Progress Publishers
Moscow
Translated from the Russian by Joseph Shapiro Designed by Yuri Lylov
P. 4>apaMa3flH
PA3OPV>KEHHE H 3KOHOMHKA Ha QHSAUUCKOM jfjbiKe
__COPYRIGHT__ © HsflarejibCTBO ,,Mbicjib" 1978There is no more urgent task facing mankind today than to stop the arms race and achieve real disarmament. World peace and security, the vital interests of all nations, the destinies not only of the present but of future generations depend on the solution of this global issue. The arsenals of opposing military-political blocs and states have become so large that war would inflict an irreparable blow to civilisation and to the very existence of the human race.
Thanks to the changes in the alignment of world forces in favour of socialism, to the consistent struggle of the USSR, other socialist countries, and all progressive movements for peace, the 1970s were marked by a turn from the cold war to international detente. Highly important in this respect was consistent realisation of the foreign policy programmes of the 24th and 25th congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The development of national liberation and working-class movements is having a beneficial impact on detente. The mass movement of peace forces for cessation of the arms race and for genuine steps towards disarmament has substantially contributed to improving the international climate.
The latter half of the seventies has been marked by an intensive struggle of two lines in world affairs: the line of bridling the arms race and strengthening peace and detente, on the one hand, and the line of disrupting detente, escalating the arms race, of threats and interference in other countries' affairs, on the other.
Thunderclouds gathered on the international horizon by the beginning of the eighties. In the circumstances, said CC CPSU General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev at the 26th Congress of the CPSU, "the Soviet Union continued to persevere in efforts to remove the threat of war and to preserve and deepen detente, and acted to expand mutually beneficial cooperation with most countries of the world''. However, political detente is still to be supplemented by military detente. The arms race is continuing with increasing intensity. Imperialism does not renounce military force as the major instrument of its policy and is continuously stepping up war preparations seeking to gain military supremacy over the socialist countries. With that in view, huge sums are being spent on further developing the armed forces and modernising existing armaments and creating 6 new, more destructive weapons. Imperialist circles and representatives of the military-industrial complexes of NATO member-states are especially active in this field. They come out against detente and seek to step up the arms race and revert to cold war policies based on "positions of strength''.
The continually increasing arms race involves a growing threat to international peace and security. It is the principal destabilising factor in the international situation; it is undermining the successes of political detente and enhancing the danger of a world nuclear war, and is accompanied by continued build-up of the already huge military arsenals.
From year to year, increasingly large social forces are coming out on the international scene against the dangerous and wasteful arms race, for ensuring real security for all nations. In recent years, a wide range of problems relating to limitation of the arms race and disarmament, including the various socio-economic aspects of this multiform issue, have been discussed at the UN and other international meetings. Examination of the economic and social problems of disarmament creates further important and complex issues. It also involves quests of possible ways for switching over manpower and material resources from military to civilian objectives, for determining impacts on economic development, levels of unemployment, etc. These discussions have been characterised by an acute political and ideological struggle.
In order to justify the arms race, the advocates of militarism, in addition to staging a noisy propaganda campaign for intimidating broad popular masses with the non-existent "Soviet threat'', are claiming that military spendings allegedly stimulate economic development and scientific and technological progress and promote lesser unemployment and weakening of economic crises. On the other hand, they claim that disarmament would inescapably lead to economic recession, greater unemployment and other misfortunes. The champions of the arms race, primarily representatives of the military-industrial complex, are using these myths, so widespread in the West, in order to weaken the struggle of the popular masses against the arms race and intimidate them with the socio-economic consequences of disarmament.
A comprehensive study of the socio-economic aspects of the arms race and of disarmament is becoming exceedingly important for exposing before the world public the untenability of these false assertions and for revealing the actual economic 7 __NOTE__ Odd page numbers are LEFT justified! Visually, cannot tell recto and verso apart. and social consequences of a switch-over of the arms industry to civilian production.
The arms race deprives mankind of the possibility of creatively using huge labour, intellectual, material, financial and other resources. The nations of the world have to pay an exceedingly high price for the arms race, which moreover weakens their economic potential, slows down and disbalances the economic development of many states and essentially limits their possibilities in the fight against poverty, disease, illiteracy and in tackling other vital socio-economic issues.
Disarmament would free the world not only from the dangers of a nuclear holocaust, but also from the burdens of war preparations. It would promote development of economy, improve living standards, and noticeably accelerate socioeconomic progress of all countries, including the developing ones.
``To safeguard peace---no task is more important now on the international plane for our Party, for our people and, for that matter, for all the peoples of the world... Not war preparations that doom the peoples to a senseless squandering of their material and spiritual wealth, but consolidation of peace---that is the clue to the future,'' Leonid Brezhnev said at the 26th Congress of the CPSU.
Quite a number of research papers on disarmament have appeared throughout the world in the post-war years. The struggle for peace and for achieving real successes in disarmament requires greater attention to an all-round theoretical study of this multiform problem, some aspects of which have not been sufficiently elucidated in relevant literature. The chief purpose of this book is to comprehensively examine the economic and social aspects of disarmament. In my view, they cannot be studied deeply enough without taking into consideration the militarisation of the economy and all social life, which in some countries has attained an unprecedented scope. Using vast factual material, this book examines the scale of military spending, the militarisation of economy and science, the mechanism stimulating the arms race, as well as its negative socio-economic consequences. It shows the untenability of bourgeois concepts which maintain that to switch over military production to civilian needs would be economically and technically unfeasible and would result in dangerous socioeconomic consequences. It analyses the possibilities for switching over manpower, material and financial resources from the 8 military to the civilian sphere. I also examine alternatives for the peaceful use of resources saved from disarmament. I contrast its positive effects and switch-over of military production to economic development and the solution of urgent social problems with the baneful consequences of the arms race.
In examining the issues set forth herein, I have naturally taken into account the political, military, technological and other major aspects of the problem of disarmament, without however subjecting them to special scrutiny.
When writing this book, I used the works of Soviet and foreign authors on specific problems of disarmament, UN documents and other materials, including those dealing with the economics and politics of modern capitalism published by researchers of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations, USSR Academy of Sciences.
[9] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter I __ALPHA_LVL1__ Cessation of the Arms Race and Disarmament---We begin our study of the economic and social aspects of disarmament by analysing the military expenditures of individual states and the factors underlying the arms race in capitalist countries. This will show in concentrated form, first, the vast material resources systematically diverted from peaceful use to military purposes and, second, the tremendous positive impact that a switch-over of these resources can have on the economic and social development in the countries of the world.
Throughout the entire history of mankind, preparations for wars and the wars themselves required large material and manpower resources. The absolute and relative sums of military spending increased with development of the productive forces and the modernisation of armaments. They reached their peak in the imperialist stage of capitalism. In the 19th century, warring nations spent an average of 8-14 per cent of their national incomes on armed conflicts. During the First World War, however, the corresponding figures were as follows: Austria-Hungary 24.2 per cent, Britain 36.9 per cent, Germany 31.6 per cent, Italy 19.2 per cent, Russia 24.1 per cent, France 25.6 per cent, and the United States 15.5 per cent.^^1^^ During the Second World War, these figures were even higher: 43.4 per cent for the US, 55.7 per cent for Britain, and 67.8 per cent for Germany.^^2^^
The Second World War unleashed by Nazi Germany was the bloodiest ever experienced by humanity. More than sixty countries took part. A total of 110,000,000 men were mobilised, and the total losses in manpower were about 55,000,000. The war also entailed huge material expenditures. Direct military spending alone amounted to 1,117 thousand million dollars (compared with 208 thousand million dollars in the First _-_-_
~^^1^^ Harvey E. Fisk, The Inter-Ally Debts. An Analysis of War and Post-War Public Finance 1914--1923, Bankers Trust Company, New York-Paris, 1924, p. 21.
^^2^^ A. Alexeyev, Military Finances of Capitalist States, Gospolitizdat, Moscow, 1952, p. 112 (in Russian).
10 World War), and if we add the cost of devastations and other losses, the total would amount to almost 4,000 thousand million dollars. A considerable part of the economic and manpower resources of the conflicting nations was used for the huge demands of the battlefront and all their economies had to be oriented to the military. The main burden of the Second World War was borne by the Soviet Union, whose armed forces played a decisive role in routing Nazi Germany.Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the capitalist countries, headed by the United States, began to pursue a cold war policy and build up its material foundation for future policies to be carried out from the "position of strength''. This initiated an unprecedented arms race and a huge military machine was built. All of this was accompanied by the rapid development of militarism and intensified propaganda based on the cult of military strength.
In all the stages of post-war development, the military and economic preparations of the capitalist states were mainly conducted under the slogan of anti-communism and antiSovietism. The advocates of the cold war and militarism are trying to conceal the true reasons for their military spending and to justify them by the myth of a "communist threat" and the necessity of ``defence'' against "Soviet aggression''. However, reality has long ago debunked this myth and showed that the roots of militarism and the arms race were embedded in the economic and class character of capitalism.
The step-up of the arms race is chiefly due to the fact that the desire to use military strength as a means of foreign policy is inherent in modern capitalism. Huge war preparations are primarily conducted to counter socialism and national liberation movements. If in the past, contradictions and competition between capitalist states generally led to wars, today they are taking measures to resolve their differences and rivalries by peaceful means. They take into consideration that in the present conditions of the rapid development of world socialism, a war between themselves would be fraught with serious consequences for the entire system of capitalism. For that reason, the ruling circles in capitalist countries seek to strengthen their weakening positions by creating a common front against the socialist states and other progressive forces.
The period following the Second World War was marked by unprecedented military and political consolidation of the capitalist countries. They set up a system of aggressive military 11 blocs and concluded many inter-state treaties and agreements. The military and political alliance of imperialist states is based on the common class interests of monopolies and on anticommunism, the latter having been elevated to the rank of official policy. This consolidation was also largely caused and stimulated by the existing alignment of class forces on the international scene. It is an objective fact that no single capitalist state, no matter how powerful it may be, has sufficient possibilities to fight alone against the growing revolutionary forces of today. Hence, the capitalist countries headed by the United States are doing all they can to achieve greater integration of the military and economic potentials of modern capitalism. They reckon that by increasing military preparations they may change the course of historical development, consolidate their positions, and stop or at least slow down the continuing changes in the alignment of world forces in favour of socialism. In this connection, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet Leonid Brezhnev declared: "The fact is, that the aggressive circles of the capitalist world in the face of their defeats in social battles, their loss of colonial possessions, the increasing number of countries rejecting capitalism, the successes of world socialism and growing influence of communist parties in bourgeois states, are feverishly intensifying military preparations. Military budgets are swelling, new types of armaments are being created, bases are being set up, military demonstrations are taking place. Acting from the 'position of strength', imperialism seeks to preserve the possibility of dominating over other countries and nations, which is slipping away from it.''^^1^^
Bourgeois countries, primarily the United States, widely use their military strength as an instrument for pursuing a policy of neo-colonialism, suppression of national liberation movements, and elimination of progressive regimes in developing countries. Beginning from 1945, the United States is known to have resorted 215 times to the use of armed force in pursuit of its own interests on the international scene, and 33 times to threats of using nuclear weapons. American armed interference in the affairs of other nations reached its climax in Korea _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Speech at the Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on October 25, IV76, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1976, pp. 47--48.
