The Ruling Class Tremble: Global Civil War & the Strategy of Tension

Posted: May 4, 2015 in Uncategorized

 ruling class tremble

I wrote The Ruling Class Tremble following a request from the editors of an online magazine for an article about fear. It appears the article won’t be published in the foreseeable future, so I’ve decided to post it  here. 

There are two groups of people the ruling class fears the most – each other and us. Because of these fears, the different factions of capital both compete and cooperate with each other. Today, there is intensified struggle between different capitalist gangs who are putting neoliberalism, social democracy, state capitalism and fascism all on the table, to address multiple threats. As the current global order crumbles, ‘a many headed hydra’ of resistance, rebellion and revolt rises to challenge the system, compelling those who benefit most from capitalism to find some common ground. In this article I explore the ‘global civil war’ within capitalism and the ‘global strategy of tension’ deployed to maintain capitalism, highlighting the fear of ‘our rulers’, how they maintain their power, and how they try to subdue those who oppose them.

I write this article with some apprehension. In exploring things I dread, I’m nervous about adding to other people’s anxiety and distress. In the past, I’ve written about the horrors of capitalism keeping in mind the advice of Raymond Williams that a vital task is to make “hope practical, rather than despair convincing”. My own hope is based on the continued existence of class struggle and the social movements opposing capitalism. However, because we often lack a common language to explore the diversity and complexity of revolutionary practices and perspectives, I also worry that my deployment of certain words will hinder people’s engagement with what’s being discussed. For instance, like Toni Negri and Michael Hardt, I use the term multitude to name the contemporary proletariat. The multitude is a political project brought into existence through collective struggle against capital and for freedom, democracy, peace and love. Hardt and Negri name this self-organised project the ‘multitude’ to try and convey the numerous, diverse, and fluid subjectivities and praxes of those in struggle. Although at times they do not, I use the terms ‘proletariat’ and ‘multitude’ interchangeably, to describe the class that struggles against capital and produces alternative social relations.

Hardt and Negri also argue that “all of the world’s current armed conflicts, hot and cold . . . should be considered imperial civil wars, even when states are involved”. The combatants are engaged in power struggles within the hierarchies of global capitalist power. This civil war “is defined by overlapping networks that conflict, in one common space, along a multiplicity of modulating fronts” and involves the continuous blurring of distinctions between the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of the nation state. Geopolitics is now in permanent crisis as borders, identities, and controls are rendered increasingly unstable and constantly undermined, displaced and overrun.

Another reason I write with trepidation is due to a concern that people will dismiss my argument regarding the ‘strategy of tension’ as a ‘conspiracy theory’. For some time I’ve wanted to write about the networked violence of contemporary counter-revolution, which I describe as a ‘global strategy of tension’. This strategy aims to spread and generalise social fear and this fear motivates people to accept the increasing repression of police/military/security/terrorist states. Faced with a world that often appears chaotic, it can be difficult to comprehend the level of planning involved in maintaining the capitalist system. However, there’s ample evidence that powerful groups do conspire to foster terror and war. This obviously includes terror states, like Islamic State. Other examples are provided by Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine which exposes how states and corporations create and exploit various forms of large scale destruction. Political and military violence can disorient people, destabilise or destroy social and economic relationships and institutions, paving the way for capitalist transformations. Such ‘structural adjustments’ intensify the struggle for survival, fomenting and manipulating antagonisms, generating further war and terror, undermining resistance by reshaping spaces, and disrupting the social networks that provide the basis for resistance.

To restrict, isolate and disorganise the multitude, capital uses its powers to organise and manage nationalist and fundamentalist forces, and deploys its military and police to create both order and chaos. Contemporary fascism creates despotic hierarchies that constantly and relentlessly pits differences, identities and individualities against each other. Fascist and terrorist groups foster hatred, fear and social divisions, deepening and justifying their crusades, jihads and race wars.

Michael Hardt says that while it may appear that Klein’s notion of ‘disaster capitalism’ “involves an elaborate conspiracy theory”, this “is not really conspiracy . . . it is planning”, but as both he and Klein point out, much of this planning is done in secret. David Harvey has also drawn attention to the profitability of contemporary wars for sections of capital and the widespread concern that these wars “have been secretly engineered for corporate advantage”. While recently, in the wake of further revelations about the Bush administration’s ‘war on terror’, even the New York Times joined calls to investigate this “vast criminal conspiracy, under color of law, to commit torture and other serious crimes.”

