of the arsenals of the latter or — as is increasingly the case — from private companies, their recipients are primarily the armed forces of the country.
Instead of exhausting themselves by finding customers in a large market, it is enough to convince those armed forces that maintain a close symbiosis with manufacturers — that is the whole meaning of the term “military-industrial complex”.
Instead of exhausting themselves by finding customers in a large market, it is enough to convince those armed forces that maintain a close symbiosis with manufacturers — that is the whole meaning of the term \enquote{military-industrial complex}.
Of course there can be competition between companies (for example in the United States between different models of missiles) but, as soon as there is the agreement of the armed forces, the goods are placed.
Better still, the contract with the State may be subject to price increases, for example for in-process processing: experience shows that this is very often the case.
Weapons are a wonderful commodity from this point of view too.
@ -522,16 +527,16 @@ In addition to domestic use, we must add arms sales abroad by one State to anoth
All the capitalist states producing weapons market them.
However, arms exports are subject to authorisation with various control procedures: in Germany the authorisation of the Bundestag is required;
in France it is so far issued by the government on the advice of the Interministerial Commission for the Study of Exports of War Material, and the a posteriori control by Parliament is most theoretical;
in Britain the Arms Sales Department takes care of everything and the “Head of Defence Sales” is usually the leader of a large capitalist arms group, it's more frank.
in Britain the Arms Sales Department takes care of everything and the \enquote{Head of Defence Sales} is usually the leader of a large capitalist arms group, it's more frank.
Sometimes a State refuses to sell a particular type of armament or any type of armament to a country, for example because the latter is subject to an embargo.
In this case it is not uncommon for weapons allegedly sold to one country to end up in a second or third after more or less long journeys;
these illegal diversions often lead to “cases” involving a particular industrial group that deceived the State (such as the Luchaire case for the delivery of shells to Iran in 1983, which was then subject to the embargo).
these illegal diversions often lead to \enquote{cases} involving a particular industrial group that deceived the State (such as the Luchaire case for the delivery of shells to Iran in 1983, which was then subject to the embargo).
Capitalist companies are legally engaged in the arms trade, the largest being Interarms in London, AGWAH in Düsseldorf, Levy Industries in Toronto, Firearms International in Montreal, Cogswell and Harrison in London.
To this must be added the illegal trafficking carried out in a much more discreet way by pharmacies supplying themselves in the military surpluses of countries that are not too attentive, and whose methods are often more akin to gangsterism, including assassinations, than to the usual style of trade in capitalist countries.
But the arms trade as a whole, a trade in works of death, raises the strongest criticism from moral authorities, churches and politicians within the capitalist states themselves.
Advocates of the arms trade justify this by saying that modern armaments are too expensive to be made for a single country; the argument is that “long series” are necessary for National Defence and that, in its interest, the largest possible amount of armaments must be placed abroad.
Advocates of the arms trade justify this by saying that modern armaments are too expensive to be made for a single country; the argument is that \enquote{long series} are necessary for National Defence and that, in its interest, the largest possible amount of armaments must be placed abroad.
But these sales promote local conflicts, cost Third World countries dearly, increase their debt and increase international insecurity.
The capitalist countries do not, however, deprive themselves of selling their weapons to the South: this is even the bulk of their sales for many years.
@ -540,11 +545,11 @@ The Revolution sent them to its allies in Europe and England to the monarchies o
During the nineteenth century weapons were sold by the producing countries of Europe, especially during the American Civil War.
Colonial powers sometimes provided them to adversaries of competing countries as part of their rivalries.
The capitalist states deliver them to the countries taking part in the Balkan wars or to their future allies in the war of 1914-1918 (they are sometimes the same).
The 1920s and 1930s were the great period of the “cannon merchants”. The two Chaco wars of 1928-1929 and 1932-1935 between Bolivia and Paraguay, which were in fact wars between capitalist oil interests to exploit this territory, allowed these merchants to supply both sides largely: they were particularly bloody.
The role of these “gun dealers” was such that in the United States a special committee was created in 1934 by Senator George Norris to investigate with Gerald P. Nye the role of American ammunition manufacturers, while the famous special issue of Fortune, “\emph{Arms and the Men}” and the book \emph{Merchants of Death, Iron, Blood and Profits}, a title that deserved to be reported in this Black Book, having been chosen in the largest capitalist country in the world about armaments.
The 1920s and 1930s were the great period of the \enquote{cannon merchants}. The two Chaco wars of 1928-1929 and 1932-1935 between Bolivia and Paraguay, which were in fact wars between capitalist oil interests to exploit this territory, allowed these merchants to supply both sides largely: they were particularly bloody.
The role of these \enquote{gun dealers} was such that in the United States a special committee was created in 1934 by Senator George Norris to investigate with Gerald P. Nye the role of American ammunition manufacturers, while the famous special issue of Fortune, \enquote{\emph{Arms and the Men}} and the book \emph{Merchants of Death, Iron, Blood and Profits}, a title that deserved to be reported in this Black Book, having been chosen in the largest capitalist country in the world about armaments.
The Cold War gave an unprecedented boost to the arms trade on both sides. The Americans supplied them to western European countries as part of their policy of containment of the danger represented by the East.
They supplied their allies in the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, sending arms flows around the world called "military aid."