12 (1950--1953) and especially in Indochina (late 1961-early 1973). The capitalist countries are responsible for the existing danger of new military conflicts in different areas of the globe, particularly in the Middle East and the south of Africa.With a view to preserving reactionary regimes and dictatorships in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the United States and other bourgeois countries continue to arm and train the military and police forces of those countries, and to that end export on a vast scale armaments for both their regular troops and police. According to Nation magazine, American manufacturers of weapons sold in 1974-- 1976 alone over 50,000 pistols, 10,000 submachine guns and rifles, 155,000 tear-gas grenades, 296 specially equipped armoured cars, etc., all for foreign police forces. This is true not only of the US government, but of private companies too, e. g. Smith and Wesson, Federal Labs., Inc., and others, train foreign police personnel. There is evidence that 409 American advises in 45 countries are providing professional and technical consultations on a regular basis.
Apart from aggressive plans against other countries, the current arms race in capitalist countries, unprecedented in scope and intensity, also pursues its political aims at home. In this connection, Lenin wrote: "Modern militarism is the result of capitalism. In both its forms 'the vital expression' of capitalism---as a military force used by the capitalist states in their external conflicts (Militarismus nach aussen, as the Germans say) and as a weapon in the hands of the ruling classes for suppressing every kind of movement, economic and political, of the proletariat (Militarismus nach innen)"^^1^^
The ruling circles of capitalist states use armed forces to safeguard the power of monopoly capital inside their own countries when the working-class movement becomes more intense and class conflicts more acute. During the war in Vietnam, between July 1, 1967 and March 1, 1971, when anti-war sentiments in the United States had become increasingly strong, the National Guard crushed civil disturbances 271 times. Over 280000 National Guardsmen were involved in the ``operations''.^^2^^ In 1975, they were used for similar purposes in seventeen cases. All the world knows of the bloody _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, "Bellicose Militarism'', Collected Woi-ks. Vol. 15, Moscow, 1963, p. 192.
^^2^^ Murray L. Weidenbaum, The Economics of Peacetime Defense, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1974, p. 100.
13 methods used by Pinochet's junta to overthrow the legitimate government of President Salvador Allende in Chile and to preserve the fascist regime there. On June 16, 1976, the South African racists drowned in blood a 10,000-strong peaceful demonstration of the blacks in Soweto, a suburb of Johannesburg. The Africans were protesting against racial and national oppression. The fascist authorities of South Africa killed hundreds of innocent people, including children, and jailed thousands of other demonstrators. The rulers in Pretoria hope that such methods will help them crush the Africans' will for liberation and thus consolidate the supremacy of the white minority in the country.For their political aims at home, the bourgeoisie seek to use not only their national armed forces, but also the military machine of international military blocs, particularly NATO. The leadership of NATO has repeatedly implied that in case of need, military means would be used also for suppressing democratic and working-class movements in the NATO countries.
NATO's leading circles openly interfere in the internal affairs of their member-nations and force the latter to take specific economic, military and political commitments. These circles come out against communist participation in Western governments, regarding it as a "serious threat to the free world''. The US Department of State has openly declared that America does not approve of communist participation in European governments, in Italy in particular. NATO's Secretary-General Joseph Luns, also declared that Communists should not be allowed into the governments of NATO's membernations, especially as ministers of finance, defence and foreign affairs.
The military-industrial complex, representing an alliance of military-industrial monopolies, the military and the state bureaucracy, is an important factor behind further intensification of the arms race. After the Second World War, such complexes appeared in a number of imperialist states, the material basis for their existence and enrichment being the arms race. That is why their representatives seek by all means to have the military budgets increased.
To obtain profitable orders, industrial companies specialising in arms production establish close connections with the legislative and executive bodies of respective governments and try to get their representatives appointed to prominent 14 positions in the military and other agencies. They often invite influential retired generals and officers to serve as managers and directors. In the United States, transfers of top managers from big monopolies specialising in military production to ministries and of retired officers and generals to those monopolies are called "revolving doors''. In recent years, mutually profitable exchange of personnel between the Pentagon and the military-industrial monopolies has become even more frequent.
The tremendous influence of the military-industrial complex on politics and on the intensification of the arms race is chiefly due to the fact that its activities are aimed at constantly increasing the military might of the capitalist states. This, by and large, corresponds to the general strategic, economic and political interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie, especially its most aggressive circles. Military strength is used as an instrument for retaining and consolidating the power of dominant exploiter classes within the country and safeguarding and expanding their spheres of influence abroad.
The activities of the military-industrial complexes and the dangerous arms race are getting increasing support primarily from monopolies that have considerable investments overseas. The total capital investments abroad of developed capitalist countries have grown from 123,000 million dollars in 1960 to 495,000 million dollars in 1976, the growth rates for the US, Britain, West Germany, France and Japan (direct investments only) are from 66 to 288, 23 to 75, 4 to 37, 5 to 30, and 2 to 16 thousand million dollars, respectively. These investments ensure monopolies high profits, sources of raw materials, and markets for their goods. To retain all these, corporations, especially the multinational ones, are interested in continued strengthening of the armed forces and their constant presence on foreign soil.
Speaking of the causes stimulating the arms race, one must also remember that the ruling circles of capitalist countries use military expenditures as a means of state monopoly control of economic development. This to a certain extent affects the dynamics and structure of military spending.
The United States and other bourgeois countries seek through the arms race to economically weaken the socialist countries. They want to slow down the economic development of the USSR and its socialist allies, and exhaust their economies. In this way they expect to get substantial advantages in the 15 competition with socialism. But facts have long proved that such calculations are in vain.
The current scientific and technological revolution involving the development of increasingly sophisticated weapons, the rapidly rising costs of military equipment, plus the higher spending on maintaining and training the armed forces, has a major impact on the size and structure of the military expenditures of the various capitalist countries in the post-war period.
War preparations in the capitalist countries are financed through their state budgets, and this makes it difficult to accurately assess and compare their military expenditure. Mounting inflation, changes in currency exchange rates, and falsifications on military spending complicate the issue even more. However, from official publications, one can get a general idea of the changes in the structure of military spending of the imperialist powers.
The United States, which after the Second World War had assumed the role of ``saviour'' towards capitalism, strived to gain world supremacy, and now ranks first in war preparations. It has a huge military complex for which enormous material and financial resources are constantly being used. In the fifties and sixties, America's share in all direct military speeding on the part of NATO member-states amounted to about 75 per cent. A major share of NATO's military production and military R & D projects is concentrated in the United States. The United States leads not only in its scope of military-- economic preparations, but also in its militarisation of the economy, science, the state budget and all social life.
The United States played a decisive part in setting up the military machine of modern capitalism; it initiated and organised the existing imperialist military blocs and helped its partners regain and strengthen their military and economic potential. They aided them to create their armed forces and equipped them with the modern means for waging war. For similar purposes, the US widely uses such important levers as the so-called aid to foreign countries, arms sales, etc. According to official figures, in 1945--1976 America provided aid to 140 countries in the sum of about 221,000 million dollars, including 145,000 million dollars worth of economic aid and 76,000 million dollars worth of military aid. Of the total 221,000 million dollars, 66,900 million were allocated to the Far East, 58,400 million to Europe, 42,200 million to the Middle East and South Asia, 23,700 million to Latin America, 8,000 million to Africa, 16 and 2,000 million to Oceania.^^1^^ American arms exports grew rapidly in the seventies.
In the post-war years, the United States built stragetic military bases on the soil of many foreign countries. By the end of the seventies, America had more than 200 big and nearly 2,000 small bases in 40 countries. At the end of 1978, 494,000 American servicemen were stationed outside the United States. Of these, 330,000 were in Western Europe, 137,500 in the Pacific and the Far East, and the rest in other areas of the world.
Military bases on foreign soil are the strongholds of US imperialism. They are located close to the frontiers of socialist countries and in areas from which Washington can immediately send troops to suppress national liberation movements. US military bases make the sovereignty and security of many states vulnerable, primarily in the countries where these bases exist; they are a source for intensifying inter-state conflicts and differences and are a major threat to peace. In recent years, Greece, Turkey, Thailand and other countries demanded that US military bases on their soil be dismantled or their status revised. The construction of a new military base by the Pentagon in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean also brought sharp protests.
In 1945/46--1980/81, US expenditures on so-called national defence^^2^^ came to over 2,215,000 million dollars. In the early seventies, US military spending remained on the same level and even declined somewhat. This was primarily due to the end of the Vietnam war and America's resultant ability to save considerable sums (annual wartime spending came to a figure as high as 30,000 million dollars). They could now reduce somewhat the overall military budget and allocate more money for modernising and strengthening the US military machine. Detente, chiefly the Soviet-American SALT agreements, helped somewhat contain further increases in military spending.
The arms race has also assumed vast scale in Western Europe. In the first half of the 1970s its military spending grew quicker than that of the United States (Table 1). According to our estimates, Western Europe's share in NATO's _-_-_
~^^1^^ U.S. News and World Report, November 1, 1976, pp. 55, 58.
^^2^^ This item includes spending? by the Department of Defense, the former US Atomic Energy Commission, and some other agencies.