Global Civil War

ruling

Capitalism’s economic, financial and political structures are relations of force. The fear of harm and the constant and coordinated application of violence are used to maintain social hierarchies, social anxiety and conflict. The imposition of commodified labour depends on continual violence and terror to enclose people, land, property and social relations in the capitalist machine by attempting to break human solidarity, divide people and pit them against each other. This is because of the continual struggles to create and extend non-capitalist alternatives. Global war is constructed as a permanent social relation because the proletariat, rather than consenting, is continuously antagonistic, its power countered by repression, war and terror.

While war mongers and terrorists have a great deal of power, and have succeeded to maim, kill and destroy on a wide scale, it’s crucial we don’t over-estimate their power, become despondent, or fail to appreciate the continuing powerful rebellions against their ‘divide and rule’ strategies. For example, the Abbott government is incredibly weak. They’re unable to pass much of their legislation, they’re widely unpopular (as are the ALP), they’re internally divided, and they have no clear strategic vision regarding the growing crises of capitalism. The Coalition’s menacing budget and alarming policies have been met with widespread opposition, leaving them exposed. To divert attention, and in order to appear more powerful, they’ve attempted to embroil Australian police/armed forces in the civil war in Ukraine, and, when that went nowhere, have ramped-up the local ‘war-on-terror’ and relaunched military action in Iraq. This doesn’t indicate their strength; but their vulnerability and weakness. Similarly, the militarisation of states, the reinforcement of borders, urban lockdowns, the privatisation of war, the proliferation of internment camps and spreading technologies of control, indicate the fragility of states and their inability to accomplish domination.

In 2001, when President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” he sent a clear message to all. Any conceivable threat to those in power is branded as terrorism, justifying the pre-emptive use of terror, torture, execution, invasion and occupation. The war on terror brought the real nature of the global class war out of the shadows. States have become more coercive, more akin to military/police states, with increasing recourse to the politics of social alarm and racism, while state activities have become more secretive, unaccountable and corrupt. The war on terror is more accurately a war of terror, which has diffused fear and violence across the globe.

I have written elsewhere about the ‘state of exception’ and ‘state of emergency’, seen in Australia most recently during the Brisbane G20 meeting, involving the abolition of legal, civic, and human rights and a pre-meditated plan to repress and terrorise ‘trouble makers’. As the rhetoric of the authorities creates an intensifying atmosphere of danger and menace, it’s clear they’re trying to threaten and intimidate people, to deter them from resisting, and attempting to demonise those who do. The Brisbane G20 meeting was a spectacle of violence, demonstrating and imposing the power of capital, and the organisation of the event was intended to create a ‘climate of fear’. The authorities launched the largest police operation in Australian history, parts of Brisbane were ‘ringed with steel’, newspaper headlines warned of a coming ‘battle’ as ‘cops vow to crush ferals’, military helicopters circled overhead, Air Force jets patrolled the sky, and alarmist news bulletins declared Russian warships were threatening Australia. In a major speech leading up to G20, the Russian President explained that “changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts”. While, at the G20 meeting, the U.S. President vowed to use military might to protect American interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

Growing alarm and disagreements amongst the G20 participants, over how to tackle the environmental crisis, indicate one reason why a ‘climate of fear’ is what those in power are planning, organising and preparing for. But they also face mounting economic, financial, political and social crises, including an upsurge of popular revolts.

courier-mail2
Maintaining capitalism requires the expression of its destructive power and war is profitable. The material benefits of global civil war to factions of capital include a financial boost for the military and military corporations through increased ‘defence spending’. Military corporations are an important component of global capital and clearly have a vested interest in the violent imposition of authoritarian power on a global scale. Military industries continue to rely on states for most of their money and states continue to rely on the war machine to suppress the multitude.