The Cold War gave an unprecedented boost to the arms trade on both sides. The Americans supplied them to western European countries as part of their policy of \emph{containment} of the danger represented by the East.
They supplied their allies in the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, sending arms flows around the world called \enquote{military aid}.
For their part, the other capitalist powers not only used their weapons in their own colonial wars (Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Kenya, Algeria) but delivered them for those of other states:
Portugal fought with French equipment in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique from 1961 to 1974.
The U.S. War in Vietnam led to strong arms flows to South Vietnam and neighboring countries until 1975.
@ -557,71 +562,67 @@ This made France the world's largest per capita arms exporter.
The recipients were largely in the Middle East, so that at the time of the Gulf War, in early 1991, French public opinion may have feared that French soldiers would be killed by French weapons delivered to Iraq in previous years.
The international détente from 1988 onwards explains a fairly rapid decline in the capitalist arms trade as well as its rival in the last years of the Cold War.
Exports of major conventional arms by capitalist countries from 1982 to 1990 (in millions of constant US dollars in 1985)
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
United States 12 707 11 878 10 226 8 800 10 304 12 596 10 503 11 669 8 738
Based on Sipri Yearbook 1997 the trade in major conventional Weapons
\end{table}
The end of the Cold War was marked only by a certain slowdown in the arms trade.
The Gulf War resulted in both new arms exports to the Middle East and a desire to “moralize” the arms trade, which led to the creation of a United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (1991), to which not all states make their contributions and which is very incomplete.
The Gulf War resulted in both new arms exports to the Middle East and a desire to \enquote{moralize} the arms trade, which led to the creation of a United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (1991), to which not all states make their contributions and which is very incomplete.
The European Council adopted a code of conduct for arms transfers at its meetings in Luxembourg in 1991 and Lisbon in 1992.
On the other hand, an "international code of conduct" was presented by Nobel laureates in 1997.
On the other hand, an \enquote{international code of conduct} was presented by Nobel laureates in 1997.
These attempts at moralization in the era of globalization and neoliberalism may meet with some skepticism, regardless of the goodwill of the authors of these proposals.
Capitalism will continue to sell weapons where and when it seems profitable, if it does not come up against a vast movement of public opinion.
@ -629,7 +630,7 @@ Sales in the capitalist countries still represented 92\% of those of 1991 in 199
The United States comes out on top, followed by Russia and the three major Western European countries (France, Germany and the United Kingdom).
The German arms trade increased during these years as a result of the frg's sale of GDR army equipment to various countries around the world.
The United Kingdom has sometimes managed to surpass the France. The Gulf War was followed by an increase in orders from the Middle East.
Following the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), there were “cascading” sales, with the most developed countries ceding their least sophisticated equipment to those that were moderately sophisticated and the latter in turn sending their old-fashioned equipment to the Third World.
Following the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), there were \enquote{cascading} sales, with the most developed countries ceding their least sophisticated equipment to those that were moderately sophisticated and the latter in turn sending their old-fashioned equipment to the Third World.
At present, the main recipient of sales from capitalist countries that engage in unbridled competition is no longer the Middle East (which still hosts nearly a quarter) but Asia (which receives half).
What conflict will these weapons preside over? India-Pakistan, China Sea, Korea, there is no shortage of areas likely to ignite on this continent.
@ -637,9 +638,9 @@ French arms manufacturers are concerned about the current evolution of the arms
Among the most notable deliveries are that to Taiwan of 60 Mirage 2000-5 by Dassault-Aviation in 1996 and 6 La Fayette frigates by DCN carried out very discreetly at the end of January 1998, with advance settlement in order to avoid any blockage of mainland China.
The armament of a potential conflict zone is thus strengthened. Another is increasingly emerging in the Indian subcontinent:
Pakistan has secured the modernization of 40 Mirage 3 Dassault, the delivery of 3 Atlantic 1 aircraft and especially the supply of 3 Agosta submarines by the Directorate of Shipbuilding.
This last market poses the problem of “compensations” since the third submarine is to be built in Karachi thanks to the transfer of French technology.
This last market poses the problem of \enquote{compensations} since the third submarine is to be built in Karachi thanks to the transfer of French technology.
Other cases include that of 30 AS 532 Cougar helicopters for Turkey, destined like the twenty others purchased in 1993 for repression against the Kurds, which Eurocopter has pledged to let Ankara produce.
These “compensations” depriving them of an expected profit are one of the current concerns of the armaments capitalists.
These \enquote{compensations} depriving them of an expected profit are one of the current concerns of the armaments capitalists.
They are also concerned that the orders placed in 1996-1997 (e.g. 40 Mirage 2000 by Abu Dhabi to Dassault-Aviation, 12 helicopters by Saudi Arabia and 5 by Israel to Eurocopter, Mistral missiles to Matra by Indonesia and Exocet missiles to Aerospace by Oman and Qatar) will be insufficient to ensure activity in future years.
The limited reduction in equipment and research appropriations linked to a certain staggering over time of the programmes of the 1997-2002 military programming law contributes to their pessimism.
The diversification of activities and reconversion protecting employment are desirable outcomes that the popular movement alone can impose on those who fear that they will not generate as much profit as the machines of death.
LaTeX Anon
1 year ago