17 total military spending increased from an average of 23 per cent in 1965--1970 to over 33 per cent in 1971--1976 while America's share decreased from 75 to 65 per cent. This was due to different factors, including growing US pressure on its allies to make them increase their military spending and take on a greater share in NATO's total expenditures. The United States is seeking to use its military, scientific, technological and economic supremacy to impose its own plans on Western Europe and compel it, in accordance with the concept of "mature partnership'', to increase its war preparations substantially. The relatively rapid growth of military spending on the part of NATO's West European member-states is also due to the fact that they seek to boost their military strength and be less dependent militarily and politically on America. They would also like to play a more conspicuous and independent role in NATO's affairs.The trend towards increasing Western Europe's share in NATO's overall military spending became stronger after the ten-nation Eurogroup was set up in the late sixties.^^1^^ The Eurogroup became an instrument for stepping up the arms race and increasing West European contribution to NATO's military programmes. Under American pressure, the Eurogroup pledged in 1970 to increase their military allocations to NATO by 1,000 million dollars. In subsequent years, their military expenditures continued to rapidly rise.
West European countries are characterised by different approaches to the issue of military budgets imposed on them through the NATO apparatus. West Germany, for instance, actively supports Washington's requests "not to weaken NATO's military efforts" and leads in boosting her military budget, while some other European countries state that they are for slowing down the further growth of military spending. However, these trends are meeting resistance from NATO's military and political leadership. When in March 1975, the British government disclosed in their Defence White Paper that they planned to reduce their armed forces in order to save 4,700 million pounds sterling in the next ten years, The New York Times reported that these plans "were promptly criticized in an unusual statement issued in Brussels by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization".^^2^^ But with the Conservative government coming _-_-_
~^^1^^ Among the NATO members that did not join the Eurogroup were France, Portugal and Iceland.
^^2^^ [TWO FOOTNOTE "1" IN BODY; ONLY ONE FOOTNOTE; 2nd superscript "1" changed to "2".]
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2--18 18 to power in Britain that country has redoubled its war preparations.For many years, West Germany has ranked second in NATO's military spending after the United States. Her share in NATO's total direct military expenditures has grown from 5.5 per cent in 1965--1970 to 11.1 per cent in 1976--1979. These expenditures are continuously and rapidly rising. From 1955 to 1963, i. e. when the Bundeswehr was being formed, the West German Defence Ministry alone spent 80,000 million Deutsche marks. Moreover, the expenses on maintaining occupation troops stationed in West Germany amounted to 15,000 million, and on civil defence 3,500 million Deutsche marks. Thus, West Germany's total military spending during the above-stated period equalled about 100,000 million Deutsche marks. In 1964--1969, the expenses of the West German Defence Ministry amounted to 110,000 million, and in the subsequent six years (1970--1975) to 153,000 million Deutsche marks. Georg Leber, former West German Defence Minister, stated that from
1970 to 1976 his country's military spending grew by 67 per cent. In 1976, the Bundeswehr spent 80 per cent more than in
1971 on new types of armaments. By 1980 West Germany's military expenses rose up to 38,800 million Deutsche marks. In actual fact they considerably exceed the figures contained in her defence budget, which does not include expenses on civil defence, maintenance of frontier guards and the military infrastructure, pensions for former servicemen, expenditures connected with the stay of foreign troops in West Germany, contributions to the so-called NATO civilian budget, ``aid'' to West Berlin, and many other items essentially military in nature.
France comes next after West Germany in military spending. In 1976--1979, her average share in NATO's total military expenses was 9.3 per cent, and her direct military expenditures grew from 20,800 million francs in 1965 to 88,600 million francs in 1980. According to official figures, France spent almost 177,000 million francs on only the 1971---1975 third programme for modernising her armed forces, including 81,300 million on developing and manufacturing armaments and military equipment. France allocates considerable sums for creating strategic nuclear = forces.^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ The New York Times, March 20, 1975. =
__NOTE__ NO SUPERSCRIPT 1 FOOTNOTE IN BODY ON THIS PAGE.
[NOTE: NO SUPERSCRIPT 1 FOOTNOTE IN BODY ON THIS PAGE.]
* Expenses are cited after NATO statistics, which somewhat differ from respective national statistics.
Compiled from: The Military Balance 1978--1979, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 1978. p.
Britain ranks fourth in NATO's military spendings. In 1971--1976 her share amounted to an average of 7.1 per cent. In 1976, the share of military expenses in her gross national product was 5.1 per cent. In this respect, she ranks second in NATO after the United States.^^1^^ Britain's military budget rose from 6,900 million pounds sterling in 1978/79 fiscal year to 10,800 million pounds sterling in 1980/81 fiscal year.
In the seventies, the military expenses of Canada and small West European countries also increased considerably (see Table 1).
As a whole, NATO is characterised by a long-term tendency towards increasing its allocations on military build-up. The total direct military expenses of all the NATO countries increased from 18,700 million dollars in 1949 to 54,100 million dollars in 1955, 61,300 million in 1960, 73,900 mil.'' ion in 1965, 103,000 million in 1970, 149,400 million in 1975 and 237,700 million in 1980. During the years 1949--1980, these aggregate military expenses amounted to more than 3,000 thousand million dollars, including more than 1,600 thousand million over the past decade alone. In order to get a clearer picture of the scale of these expenses, note that even taking into account price rises, they exceed the total military expenditures of capitalist states during the two world wars.
\
The absolute and relative data on military spending are i essentially synthesised figures providing an approximate idea | of the scope of strategic preparations of the individual NATO countries and of NATO as a whole. Yet, their significance, ; should not, to my mind, be absolutised: when analysing the ; arms race, these figures should be used cautiously. The point is that imperialist states are systematically taking different measures for improving the efficiency of military spending. . This is, in effect, a concealed form of stepping up the arms race, since it allows the increase of military power at relatively lesser costs. Furthermore, Western statistics minimise the true scale of military spending. According to our approximate estimates, the total concealed military spending in the US equals about 10 per cent, and in the West European NATO countries over 15 per cent of their overt direct military expenses.
In the United States, concealed direct and indirect military spendings relate to the Department of State, the National _-_-_
^^1^^ NATO Review, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30--31.
21 Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and some other agencies. Concealed direct military expenditures also involve various advance and credit payments. In the respective budgets, some military preparations are covered by reducing revenues, not through increasing expenditures. This, for instance, involves tax discounts for companies manufacturing military equipment, rights for accelerated depreciation of fixed assets, and other financial incentives for military production.The intensity and danger of the arms race also grow because in the post-war years the military and political consolidation of capitalist states was accompanied by their joint efforts in military preparations. In line with their common strategy, they are developing common current and long-term plans for building up armed forces within the framework of existing military blocs, NATO in particular; this also involves measures for achieving cooperation and specialisation in military-- economic preparations and specifying the respective share of each country in creating the bloc's "aggregate military power''.
Integration of the military preparations of NATO countries is assuming diverse forms. Airfields, missile bases, seaports, pipelines, oil reservoirs, anti-aircraft defence installations, communication lines and stations, depots, control stations and other facilities are being built in Western Europe under the programme of creating NATO's military infrastructure. In 1951--1970, 3,600 million dollars were spent on these purposes. The funds needed to implement this programme were accumulated through contributions by NATO member-nations in accordance with a coordinated principle under which each country pays a specified instalment.
Major attention is also given to integrating the military, industrial, scientific and technological efforts of NATO memberstates. This includes military R&D projects, inter-state specialisation and cooperation in military production, and exchanges of scientific and technical information and personnel. NATO also has a number of civilian bodies for planning military production; they coordinate and determine the forms and methods for organising cooperation in all kinds of militaryeconomic preparations.
NATO's political and military leadership considers it of major importance to have joint production because it also 22 promotes the standardisation of weapons and equipment. However, the member-states failed to attain its planned and desired levels of standardisation in many fields of their joint activities especially, in questions of armaments.
Integration of capitalist military preparations is taking place not only within NATO, but also through other military blocs and numerous bilateral treaties. To achieve this, capitalist countries have in recent years widely used the rapidly growing export of arms. The United States and other imperialist countries use arms supplies as an important means for drawing other nations into the arms race. By integrating and specialising military preparations, the capitalist countries seek, first, to create and maintain aggregate and balanced armed forces that cannot be supported by one country, even the richest. Second, this is a means of systematically increasing their common military and economic potentials.
The arms race has attained an impressive scope not only in NATO countries, but in other capitalist states as well. For example, Japan's military expenses in 1950--1975 amounted to 11,655,000 million yen, including 464,100 million for financing the first military programme of 1957/58--1961/62, 1,392,200 million for the second programme of 1962/63-- 1966/67, 2,587,600 million for the third programme of 1967/68--1971/72, and 5,905,800 million for the fourth programme of 1972/73--1976/77. Japan's military spending continues to rise rapidly: in 1976/77 it amounted to 1,512,400 million yen, and in 1979/80 2,230,000 million.^^1^^ Japan plans to allocate 12,000,000 million yen (40,000 million dollars) for her fifth military programme of 1977/78--1981/82. Her reactionary circles are seeking to "balance the nation's economic possibilities with its military might" and to modernise and strengthen her armed forces by equipping them with the most up-to-date weapons and combat equipment. Japan's militaryeconomic preparations are being conducted within the framework of the US-Japan Security Treaty, and the US government is demanding that Japan increase her military preparations, and take on additional military commitments in the Pacific.
The Chinese leadership has long been intensely boosting China's military potential, primarily her nuclear missile forces. The Peking leaders are continuing Mao Tse-tung's nationalistic _-_-_
~^^1^^ Akahata, November 12, 1976; Nihon Keizai Shimhun, January 20, 1977.
23 and militaristic policies and come out as apologists of an arms race and a third world war. In China, military expenditures are being rapidly increased along with military production. At present, she spends over 40 per cent of her state budget on military aims.Dozens of young states which recently gained their independence are also becoming involved in the arms race. Today, when the independence of the liberated countries is still threatened by capitalist states, when peace is unstable and when various controversial problems still exist among developing countries, the latter allot a noticeable part of their limited national resources for military purposes. According to some estimates, the annual military expenses of the developing nations have grown from 11,500 million dollars in 1965 to 33,800 million in 1975 (stable prices of 1973).^^1^^ Their military preparations are growing faster then their gross national product. As a result, the share of military expenditures in their gross national product increased from 4.4 per cent in 1965 to 5.3 per cent in 1974.^^2^^ Growing military preparations are a heavy burden for the still weak and underdeveloped economies of many of these countries.
Taking into consideration the constantly increasing aggressive military-economic preparations, those of NATO in the first place, the socialist countries were compelled in the post-war years to strengthen their defensive capabilities and develop and manufacture modern weapons and combat equipment. The USSR and the other Warsaw Treaty countries are taking measures for constantly strengthening their defences on the basis of their growing economy, science and technology. They expand and improve their military and economic cooperation, since they have to spend large sums for military purposes to defend their gains. Speaking at the October 1976 Plenary Meeting of the CPSU Central Committee Leonid Brezhnev declared: "To maintain the country's armed forces at a high level also in the future, to see to it that Soviet soldiers will always have the most up-to-date weaponry, the power of which the imperialists could not afford to ignore, is our _-_-_
~^^1^^ World Armaments and Disarmament. SIPRI Yearbook 1977, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1977, Appendix 7A.