However, “the monopoly of violence no longer belongs to nation states: the market has put it up for auction”. For me, the most memorable part of The Shock Doctrine is a speech delivered by then U.S. Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, to the staff of the Pentagon. On the day before the 9/11 attacks, he denounced the Pentagon bureaucracy as a serious threat to the security of the United States, announcing; “This adversary is one of the world’s last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas.” This declaration of war within the Pentagon was part of the Bush administration’s push to create a privatised police/military state at home and abroad, what Naomi Klein describes as “the pinnacle of the counterrevolution” launched by neo-liberalism to “devour the core” of government. Now, the “role of government [was] merely to raise the money necessary to launch the new war market, then buy the best products that emerge out of that creative cauldron, encouraging industry to even greater innovation” in “a fully privatised war built to have no end”. The partial privatisation of the U.S. military and the growth of the Chinese military’s worldwide business empire are just two indicators of the growing interconnection of military structures and industries within a global Military Industrial Complex. Military firms are increasingly for sale on the open market, with fewer permanent ties to any single nation state.

Global corporations, governments and military elites sponsor the ‘planned chaos’, lawlessness and widespread violence which are the lifeblood of the ‘free market’. As the booming ‘security industries’ and ‘security states’ expand and profit from global civil war, political and social chaos fosters the formation of viciously competitive gangs. In his latest book David Harvey details a range of illegal activities which are crucial to capitalist appropriation, such as robbery, cheating, and swindling, along with a range of ‘shady practices’ such as price fixing, Ponzi schemes, falsification of asset valuations, interest rate manipulation, money laundering, etc. arguing; “it is stupid to seek to understand the world of capital without engaging with the drug cartels, traffickers in arms and the various mafias and other criminal forms of organisation that play such a significant role in world trade”.

As the corruption of the capitalist system increases, the distinction between the criminal and the legal blurs as gangsters, mercenaries, terrorists, private and state security operatives, become interchangeable. Global civil war involves a whole range of capitalist thugs – corporate thugs, criminal thugs, political thugs, terrorist thugs, with no clear distinction between them. Their gangs play important roles in the declared and proxy wars of major powers. However, the different groups fighting ‘for’ a certain nation state also have their own interests, which often diverge from those of their patrons. Different factions of capital struggle over local, national and global power. There is no united capitalist, or state, stance, as all states are factionalised, conflicted and contradictory.

The clashing interests of capitalists means that while some have benefited, the ‘war of terror’ has also had damaging effects on global production and trade and has undermined established economic, political and military networks. For example, post 9/11 U.S.A. unilateralism has been profitable for some U.S.A.-based capital and capital closely tied to U.S.A. state forms. But the downside has included increasing hostility by other sections of capital, which are tending to cooperate with each other to the detriment of the U.S.A. There has been a significant increase in financial, economic, political and military challenges to the U.S.A. from the important states of India, Russia, Brazil, Iran and China, as well as others. Yet, in a globalised world, any power play by supposed national sections of capital, or by sectors opposed to the ‘Washington consensus’, cannot and does not affect only U.S.A.-based capital. Likewise, states imposing sanctions on Russia, over the conflict in Ukraine, have found that economic growth has slowed elsewhere.

Different elites, states, governments, parties, and corporations act as part of the global ruling class, as well as ‘strategic competitors’ with relative degrees of power. Opposing factions within each of these groups also struggle over their plans and practices. Capitalist elites regularly condemn each other for suppressing ‘their own people’, treat each other as dangerous enemies, support factions that oppose their competitors, and also cooperate with each other to attack the same groups. Administrations that appear to be opposed to each other, like the Bush, Gadhafi and Assad regimes, have cooperated as part of clandestine fascist infrastructures, such as when the CIA secretly sent terror suspects to Libya and Syria for torture under extraordinary rendition. In the global civil war the weakening of one node of imperial power can lead to the strengthening of others. So, we need to be careful about taking sides with one section of capital against another. We should also recognise that civil war pervades the multitude and includes the regimented, authoritarian and violent subjectivities capitalism produces within us all.

Counter-revolution: A Global Strategy of Tension

counter 1

counter 2

In analysing the Paris Commune in The Civil War in France, Karl Marx pointed out that the first decree of the Commune was the abolition of the standing army and the substitution for it of “all citizens capable of bearing arms”. The Commune publicly burnt the guillotine and demolished the Victory Column as a symbol of national hatred. As the ruling class prepared for war, the organised workers of France, Germany and England sent each other messages of solidarity, demonstrating to Marx “that a new society is springing up, whose International rule will be Peace”. However this “new society” was confronted by the “conspiracy of the ruling class to break down the Revolution by a civil war”. Even after the “most tremendous war of modern times, the conquering and the conquered” capitalist states that had been fighting each other fraternised “for the common massacre of the proletariat”. This demonstrated to Marx that war was intended to defer the struggle of classes and that “the national Governments are one as against the proletariat!”