^^2^^ Statistical Abstract of the United Stales, 197ft, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1976, p. 328.
24 duty to the people, and we shall fulfil this as our sacred duty!''^^1^^In 1970, the USSR allocated 17,900 million roubles for defence as compared with 17,000 million in 1981. In recent years, Soviet military spending is being reduced not only in absolute, but also in relative terms: its share in the nation's budget has decreased from 11.5 per cent in 1970 to 5.7 per cent in 1981.
Hence, it is due to the capitalist countries that the arms race continued for so many years. At a time when huge funds are being allocated for unproductive military purposes, a considerable part of the world's population lives in poverty, and many states have from year to year postponed the solution of the acute economic, social and other issues because of insufficient material and financial resources.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Detente and DisarmamentThe policy of cold war and "from a position of strength'', which the capitalist states began to pursue against the socialist countries almost immediately after the end of the Second World War has contradicted the course of historical development, and the real possibilities left to monopoly capitalism. It led neither to ``containment'' nor to the "rolling back" of communism. Moreover, events showed that continuation of this policy was fraught with dangerous consequences.
The change in the alignment of forces on the international scene in favour of socialism and the growth of the economic and defence potential of the USSR and other socialist countries were the main obstacles to the aggressive plans of modern capitalism.
In modern conditions, when the strategic balance of power is marked by dynamic equilibrium, when national liberation movements are gaining increasing momentum, when the unchallenged supremacy of capitalism has disappeared, the efficiency of military power has substantially declined. Its use for attaining political objectives on the international scene is fraught with much more danger. This is proven by the lessons of the US aggression in Indochina. The United States possessed _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. 1. Brezhnev, Speech at the Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on October 25. 1976, p. 48.
25 tremendous military power and spent, according to official but clearly minimised figures, over 140,000 million dollars on waging that war over a period of many years. It nevertheless could not attain its goals and crush the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese people, who with the aid of the USSR and other socialist countries fought valiantly for their independence to emerge victorious. In addition, America's ruling circles encountered other unforeseen consequences of the Vietnam war. For one thing, it led to the intensification of the anti-war movement not only in the United States itself, but throughout the world and it shook the economic and socio-political foundations of American society. In a speech delivered in May 1977 at the University of Notre Dame, President Carter noted that "The Vietnamese war produced a profound moral crisis, sapping worldwide faith in our own policy and our system of life.''^^1^^The diminished efficiency of military power as a means of imperialist policy was also brought about by the appearance of modern weapons of mass destruction. Militarism and wars always implied a serious threat. As Lenin emphasised, the First World War had already led to the undermining of "the very foundation of human society'',^^2^^ and this danger became more evident during the Second World War, which brought mankind even heavier losses and sufferings. But the threat of war loomed especially large with the appearance of thermonuclear weapons and the improvement of conventional armaments. The stockpiles of destructive weaponry unprecedented in the world are now so great, that their use according to military experts, would inflict irreparable damage to mankind. The consequences of thermonuclear war would be evidenced for many generations, such a war "would annihilate hundreds of millions of people and turn entire countries into deserts".^^3^^ The creation of modern, powerful means of destruction led to a paradoxical situation since their use would be tantamount to suicide. Even the most belligerent imperialist circles are compelled to take this objective fact into consideration.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. Jimmy Carter, 1977, Book 1, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1977, p. 957.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, = "Session of C. E. C., Moscow Soviet and Trade Unions''. Collected Works. Vol. 27, Moscow, 1977, p. 422.
^^3^^ International Meeting of Communist anil Workers' Parties. Materials and Documents, Moscow, l<>f>9. Peace and Socialism Publishers, Prague, 1969, p. 21.
26The steady growth of the economic and defensive power of the socialist countries, the changes in the alignment of forces in their favour, the successes of the national liberation and working-class movements, the increasingly negative economic and socio-political consequences of the arms race, the widespread sober recognition of the catastrophic consequences of a world thermonuclear conflict, the growing influence of anti-war and other public movements, and other objective factors in the modern world have compelled some far-sighted leaders in the capitalist countries to realise the danger of the cold war policy, to take a more realistic approach to international issues, and to pass from military confrontation to negotiations with socialist countries. All this was helpful in somewhat normalising the international climate.
The active and coordinated policy of the socialist countries, the consistent activities of the CPSU Central Committee and the Soviet government had a considerable impact on turning from the cold war to detente. Speaking at the 25th Congress of the CPSU, Leonid Brezhnev said the following in this connection: "The passage from cold war, from the explosive confrontation of the two worlds to detente, was primarily connected with changes in the correlation of world forces. But much effort was required for people---especially those responsible for the policy of states---to become accustomed to the thought that not brinkmanship but negotiation of disputed questions, not confrontation but peaceful co-operation, is the natural state of things.''^^1^^ Peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, a principle which Lenin had originally suggested and proved to be inescapable, purposeful and feasible, has now been recognised and translated into practice. It has found expression in a whole series of agreements and treaties between socialist and leading capitalist countries, e. g. in the treaties between the USSR and the USA, the USSR and West Germany, Poland and West Germany, Czechoslovakia and West Germany, in the agreements on West Berlin, in the Treaty on the Bases of Relations Between the GDR and the FRG, and so on. All these treaties explicitly state the necessity of observing in international affairs the principle of peaceful coexistence. For instance, the Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Between the USSR and the USA, embodied in a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. XXVth Congress of the CPSU, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1976, p. 20.
27 document signed in Moscow in May 1972, note that both sides agree "to proceed from the common determination that in the nuclear age there is no alternative to conducting their mutual relations on the basis of peaceful coexistence''.^^1^^Detente has played an important role in resolving some complex international issues. It helped stop the Vietnam war, sign the Final Act at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and initiate talks on reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe. Detente has, above all, diverted the danger of a world thermonuclear war.
The passage from the cold war to detente has erected definite barriers in the way of the arms race. In this regard, note should first be taken of the Interim Agreement Between the USSR and the USA on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms which was signed in May 1972. Moreover, continued deployment of antiballistic missile systems was acknowledged to be increasingly fraught with the danger of a new spiral in the nuclear arms race. This threat was somewhat weakened by the conclusion of a treaty on anti-ballistic missile devices, which limited the use of ABM defence systems to specified areas in the United States and the USSR.
However, the international situation is not progressing smoothly; it is marked by a struggle against the forces of war and reaction. Modern capitalism is compelled to adapt itself to existing realities, but its nature has not changed. It has not abandoned the use of military strength in international affairs, and the threat of war still exists. The policy of the aggressive imperialist forces has by the beginning of the eighties "considerably heightened international tensions with all the dangerous consequences that this entails,'' Leonid Brezhnev noted in the Central Committee report to the 26th Congress of the CPSU.
The continuing danger of war is confirmed by the fact that political detente is not accompanied by military detente. Capitalism not only retains the military power it has created during the cold war, but continues to enhance it, laying special emphasis on improvement of armaments. The capitalist countries, particularly those belonging to NATO, are implementing their long-term military programmes in conjuction with _-_-_
~^^1^^ New Times, No. 23, 1972, p. 39.
28 stepping up the arms race. This is, for instance, evidenced by the figures contained in the US government's draft budget for 1981/82, presented by former President Carter to Congress in January 1981 (Table 2). Table 2 US Allocations on "National Defence" (thousand million dollars) Fiscal years 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Military personnel 31.0 36.7 38.4 38.9 39.5 Retired pay 12.0 13.8 15.6 19.1 20.3 Operation and maintenance 46.3 54.0 61.5 67.8 74.4 Procurement 35.3 44.9 49.0 58.5 70.0 Other 21.2 24.5 35.8 44.0 53.8 TOTAL 145.8 173.9 200.3 228.6 258.0Source: The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1982, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1980, p, 49.
The above official figures indicate that the United States is starting a new round in the arms race and plans to increase war preparations in the next few years. The total sum of American military allocations in current prices for the 1980-- 1984 fiscal years is to equal to about 1,000,000 million dollars. It should be emphasised that US military spending will substantially increase not only in current but also in constant prices.
Other NATO countries are also planning to increase considerably their military budgets in the next few years. For example, in accordance with her fourth programme (1977-- 1982) for modernising the armed forces, France plans to increase her military spending from 58,000 million francs in 1977 to 114,600 million in 1982, and this is to involve an increase of not only the absolute but also the relative size of her military budget, whose share in the state budget would rise from 17 per cent in 1976 to 20 per cent in 1982, and in the gross national product from 3 to 3.6 per cent, respectively.
The May 1978 NATO summit in Washington took place during a special UN General Assembly session on disarmament. The NATO countries adopted a long-term programme for 29 increasing and improving their armaments thus taking a course towards stepping up military preparations. The participants in the Washington meeting again confirmed their May 1977 decision to annually increase by 3 per cent their real (taking inflation into account) military expenses and to spend an additional 80,000 million dollars for military purposes during the next 15 years.
Given this annual accretion, the total military expenditure of the NATO countries will go up from 222,000 million dollars in 1979 to 265,000 million in 1985, and will exceed 300,000 million in 1990 (at constant 1979 prices). It appears that the US military budget will grow at a still more rapid rate. Under the five-year programme of US arming for 1981-- 1985 drawn up by the administration of ex-President Carter, the annual growth rate of military spending will be of an order of 4-5 per cent. The answer to what the actual dynamics will be in the immediate future will come from the policy of President Reagan's administration, which has voiced the intention of considerably boosting the growth rate of the military budget and building up the military capability of the USA.
The NATO countries seek above all to increase expenses directly connected with a further build-up of military strength, as for instance, those expenses involving the production and deployment of new and more destructive weapons. The speeded up modernisation of the American armed forces is accompanied by a relatively quick increase in allocations for military procurement, on which the Pentagon spent 15,700 million dollars in 1972/73, 16,000 million in 1974/75, and 18,200 million in 1976/77, and plans to spend 40,100 million in 1981/82.^^1^^ The priority spending for the military will be maintained in the next few years. According to official figures, the allotment for the total US military budget will increase from 24.6 per cent in 1979/80 to 27.7 per cent in 1983/84.
In recent years, the NATO countries have been modernising and improving their nuclear missiles and conventional armaments. The United States, France and Britain are allocating considerable sums on developing their strategic nuclear missile forces. At the same time, they pay increasing attention to re-equipping their armed forces with improved conventional _-_-_
^^1^^ The Budget of the United Slates Government, Fiscal Year 1980, p. 568.
30 weapons and combat equipment, and this is also accompanied by growing expenditures.Thus, the current world situation is characterised by an increasing arms race and build-up of military power. This is primarily due to the fact that modern capitalism still largely stakes itself on military strength in its foreign policy strategy and continues to calculate on gaining decisive military superiority and using "positions of strength" in its relationships with socialist countries. Capitalist states regard military strength as an instrument for fighting national liberation movements, applying pressure on young independent states and, preserving neo-colonialism, and also for consolidating the domination of the bourgeoisie, controlling growing class struggle, and suppressing revolutionary forces at home.
Detente, particularly as expressed by the Soviet-American applying pressure on young independent states and preserving the arms race, since modernisation of existing systems and creation of new weaponry are being intensively continued within the established limits. The above-mentioned agreements do not concern general-purpose armed forces, on which the United States spends over 70 per cent of its military budget, and these expenses are continuing to rapidly rise. In addition, the limitations stipulated by the Soviet-American agreements do not apply to other states, and consequently cannot affect the size and structure of their military allocations.
The arms race is to a certain extent being whipped up by the implementation of adopted long-term plans of military build-up, particularly of major programmes for devising and adopting new systems of weapons. In this case, improvement of armaments is generally accompanied by a considerable increase in costs. Higher military spending is also prompted by rapid obsolescence of weapons and military equipment. As a result, continuous improvement of armaments has become one of the reasons for increasing military expenses. For example, the implementation of such projects as the submarinebased Trident missile system, cruise missiles, intercontinental MX ballistic missiles, and other major systems currently being devised in the United States will obviously be accompanied by increased military spending.
A peculiar inertia and the regularities inherent in this dangerous process are having a marked effect on the dynamics of the arms race. Colossal and diversified expenses are 31 constantly needed just for maintaining the already existing armed forces. This is due to a number of factors. First, many states have created military machines of unprecedented size and too large for peacetime needs. The regular armed forces of NATO alone now number almost five million men. Second, modern military equipment is highly sophisticated; therefore, its maintenance and the training of personnel require big expenditures. For instance, in order to train an American military pilot it costs about 500,000 dollars, while the cost of one training flight hour varies from 305 dollars for the T-39 to 4,766 dollars for the C-5 aircraft. In 1976, the total US expenses for training pilots reached 1,900 million dollars. Third, as was noted above, the armed forces are being continually modernised, and this entails all kinds of additional expenses. Fourth, the huge scope of current military preparations leads to the subsequent growth of indirect military spending, e. g. retired pay, pensions for war veterans, etc. In the United States, the total expenses for war veterans grew from 5,900 million dollars in 1966 to 19,100 million on 1976 and, according to US press assessments, by 1981 they will amount to 21,100 million dollars. According to the US Department of Defence, the total retired pay increased from 1,200 million dollars in 1964 to 8,400 million in 1977. Even at low growth rates, by 1990 this figure will rise to 19,600 million dollars.
The ruling circles of bourgeois states lack a unanimous approach towards some aspects of the arms race; a struggle is going on among various groups for determining the priorities in state spending. The extremist military elements and representatives of the military-industrial complex seek further intensification of the arms race. The more moderate elements are against increasing military spending, which is largely behind the rapid growth of inflation, the crisis of the capitalist monetary system, and the increase of deficits in the balance of payments of the United States and other capitalist countries. The obvious contradiction which exists between political detente and the rise in military spending is also causing sharp criticism among the progressives in many countries.
In these conditions, the United States and other capitalist countries have in recent years taken various measures which are aimed at rationalising military build-up so that a further increase in power and combat readiness would entail the 32 least possible expense. They are seeking ways for enhancing military preparation efficiency and eliminating the large and unreasonable expenses. Since efficiency is determined by numerous factors, diverse measures have been taken. These measures involve the more rational utilisation of scientific and technological achievements for military purposes; integration of the military preparations of capitalist states; improvement of the system of planning, financing and supplying the armed forces; improvement and mobilisation of industries; modernisation of the structure of the armed forces; and so on. These measures help boost military might even without substantially increasing the absolute size of military budgets.
Increase of military budgets in conjunction with rationalisation of military build-up and development and adoption of new deadly weapons is accompanied by a rapid build-up in armaments. In this respect, it should be emphasised that the arsenals are growing quicker than the efforts being undertaken in the world to limit and reduce armaments in conditions of detente. As a result, the danger of a new world war still exists.
The above process is in evident contradiction with the relaxation of international tensions. The military-industrial complexes and the militaristic forces are doing everything to try and slow down detente and bring the world back to the times of the cold war. They seek to create a climate of distrust and non-acceptance of the very idea of detente, which they try to defame in every possible way. In effect, they seek to increase international tensions and military preparations to please the manufacturers of deadly weaponry. These reactionary circles have recently started to praise the significance and role of military power in the modern world.
To achieve their aims, the advocates of the arms race use the mass media and the ramified propaganda machine of individual Western countries and NATO. In the United States, the propaganda of militarism and military power has attained its broadest scope via specialised agencies of the US Department of Defence, arms manufacturing companies, and various military and military-industrial associations. The Pentagon uses hundreds of broadcasting stations and dozens of TV centres and produces numerous films, publishes over 1,000 newspapers and nearly 1,400 periodicals and other mass publications to brainwash the armed forces personnel, carries on militaristic propaganda among the public, advertises American military power, organises 33 ideological subversions against socialist countries, and so on. Military-industrial corporations, also through newspapers, radio stations, TV centres and other mass media, actively advertise their products, publicise military power as the principal means in politics, seek to prove that military expenses are beneficial for the economy and employment, and come out against detente.
In the US, major importance to propaganda of militarism, military power and intensification of the arms race is also given by the Air Force Association, Association of the US Army, and the Naval League, as well as by associations of military industrialists, viz. the Aerospace Association, the National Security Industrial Association, the American Defence Preparedness Association, and others. The CIA, the US Information Agency, as well as other government bodies and different research centres also take an active part in military propaganda.
The activity of this ramified propaganda system of the US military-industrial complex is coordinated in various ways and is activated and subordinated to suit the interests of the complex itself and the aggressive aims of the monopoly bourgeoisie.
Day after day, the huge apparatus of American military propaganda fans the myth of a Soviet threat. This is done in order to conceal the aggressive trend of the colossal military preparations of US monopoly capital and the self-serving aims of the military-industrial complex in accelerating the arms race. Speaking of the true interests of the coalition of the advocates of the arms race, Senator Stuart Symington complained that "it is getting increasingly difficult to find anybody who isn't directly or indirectly connected with some weapons system!'. In this connection, Harper's magazine wrote: "It is correct to say that part of what is going on here involves not so much the defense of the United States as the defense of the defense budget.''^^1^^
During all the post-war years, the military propaganda machines of the United States, NATO members, and other capitalist countries, have used the myth of a Soviet threat as the principal argument to substantiate the need for stepping up the arms race and their dangerous preparations for a new world war. At different stages, this myth was used to suit specific objectives. In the mid-fifties, the US military-industrial complex _-_-_
^^1^^ Harper's,, June 1977, pp. 67, 65.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3---18 34 started a noisy campaign about the American "bomber gap'', in the early sixties it was the "missile gap'', in 1967 the " antimissile gap'', and so on. All this was to justify large projects for devising new costly weaponry, even though it soon became clear that there was actually no gap whatsoever.Beginning with the early seventies, the coalition of the advocates of the arms race in the United States and other NATO countries has been vociferously publicising the myth of the Soviet threat. Using the mass media, they claimed they were dangerously behind the USSR in spending on military R & D projects, in total military expenses and in military build-up. The Western press widely publishes exceedingly overestimated figures on the Soviet military budget. The estimates of Soviet military spending made by Western specialists, experts and the different organisations are so obviously biased that even bourgeois politicians have to admit this.
Western inventions about their alleged lag in different military fields, their statements on the imaginary Soviet threat, their constant overestimation of Soviet military power and underestimation of their own, and also their speculative game around national security are all used by the ruling circles in the West to justify before the world public as well as their own people their huge and rapidly growing aggressive military preparations. They want to shift the blame for the new dangerous round in the arms race to the USSR. In this connection, Soviet Defence Minister, Marshal Ustinov wrote: "Reactionary imperialist circles seek to misinterpret our defence measures. The propaganda agencies of the United States and other NATO countries have lately started a noisy anti-Soviet campaign about the allegedly growing Soviet threat. They fabricate all sorts of inventions to allege that the USSR is actively preparing to start a nuclear war, is excessively building up armaments and is creating with some sort of sinister aims an unjustifiably strong civil defence system. Reality shows all these concoctions to be utterly groundless and biased. Naturally, the USSR does improve its defences, but it is compelled to do so because the imperialists confront it with the unrestrained arms race now perpetrated by capitalist countries, especially by NATO members.''^^1^^
To counter detente and justify the increasing arms race, militarist and reactionary circles, apart from resorting to the _-_-_
^^1^^ Kommunist, No. 3, 1977, p. 16.
35 myth about a Soviet threat, argue that the arms race allegedly helps preserve and strengthen the peace, and that the most lasting peace would be one based on a "balance of terror'', on "peace through force''. These circles also use in their own interests the view of some bourgeois scholars that improvement of armaments and the arms race are determined by objective trends of scientific and technological progress, do not depend on the people's will and cannot be controlled. Stemming from this, the advocates of "military-technological determinism" ``substantiate'' the fatal inevitability of the arms race.The present-day leadership in China also comes out in all sorts of ways against detente and for further step-up of the arms race, and they do this in cooperation with world reaction. The Peking leaders regard detente as opium for the people. In continuing Mao Tse-tung's policies, the new Chinese leaders publicly come out as outright apologists of war. They continue their nation-wide campaign for preparing for war and 'are stepping up the arms race. The Maoists laud war and continue to repeat that sooner or later it will break out; they regard war as a cardinal means for settling all current international issues. Speaking at the 1977 Session of the UN General Assembly, the head of the Chinese delegation said: "A third world war is inevitable. Possibly so and so many people will die in that war, but it will facilitate the solution of problems concerning oppressed nations and mankind. Such a war would not be so bad at all.''^^1^^ The Chinese leadership seeks by any means to undermine detente, to aggravate the international situation to the utmost, and to instigate the world to war in the hope that the biggest powers would then perish and China would achieve her hegemonistic objectives. Guided by this barbarous reasoning, China systematically comes out against any proposals for limiting the arms race and strengthening world peace. Peking continues to maliciously slander the USSR and other socialist countries in order to discredit their peaceful foreign policy. At the UN, the Chinese delegation has voted against convening a world disarmament conference and reducing the military budgets of the permament UN Security Council members and using part of the money saved for providing aid to developing countries. The Chinese also voted against other peaceful initiatives of the socialist countries. At a special session of the UN General Assembly, Peking's representatives sought to reduce the _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Pravda, May 14, 1977.
__PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 36 disarmament issue to disarmament by the ``superpowers'' (in effect, to unilateral disarmament by the USSR) and simultaneously justified China's unrestricted armament. The Chinese leaders' stand on fundamental problems of current international relations is absolutely negative and often provocative, and this inflicts much harm to ensuring world peace and security and is fraught with dangerous consequences.The capitalist states have recently become the scene of an acute struggle around controversial issues involving the arms race and disarmament. Peace forces and the broad public come out with demands to stop military build-up and development of new weapons systems and to establish control over armaments. This was, for instance, evidenced by numerous demonstrations in 1977 in the United States, West Germany, and other capitalist countries, where the demonstrators demanded a stop to the arms race. At that time, Harper's wrote that advocates of arms control "believe that the common interest between the Soviet Union and the United States in avoiding conflict, particularly nuclear war, outweighs their differences, and makes arms control not only possible but necessary".^^1^^
On the international scene, the socialist countries are waging an active and purposeful struggle for curbing the arms race, banning nuclear weapons, reducing military budgets, and achieving disarmament.
The Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia opened a new era in the struggle against all forms of militarism, for eliminating wars from the life of mankind, for peace and disarmament. On the second day of its existence, i. e. on October 26 (November 8), 1917, the world's first socialist state adopted the Decree on Peace. In this Leninist Decree, the Soviet state had already qualified war as the "greatest of crimes against humanity" and proposed that negotiations be started immediately for concluding a peace "without annexations (i. e. without the seizure of foreign lands, without the forcible incorporation of foreign nations) and without indemnities".^^2^^ The Decree on Peace proclaimed and substantiated the basic democratic principles of Soviet foreign policy for preventing aggression, strengthening world peace; ensuring the peoples' rights to freedom, independence and social progress; and observing the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Harper's, June 1977, p. 64.
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, "\thinspace`Decree on Peace'. Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets'', Collected Works, Vol. 26, Moscow, 1964, p. 249.
37 principles of peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems.Lenin paid much attention to disarmament. In a number of works, he exemplified a class approach to this complicated issue. In consistently pursuing its peaceful foreign policy, the Soviet state had repeatedly come out with concrete proposals on disarmament. Back in 1922 in Genoa, where the first international conference with Soviet participation was held, the USSR delegation, on Lenin's direct instructions, declared its intention "to propose universal reduction of armaments and support all motions aimed at alleviating the burden of militarisation, provided the armies of all states are reduced and warfare regulations supplemented by articles completely banning barbarous forms of hostilities involving the use of poisonous gases, air warfare and other inhuman tactics, particularly weapons for killing civilians''. In 1927, at the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Commission for the League of Nations Disarmament Conference, the USSR was the first nation in history to table a detailed concrete plan on universal disarmament. The Soviet Union also continued its active struggle for disarmament at the World Disarmament Conference of 1932-- 1934.
Under various pretexts, the capitalist states rejected all the pre-war Soviet proposals on disarmament. It was neither disarmament nor peaceful coexistence they wanted, but destruction of the world's first socialist state. The imperialist countries combined their efforts and took all sorts of measures to strangle Soviet power from the very start. They took various economic, political and diplomatic measures, but resorted chiefly to military strength. The aggressive Western policies against the USSR and their repeated attempts to do away by force of arms with the revolutionary gains of the Soviet people heavily impaired Soviet economic development.
The Second World War inflicted tremendous damage to the USSR, which lost 20 million lives. The destruction caused by the Nazi invaders amounted to 679,000 million roubles (in 1941 prices). Direct military expenses and losses in incomes by the civilian population and industrial enterprises as a result of stoppage of production in occupied areas amounted to 1,890,000 million roubles (in 1941 prices).^^1^^ Reconstruction _-_-_
~^^1^^ See = Sixty Victorious Years. Figures anil Facts, Politizdat, Moscow, 1977, pp. 39--40 (in Russian).
38 of the destroyed economy required colossal manpower, material and financial resources as well as huge efforts on the part of the Soviet people.During the war, the Western members of the anti-Hitler coalition hoped not only to be rid of the fascist threat and the dangerous imperialist rivals, but also to see the USSR bled white and become a weak second-rate state. But neither of these designs materialised: the USSR emerged from the war increasingly more powerful. Moreover, the utter defeat of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan initiated a new stage in the world revolutionary process and promoted the victory of socialist revolutions in a number of European and Asian countries and the forming of a world socialist system. The victory over fascism resulted in fundamental changes in favour of socialism in the alignment of class forces on the international scene.
After the war, the Western countries resumed their anticommunist policies for ``containing'' socialism and the like. This time they also put the main emphasis on military strength, pinning their major hopes on US monopoly for atomic weapons.
Having started the cold war against the USSR, the ruling circles in the United States and the other imperialist countries began a broad anti-Soviet campaign in which they falsely depicted the USSR as a source of "communist aggression'', a centre allegedly inspiring and directing all anti-imperialist actions in the world. These myths were used to consolidate the imperialist camp militarily and politically, to create aggressive military blocks, and to start an arms race unprecedented in peacetime. By means of military blackmail, the Western powers counted on imposing their will upon the USSR to secure its "internal transformation''.
In the face of extensive strategic preparations by NATO, the USSR and the other socialist countries were compelled to take suitable steps for strengthening the defensive power of the socialist community. The Soviet people paid a very high price for peace and have no more significant task then to ensure their security and the gains of socialism. Due attention is given to improving the forms of military and economic cooperation among fraternal socialist countries, who pursue the sole aim of defending their peaceful creative labour. In socialist countries, there are no classes or social groups interested in war and the arms race; neither are there people who could use military production for personal enrichment.
39During the cold war, the USSR continued to pursue its Leninist foreign policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems and gave major attention to the struggle for consolidating peace, curbing the arms race and achieving disarmament.
The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union states that "general and complete disarmament under strict international control is a radical way of guaranteeing a durable peace'',^^1^^ and from the very first post-war years to our time the USSR has been waging the most active struggle for resolving this major problem.
In 1946, the Soviet Union proposed to ban and destroy nuclear weapons. In September 1949, at the Fourth Session of the UN General Assembly, it proposed to conclude a peace pact among the USSR, the US, China, Britain and France. In 1955, the Soviet government came out for stopping tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons and proposed an extensive disarmament programme. In 1959, the USSR proposed general and complete disarmament under strict international control.
Using all sorts of pretexts, the Western states continually rejected the idea of concluding a treaty on universal and complete disarmament. Then the USSR suggested that concrete measures be taken to curb some aspects of the arms race. During the post-war years, the Soviet government, loyal to its Leninist principles of peaceful coexistence, made over 100 proposals for stopping the arms race and achieving disarmament.
It was chiefly due to the efforts of the USSR and the other socialist countries, as well as of all peace forces and world public opinion that the transition from the cold war to detente and certain steps towards disarmament had become possible. These efforts resulted in the Treaty on Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water; the Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Tests of Nuclear Weapons; the Treaty on the Non-- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; the Soviet-American agreements on strategic arms limitation; the International Convention on Banning the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction; the Convention on the Prohibition of the Military or Any Other Hostile Use of the Environmental Modification Techniques; and other agreements.
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1962, p. 505.
40The Peace Programme adopted by the 24th Congress of the CPSU and widely supported by the peace forces all over the world played a substantial role in achieving detente. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Soviet government are doing tremendous work to implement this Programme, improve the international climate, and consolidate the principles of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. The peaceful policy of the USSR and the whole socialist community has had a huge impact on the entire system of international relations and has made it possible to block some of the arms race channels and move the world away from the danger of a world thermonuclear conflict.
In their foreign policy, the CPSU and the Soviet government are making tremendous efforts to carry out the Programme of Further Struggle for Peace and International Cooperation, and for the Freedom and Independence of the Peoples adopted by the 25th Congress of the CPSU. A central issue in this Programme is the struggle for stopping the arms race and for disarmament. In strictly implementing the foreign policy programme of the 25th Congress of the CPSU, the USSR suggested many concrete and feasible proposals on disarmament. In 1976, it submitted a Memorandum on Questions of Ending the Arms Race and Disarmament to the 31st Session of the UN General Assembly. This document noted that in modern conditions the following would be the main trends for coordinating the actions of states in achieving disarmament^^1^^:
1. cessation of the nuclear arms race and reduction and subsequet liquidation of nuclear weapons;
2. banning nuclear weapons tests;
3. consolidation of the non-proliferation regime of nuclear weapons;
4. prohibition and destruction of chemical weapons;
5. ban on development of new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction;
6. reduction of the armed forces and conventional armaments;
7. creation of peace zones in the Indian Ocean and other areas;
8. reduction of military budgets;
9. negotiations on ceasing the arms race and on disarmament.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pravda, September 30, 1976.
41At the 1977 32nd UN General Assembly Session, the Soviet Union again confirmed its readiness to take concrete steps in disarmament and spoke out in favour of immediate discussion of nuclear disarmament. At that lime, the Soviet government submitted another proposal considered an important and urgent question, namely the proposal on deepening and consolidating detente and preventing the danger of nuclear war. It also submitted two draft documents, a Declaration of Deepening and Strengthening of Detente and a Resolution on Averting the Danger of Nuclear War.^^1^^
Furthermore, the USSR proposed to conclude a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations and on the simultaneous banning of new nuclear weapons and reduction of armed forces and armaments, primarily in Central Europe. The USSR comes out against the continued preservation of military blocs; it has repeatedly called for simultaneous disbandment of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and for reaching an agreement whereby all states would dismantle their military bases on foreign soil and withdraw their troops from foreign territories.
Largely on Soviet initiative, talks on a wide range of disarmament issues were conducted at various international meetings. In May-June 1978, a special UN General Assembly Session on disarmament was held in New York. During the session, the USSR called on all nations to take a number of concrete steps capable of stopping the arms race and giving a new impulse to disarmament talks. Many Soviet proposals were included in the final document adopted at that special UN session.