The contemporary use of civil war by the ruling class, to break down revolution, continues to massacre much of the proletariat. Despite their differences, the elite factions of capital have a common enemy – the multitude’s self-organisation, made up of a complex ‘network of networks’ or ‘movement of movements’. When the global ‘war of terror’ was declared, this network/movement transformed itself into the largest ever global peace movement. More recently, we have seen anti-austerity, ‘real democracy’, and anti-neoliberal movements occupy squares and workplaces, launch a wave of general strikes, and overthrow governments. In response to the GFC there have been significant protests in Bulgaria, Italy, Iceland, England, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Spain and France. The Greek uprising sparked a ‘fear of Europe in flames’ and was soon followed by a wave of strikes and workplace occupations against retrenchments and wage cuts from Canada to Turkey, from Argentina to South Korea. At the same time, the level of protests, strikes and rural uprisings has significantly increased in China, India and Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the Occupy movement transformed streets and parks across the globe in a challenge to the ‘one percent’. In Japan, a powerful anti-nuclear movement emerged after the Fukushima disaster, inspiring similar movements in Germany, Italy and elsewhere. In South America, after a decade of radical upheaval from Argentina to Venezuela, Chilean students organised strikes, boycotted classes and occupied buildings, plunging the government into perpetual crisis. To their north a powerful rebellion of Quebec students did the same. In North Africa, the Middle East, and the Arabian peninsula a wave of uprisings destabilised authoritarian regimes and toppled dictatorships. While around the world a powerful and growing environmental movement increasingly targets corporate power and the capitalist system. These are just some examples of contemporary insurrections destabilising the global order.

  In response to the upsurge of rebellions, counter-revolutionary violence has been unleashed in many parts of the world. This has involved traditional armed forces, police, mercenaries, terrorists, state and private ‘security’ and ‘intelligence’ agencies and the clandestine fascist networks and infrastructures of capital and its various state forms.

The ‘global strategy of tension’ is a further refinement and intensification of a long-term capitalist strategy, attempting to subvert and utilise the organisational methods developed by the multitude in its struggles against capital. This capitalist ‘net war’ recognises that peace benefits the multitude and that violence tends to hinder revolutionary struggles and reproduce capitalism. In a complex and fluid world, and with multiple crises and growing rebellions to deal with, the challenge for counter-revolutionary strategists is to transform military, police and intelligence forces into networks, in order to fight effectively the global networks of the multitude. Those opposing capital have no country and the multiude’s revolution is global. Therefore, capital requires global networked policing and military forces to manage, manipulate, and attack the flexible and mobile networks of resistance and revolt.

The term ‘strategy of tension’ originates from Italy. At the end of World War Two, sections of the victorious Allied forces, the American and English Secret Services, the Mafia, and defeated fascist forces within Italy, formed an anti-communist ‘cold war’ alliance. During the late 1960s and 1970s, a secret network of police, paramilitary and fascist groups with ties to the Italian and other nations’ secret services developed a coordinated strategy involving terrorist attacks and infiltration of the powerful and militant left. The strategy, involving a series of provocations, bombings and other violent assaults, targeted the general public, spread social panic and directly attacked the militant left, provoking an armed response. This helped to justify increased state power under the pretext of a ‘national emergency’, divided progressive movements, and isolated the militant left from popular support.

Since then, the ‘strategy of tension’ has become widespread. Today the ‘strategy of tension’ is used by a whole range of capitalist gangs and the target isn’t only ‘the left’, but the multitude – all of those struggling against capital and its state forms. A consistent part of this strategy is to link proletarian movements with violence, the better to divide, demoralise, demonise and attack them. Capitalist states overtly and covertly intensify acts of violence and provocations, encouraging those who are considered a threat, to use violence to defend themselves or as an offensive tactic. The ‘strategy of tension’ involves the infiltration of movements and organisations to encourage them to use violence that can then be exposed and blamed on ‘enemies of the state’, ‘thugs’ and ‘terrorists’. Reluctant sections of the police and armed forces are also targeted and goaded into attacking those defying them. Violence from state opponents can leave security forces with little choice but to defend themselves against attack, helping to justify their violence as self-defence. The escalation of violence increases social tension, fear, terror and repression, which is then used to justify retaliation and further violence, fear, terror and repression.