The 26th Congress of the CPSU advanced new, far-reaching and realistic proposals on the international plane, designed to curb the arms race, and to safeguard and consolidate peace. They concern the most acute of the problems of our time, and are an organic projection of the Peace Programme of the two preceding CPSU congresses---the 24th and 25th. The programme of peace moves drawn up by the 26th Congress includes the proposal, among others, to spread the military confidencebuilding measures in Europe to a more extensive area, and to introduce them in the Far East; to discuss the international aspects of the Afghan problem together with the question of _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Pravda, September 29, 1977.
42 Persian Gulf security; to resume Soviet-American negotiations on the limitation and reduction of strategic arms without delay, preserving the positive results already achieved in this field; to limit the deployment of the latest submarines, and to declare a moratorium on the stationing in Europe of medium-range nuclear missiles by the NATO countries and the USSR.Socialism and peace are indivisible. The socialist countries are not interested in the arms race either economically or otherwise. The invariably peaceful Soviet foreign policy has found expression in the new Constitution of the USSR, which states: "The foreign policy of the USSR is aimed at ensuring international conditions favourable for building communism in the USSR, safeguarding the state interests of the Soviet Union, consolidating the positions of world socialism, supporting the struggle of peoples for national liberation and social progress, preventing wars of aggression, achieving universal and complete disarmament, and consistently implementing the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.
``In the USSR war propaganda is banned.''^^1^^
The state of international negotiations on limiting armaments essentially depends on Soviet-American relations. The power and influence of the two countries impose a special responsibility upon both. In May 1972, the Soviet Union and the United States signed an Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT-1), which expired in October 1977.
After lengthy talks, the SALT-2 Treaty was signed in June 1979 in Vienna. It represents a carefully weighed balance of interests of the two major nuclear powers and, at the same time, corresponds to the peaceful aspirations of all peoples.
SALT-2 imposes on both sides distinct commitments not only with regard to quantitative limitation of strategic armaments, but also with regard to containing their qualitative improvement. By putting up obstacles to further accumulation and improvement of strategic armaments, SALT-2 promotes detente and further lessening of the danger of nuclear war.
The SALT-2 Treaty provides new opportunities for improving Soviet-American relations and the entire international climate and for attaining progress in multilateral and SovietAmerican talks on limiting armaments and on disarmament. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1977, Arl. 28.
43 The documents signed in Vienna lay the foundation for passing over to a new stage in limiting and reducing strategic arms under SALT-3. Implementation of SALT-2 will also positively affect talks on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe, on banning nuclear weapons tests, on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, on banning chemical and radiological weapons, on limiting military activity in the Indian Ocean, on restricting sales and shipments of conventional armaments, and so on.SALT-2, as it were, does not stop the arms race; neither does it lead to cuts in military budgets. But it is undoubtedly a serious obstacle to the arms race. Without SALT-2, military spending would grow more rapidly, as would further build-up of strategic armaments and competition in devising new weapons of mass destruction.
Using different false arguments, certain circles in the West seek to distort the meaning and significance of SALT-2. In effect, the opponents of its ratification come out against curbing the arms race, furthering detente, eliminating the danger of a thermonuclear war, and resolving disarmament issues.
At present, humanity is at the crossroads which will lead either to a lasting peace or to an increasing threat of a thermonuclear holocaust. It is quite clear that one cannot speak of lasting peace when the arms race continues and huge stockpiles of destructive weaponry still remain. The only way of averting the threat of war and ensuring genuine security for the peoples is to take real steps towards disarmament. The existing detente in international relations creates favourable opportunities for curbing the arms race and passing over from disarmament negotiations to actual steps that would signify the beginning of real disarmament. The arms race is not fatally inevitable and can be stopped. To do that it would be essential to deeply examine its mechanism and reveal the interested forces and supporting factors. A theoretical study of the previously outlined causes of the arms race is also necessary to determine the basic trends in the struggle for neutralising the forces standing in the way of progress towards disarmament.
The consistent struggle of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries is aimed at completely eliminating the threat of world war, at deepening and consolidating detente to make it irreversible, at stopping the arms race and achieving real steps in disarmament. The socialist countries come out for universal and complete disarmament. However, taking into 44 consideration the enormous complexity of the problem, they are simultaneously exerting all efforts to limit and curtail certain types of military preparations and are taking partial measures towards disarmament, measures that would help attain the major goal---general and complete disarmament.
The interests of all mankind demand that the problem of disarmament, the main issue of our times, be successfully resolved. Disarmament is the overwhelming need of our time. It is the only possible way of establishing a just and lasting peace and saving humanity from the horrors of a world thermonuclear holocaust. Disarmament is necessary not only for universal peace and security, but also for stopping the systematic use of manpower, materials and funds for unproductive military purposes.
Never before has the world had such a powerful movement for stopping the arms race and for disarmament as it has today. However, an issue of such vital importance for the destinies of all peoples would require even greater efforts and cooperation of all the progressive forces in the struggle against the real perpetrators of the arms race and military propaganda, in the struggle for improving mutual trust among nations, for expanding the movement of the popular masses for disarmament, and for convening a world disarmament conference. Only the activity, solidarity and initiative of the progressive and anti-war forces of the whole world may reverse the arms race and bring about real disarmament.
[45] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter 2 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Economic Consequences of the Arms Race __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Militarisation of the EconomiesTo assess the influence of disarmament on the economic development of a given state, let us first examine the scope and structure of a military economy and its place in the national economy. This will permit us to determine more precisely the manpower and material resources which in case of disarmament could be partially or fully diverted from military to peaceful use. It will also make it easier to reveal possible specific trends in and forms of rational utilisation of the released resources, as well as ways and methods for overcoming the temporary difficulties involved in converting military production.
Before the Second World War, the military economies of the capitalist countries were not relatively highly developed. Only on the eve of and during the war did they accelerate. However, their post-war policies resulted in the lengthy and intensive arms race and in the formation of a permanent and ramified military economy in peacetime as well. At present, the military economy has a "permanent nature": almost all the branches systematically take part in manufacturing military products, and in many states this also involves a considerable part of the productive forces.
The military economy represents that part of the national economy which serves for economically ensuring war preparations and military operations in wartime. The military economy is not alienated from civilian economy. The same branches, monopolies and enterprises quite often produce both military and civilian products. Technical, economic and other ties exist between the civilian and military sectors of the economy, and both closely connected sectors constitute the national economy. At the same time, however, development of the military economy is characterised by a number of specific features determined by the purpose, nature and other properties of a given military product, as well as by the mode of production prevailing in the capitalist countries. In this connection Lenin wrote: "When capitalists work for defence, 46 i. e., for the state, it is obviously no longer `pure' capitalism but a special form of national economy. Pure capitalism means commodity production. And commodity production means work for an unknown and free market. But the capitalist `working' for defence does not ``work' for the market at all---he works on government orders, very often with money loaned by the state.''^^1^^
The state has a decisive influence on the development of the military economy. It is the sole or chief customer and consumer of the domestic military products, its demand determines the scope and structure of the country's military economy. The state plans for many years ahead the development of military production and maintains permanent ties with suppliers of military products. In a military economy monopolies are most distinctly interwoven with the state and the latter's interference in economic life is most pronounced. Apart from legislative and administrative measures, capitalist states widely use economic levers, e. g. various financial incentives for military-industrial corporations, a military contracting system, pricing, etc. to achieve state-monopoly control over the military economy.
It is somewhat difficult to determine the real scope of the military economy in a given state. Official statistics cites figures on production of individual military commodities, but it does not indicate the size and structure of the military economy of the country as a whole.
Of all published figures, the military budget provides the most complete picture of the scope of military-economic preparations. However, as already noted above, the military budget does not give the true picture of the real scale of these preparations, since relevant financing is frequently concealed in civilian items of the state budget. Statistical publications lack information on the relative size of the military economy, i. e. on the extent to which the entire economy is militarised. Normally, they cite data on the share of obvious direct military spending in the gross national product (Table 3). However, this generalised index essentially minimises the actual level of military expenditures, since, first, official data do not include all the forms of military spending and, second, the data on the gross national product are greater than they really are _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, "Socialism or Exposure of Plunder of the Slate'', Collected Works, Vol. 25, Moscow, 1974, p. 68.
47 because of a double count. In virtue of this, Western press publications indicating the share of military expenses in the gross national product may be used only for characterising and comparing the level and dynamics of militarisation of capitalist economies.Other indicators exist. For instance, the level of utilisation for military purposes of manpower and industrial facilities in individual capitalist countries are important in assessing the degree to which their economies have been militarised. According to some understated assessments, in 1979 there were five million people, or about 5 per cent of the total working population in the United States, who were in the armed forces and working in armament plants.
Table 3 Direct Military Expenses in Relation to the Gross National Product of Capitalist Countries (per cent) Country 1970 1973 1975 1976 1977 United States 7.4 6.1 5.9 5.4 6.0 Britain 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.0 West Germany 3.3 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.4 France 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.7 3.6 Italy 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.4 Canada 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.8 Japan 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Source: The Military Balance 1976--1977, 1976, pp. 78--79- The Military Balance 1978--1979, 1978, pp. 88 89.The capitalist countries vary in absolute and relative scope of their war economies. Therefore, where disarmament is concerned, the problem of converting military production to peaceful uses would entail different approaches. In the United States, which is the leading arms manufacturer of modern capitalism, it would be the most involved. America's share in capitalist military production considerably exceeds her share in the overall capitalist industrial output. The United States produces about three-quarters of the total warplanes, missiles, artillery and small arms manufactured by NATO, and twothirds of the warships. It is the only capitalist country that manufactures all types of sophisticated and costly military equipment and is capable of fully equipping its own armed 48 forces. America's research potential, an exceedingly important factor in developing military economy, is decisively superior to that of the other capitalist states.
The West European NATO members constitute the second largest centre of military production. They give major attention to developing, integrating and improving the structure and management of their military industries in Europe. Taken separately, none of them is capable of independently producing a wide range of modern sophisticated and costly weaponry. This is because their respective national resources are limited, as are their scientific, technological and production potentials. Hence, the ruling circles of the individual West European countries emphasise the need for developing and improving their scientific and technological level and competitiveness of their military industries by combining their efforts. West European countries regard integration as the basis for strengthening the military power of the region; for creating a highly developed scientific, technological and industrial base for boosting the manufacture of armaments and improving the production efficiency as well as for making themselves less dependent on the United States.