The ‘strategy of tension’ attempts to pit ‘non-violent’ and ‘violent’ sections of movements against each other. Many people would agree that those under military attack have a right to engage in armed struggle and it’s clear there can be no peace without justice. Like many others, I have been impressed by some armed groups, such as the Zapatistas and the Kurdish fighters currently defending Kobane from ISIS (see my previous article The Comrade with the Gun Has the Floor for further discussion of defensive and ‘democratic violence’). People who are under attack need to defend themselves and at times violence is unavoidable. But often, when anti-capitalists have been driven to take up arms out of despair and desperation (e.g. the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, Weather Underground) the intensification of confrontation fosters vanguardism, militarisation and terrorist attacks, assisting those in power to consolidate their control and deflecting attention from the violence and oppression of the ruling class. Provocations help to militarise struggles, encouraging a deployment of modes of resistance (such as guerrilla armies and terrorist cells) that remain captured by and help to reproduce the authoritarian social relations of capital. As the ‘strategy of tension’ promotes hopelessness within rebellious movements, state forces and armed vanguards fight each other like opposite reflections in the same mirror. Caught in the crossfire, much of the progressive movements are eliminated, divided, and weakened by state repression, splits and demoralisation.

seattle 2 copy
The long history of security and intelligence agencies’ roles in infiltrating, undermining and attacking social movements, destabilising progressive governments, and carrying out assassinations, coups, and mass murders, is both well-known and hidden. I have written elsewhere about the subversion of protest and social movements by police, secret service spies and provocateurs. For example; following the 1999 ‘Battle of Seattle’, the F.B.I., police anti-terrorism divisions, the U.S. military’s anti-terrorist commandos and Army Intelligence units were all deployed to monitor and infiltrate the alter-globalisation movement; at the Genoa 2001 G8 protests, the ‘black bloc’ were infiltrated by police and fascists; in 2006, pre-Melbourne G20 protest meetings were attended by police spies, enabling them and anti-terrorism units to have plenty of photos to round up suspects in their ensuing Operation Salver; the infiltration of Melbourne’s activist and community groups over the next two years, by Victorian Police’s secret intelligence unit, was exposed in 2008; while leading up to the Sydney APEC protests in 2007, NSW police intelligence groups attempted to recruit spies from within protest groups and neo-Nazis tried to blend in with anarchists during the main anti-APEC demo. The Australia Security Intelligence Organisation, ‘Australia’s leading counter-terrorism agency’, has been providing intelligence to the federal government on environmental groups that campaign against coalmining and U.K. police have faced a mounting crisis as their activist spying operations have unravelled. And, back in the U.S.A., official documents have exposed “what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent . . . a terrifying network of coordinated Department of Homeland Security, FBI, police, and private-sector activity” targeting the Occupy movement.

These covert operations aren’t just to gather information. In Quebec during alter-globalisation demos in 2007, police disguised themselves as part of the ‘black bloc’ and were shown on the nightly news armed with rocks to throw at riot police; when police infiltrated protest groups leading up to the G20 summit in Canada, 2010, they played central roles in helping to identify targets to be vandalised in downtown Toronto; and when five people involved in the U.S. Occupy movement were arrested on May Day, 2012, on terrorism charges, the Guardian newspaper explained this was “a familiar set-up in which the FBI fishes for dupes it can manipulate with informants and agents who stroke their marks, plant ideas, suggest the plans, provide money, weapons, vehicles and then heroically foil a terrorist act of the FBI’s own design. Since September 11, scores of these entrapment cases have been sprung on Muslims in America. It appears the Occupy Wall Street movement is now worthy of the same treatment”.

Violent provocations are part of a ‘global strategy of tension’ where military, political and financial networks that profit from increased military and security spending and the spread of conflict, destruction, fear and paranoia, maintain and strengthen their authoritarian controls. Today, it is widely understood that the CIA helped to create, fund, arm, and train the terrorist network now known as al Qaeda (and from which ISIS emerged), as part of a covert anti-communist, drugs, arms and terror network. The impacts of that conspiracy have reshaped the world, fostering dispersed and decentralised sectarian and mercenary violence. Today, terrorist groups use the strategy of tension to maintain an unending spiral of ‘backlashes’, helping to strengthen violent state forms, fascist groups, extreme right-wing parties and governments.

In the past few years, the intensification of bloodshed during the ‘Arab Spring’ has stained the non-violent aspects of struggle and has spread more widely. A whole range of counter-revolutionary gangs have conspired to suppress, derail and undermine revolutionary uprisings. Many states have trained, supported and unleashed terrorist groups and their own ‘special forces’, and encouraged the rapid militarisation of conflicts and vicious sectarian gang rivalry, helping to foster factional divisions amongst the multitude, while installing and legitimising military leaders and warlords as political and economic elites. The escalation of bloodshed in Iraq, Libya, and Syria has terrified many, undermining a global peace movement that had succeeded in restricting capital’s room to manoeuvre. Following widespread defiance of capitalist forces, and the apparent failures of the ‘war on terror’, recent military action is part of a concerted push to again free up the use of extreme violence.

The depth and breadth of global revolt is a serious challenge to economic, financial, military and political elites. It involves rising anger at governments, political parties, banks and the rich, a revolt against dictatorship – against oligarchs, oppressive regimes, the rule of the market and the dictatorship of capital. When the ideological facades that defend corporations and capitalist states are exposed, the ruling class is left with little more than the exercise of force to defend itself, further demonstrating the nature of violently oppressive regimes that should be demolished. This is why recent revolts have included mutinies against security and surveillance states, against the power of the military and police, against unending war, against the militarisation of society, police repression, and the expanding of security regimes. The predictable response from authorities has been to try and terrify us, to convince us that we are in danger from each other; that only a strong state, increased police and secret service powers, more repressive laws, greater spending on armed forces, and increased surveillance and police/military action, can protect us.

‘We are not afraid!’

not afraid
The intensification of capitalist aggression and the ‘global strategy of tension’ mean that the multitude’s relations to violence are vitally important. At times defensive violence may be necessary, but there is no ‘good’ violence. Militant non-violence helps to counter the demonisation of those who rebel and exposes the violent practice and intent of capitalist power. Instead of being caught up in an escalating competition of violence, the multitude can come together in powerful collective action, create spaces for different points of view, and deploy fluid and varied tactics. Although military juntas remain in power, and civil war, counter-revolutionary aggression, terror and social crisis continue, recent setbacks and failures shouldn’t prevent us from appreciating how proletarian struggles put pressure on capital, aggravate inter-capitalist competition, and create alternative peaceful social relations.

Ultimately, the choice capitalism offers the multitude is class surrender or death. Yet, those who demonstrated in Brisbane against the G20 defied attempts to frighten them. They joined many others who refuse to be threatened, intimidated or forced into compliance and silence. After suffering years of dictatorship and brutal repression, from the heart of the Arab Spring came the cry “We are not afraid anymore.” More recently, in Mexico, when forty three students were disappeared/murdered by the local mayor, police, and an allied crime gang, protesters rallied around the slogan ‘I’m tired of fear’. And in Ferguson Missouri and Baltimore Maryland, despite being confronted by paramilitary forces willing to kill those who resist them, local residents and their supporters continue to challenge police brutality, militarisation and injustice, maintaining a wave of protests across the U.S.A. This type of bravery scares those in power. They know the more we share our fears, the more we make connections with others who share these fears, and the more we take courageous action based on our common concerns, the more likely it is we can declare – ‘We are not afraid!’ Let the ruling class tremble.

Nick Southall

SOURCES
Hardt, M. and Negri, A., 2004, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, Penguin Press, New York.
Harvey, D., 2005, A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Harvey, D., 2014, Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, Profile Books, London.
Klein, N., 2007, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Allen Lane, Victoria.
Negri, A., 2008, Reflections on Empire, Polity, Cambridge.
Williams, R., 1982, ‘The Politics of Nuclear Disarmament’, in New Left Review (ed.), Exterminism and Cold War, Verso, London, pp. 65-85.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. […] The Ruling Class Tremble: Global Civil War & the Strategy of Tension […]

  2. […] The Ruling Class Tremble: Global Civil War & the Strategy of Tension […]

  3. […] antiwar movement being the central example – (this is a long running point of debate with Nick at Revolts Now). Humphrey and Peter pointed out to me recently that I have ignored the campaign against […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s