The total number of warplanes, missiles, artillery and small arms manufactured in Western Europe amounts to 25 per cent of the US level, and that of warships to 50 per cent. On the other hand, West European countries produce about the same number of armoured vehicles as the United States. A major part of the military industry is concentrated in Britain, France and West Germany.
Pentagon officials estimate that US manufacturers sell at least 1,000 million dollars worth of arms to European allies each year, while the US purchases 100 million dollars worth from Europe.^^1^^ The West European NATO countries seek to reduce this unfavourable ratio from 10:1 to 3:1. They are taking different steps to create and rapidly develop a military industry that would be independent of the United States. The US, on the contrary, strives to maintain West European dependence on itself.
Japan's military industry is developing at a rapid pace. During 1965--1975, her output of military aircraft grew from 42,900 million to 157,400 million yen, and that of other conventional armaments from 13,100 million to 55,100 million yen. _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 1976, p. 36.
49 Warplanes, conventional armaments, radioelectronic equipment, ammunition and explosives, as well as warships are the leading items. If in the early fifties 200 Japanese companies were involved in fulfilling military orders, in 1975 their number grew to 1,878, of which 55 companies were producing aircraft, 85 warships, 229 communication devices and electronic equipment, and 11 conventional armaments and other items.Up until about the mid-fifties, a major part of Japan's military production was used by the American armed forces. Bigger US orders for weapons manufactured by Japanese firms were stimulated by the war in Korea and, particularly, in Indochina. Japanese companies manufactured warplanes and helicopters, napalm bombs, machine guns, explosives, communication devices, transport vehicles and other types of military equipment which America used in the Vietnam war, and also repaired much of the US military equipment. At present, over 90 per cent of Japan's military production is used for equipping her own armed forces.
Military production has reached large proportions in some other capitalist countries, too.
To study the economic issues of disarmament, it would be important to determine the effect of the arms race on the economic structure; on the respective occupations of workers, technicians, engineers and scientists; and on the level of militarisation of the individual areas and branches of the economy in capitalist countries.
Military economy includes all the phases of repioduction, but chiefly the sphere of military production, mainly the industry. According to American statistics, the US armed forces use approximately 4 million items, and all the branches of the US economy are directly or indirectly i'rivolved in manufacturing this vast assortment of goods. Yet, the share of the respective branches of industry in military production is highly unequal. The nucleus of the US military industry is comprised of the missile and atomic industries, shipbuilding, manufacture of radioelectronic equipment, etc. The structure of the US military industry is characterised by substantial shifts which occur under the influence of the continued development of military technology, and changes in the strategy and nature of military preparations, and other factors.
The cost of orders for the various types of military equipment which the Pentagon placed with industrial companies and __PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4--18 50 other organisations gives an approximate insight into the structure of US military production (Table 4).
The aircraft and missile industry leads in American military production and accounts for one-third of the total procurement by the US Department of Defence. It is, in effect, the most militarised branch of the economy, since almost three-fourths of the total capitalist output of warplanes and missiles is used for military purposes. Table 5 shows the scale and dynamics of warplane and missile production in imperialist countries. The United States is the leading producer; it manufactures several times more warplanes and missiles than all the other capitalist countries combined. In 1976, the total sales of American aeromissile products amounted to 29,000 million dollars, including 15,200 million of aircraft, 5,000 million of missiles, 3,300 million of space technology, and 5,500 million of other equipment. The US aeromissile industry manufactures military equipment not only for the American armed forces, but also for export, which in 1976 amounted to 7,600 million dollars or 26.2 per cent of the total sales of this industry.
Production of warplanes and missiles has largely grown in other capitalist states, too, particularly in West European countries, where it is distinguished by the high level of militarisation and the growing orientation towards export. France ranks first in Europe and second in the capitalist world in the output of aeromissile equipment. The share of exports in her total aircraft and missile production grew from 36 per cent in 1971 to 46.2 per cent in 1975; in Britain, the increase was from 45 per cent in 1970 to 67 per cent in 1975.
The aircraft industry is rapidly growing in Japan. During 1952--1975, her total output of aircraft equipment amounted to 1,392,000 million yen, approximately 85 per cent of which went towards military purposes. Almost half of Japan's total military production involves the aeromissile industry. The main types of Japanese warplanes were produced on US licenses, but the currently observed trend is to increase the manufacture of domestically-designed aircraft.
Naval construction is a major branch of capitalist military
industry. The United States is the largest centre of naval
shipbuilding; in 1947--1975 it built over 700 warships with a
total displacement of 2.7 million tons, including 41 nuclear
missile-carrying submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 97 cruisers
and destroyers, etc. Private companies play a leading part in
US naval construction. By the mid-seventies, orders for building,
51
repairing, re-equipping and modernising ships for the US
Navy had amounted to 5,459,000 million dollars, of which
__PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__
Table 4
Equipment Ordered by the US
Department of Defence
(million dollars)
1974
1975
1976
Aviation technology
7,694
7,574
10,990
Missiles and space
technology
4,790
5,519
5,666
Warships
3,523
5,069
4,549
Artillery, small arms and
ammunition
1,988
2,062
2,048
Radioelectronic equipment
and communication
devices
4,613
5,386
5,538
Armour
1,220
838
1,518
Other types of armaments
2,023
2,156
2,309
Personal equipment
3,834
3,615
5,164
Military engineering
1,903
2,651
2,482
Services and maintenance
3,180
3,779
4.254
Other
6,129
6,642
5,517
TOTAL
40,897
45,291
50,035
__PARAGRAPH_CONT__
4,408,000 million were paid to private enterprises and 1,051,000
million to government-owned shipyards. Beginning from the
late sixties, the latter were involved only in repairing and
re-equipping ships, and from 1968 all orders on construction
of new vessels were fulfilled solely by private companies. By
1975, 415 private enterprises were involved in American
shipbuilding; of these, 25 had facilities for building new big
warships and merchant vessels and employed 91,500 workers,
or about 62 per cent of the total manpower occupied in the
sub-branch "construction and repair of big ships and vessels''.
The US Navy accounts for over half of the orders placed with the American shipbuilding industry. Most of the work is done at shipyards which belong to three private companies, viz. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (division of Tenneco Inc.), Ingalls Shipbuilding (division of Litton Industries), and Electric Boat (division of General Dynamics). The five-year naval construction programme adopted by the US government for the 1978--1982 fiscal years will stimulate its further development.
__PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 52 Table 5 Dynamics of Production and Employment in Aeromissile Industries of Capitalist Countries (production volume, million dollars; number of employees, thousands) 1970 1971 1972 Country Produc-- Number Produc-- Number Produc-- tion ol em-- tion of em-- tion volume ployees volume ployees volume ployees United States 24,930 1,166.0 22,186 951.0 22,608 922.0 Britain 1,626 237.0 1,575 218.0 1,882 212.0 France West Germany Italy 1,339 787 232 103.4 56.2 29.5 1,417 842 224 108.7 55.2 28.0 1,688 1,103 257 108.5 52.4 28.5 Canada 659 35.8 596 28.7 627 28 8 Japan 306 25.6 309 26.5 438.5 26.0 1973 1974 1975 Country Produc-- Number Produc-- Number Produc-- Number tion of em-- tion of em-- tion volume ployees volume ployees volume ployees United States 23,771 948.0 26.200 968.0 28,900 960.0 Britain 2,288 206.1 1,931.8 198.5 1,937.7 220.0 France 2,331 106.1 3,094 106.1 108.4 West Germany 1,401 52.9 2,000 54 2,100 57.0 Italy 286 30.0 294 32 320 32.0 Canada 672 30.2 31 Japan 585.7 26.0 664.7 25.6 764.4 26.3 Compiled from: 1975, p. 7. Interavia, No. 5, 1975, pp. 474,477; The Japan Economic Journal, May 6.Britain ranks second among the capitalist states in naval construction. The total cost of commissioned British warships amounts to about 20 per cent of the gross production of British shipbuilding. Vickres, Yarrow and Co., Ltd. and VosperThornycroft, Ltd. are the three major companies that build warships under contracts with the British Ministry of State for National Defence.
The atomic industry occupies a major position in modern military production, and the United States gives it a very high 53 priority. America has been spending, and continues to spend, large sums on developing, manufacturing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials; on improving reactors used as energy plants on ships; on procurement of raw materials; and so on. Britain also has an atomic industry; she produces atomic and hydrogen bombs and carries out big projects for developing atomic power engineering. France, too, attaches major significance to developing her atomic industry.
The radioelectronic industry is a leading branch of military production. Its products play an increasingly important role in manufacturing modern weapons systems, and its share in military expenditures is quite considerable. According to the Electronic Industries Association of America, of the total of 64,100 million dollars spent by the Pentagon in 1976 on procurement of armaments, R & D projects, and maintenance and operation of military equipment, about 17 per cent went to radioelectronic equipment. The Association predicts that by 1986 this share will increase to 21 per cent (18,900 million dollars).^^1^^ The rapidly growing military demand for radioelectronic products stimulated the militarisation of the industry. In 1950, the Pentagon procured 24.2 per cent of the 2,705 million dollars of total sales of radioelectronic equipment, and in 1975 33.2 per cent of the 36,408 million of total sales.
Manufacture of artillery, small arms, ammunition and armoured equipment has also reached significant levels. Western Europe, primarily West Germany, leads in the production of armoured equipment.
The development of the above-mentioned and other of the most militarised branches of industry is chiefly dependent on government orders. Hence, the end of the arms race would primarily concern these branches, since they would be largely affected by the conversion of military production.
A characteristic feature of the modern military industry of the imperialist states is the availability of large unused industrial capacity. According to various assessments, in some branches of the US industry 40 to 70 per cent of capacity are underused. Despite this, however, arms manufacturing companies continue to expand their capacity, and they use various means to shift on to the government the huge costs involved in maintaining the big underused factories and plants. In this connection, _-_-_
^^1^^ Defense/Space Business Daily, December 15, 1976, p. 243.
54 Joseph G. Gavin, Jr. of Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation said: "In peacetime you can't expect us to use full capacity. In fact, you would be greatly concerned if you were at full capacity because you would have no margin for accelerating in emergencies.''^^1^^ For mobilisation purposes, the United States and other capitalist countries are systematically expanding and modernising their military production capacity. The existing plans for developing the armed forces of the United States and the other NATO countries create premises for further expanding their military industries. In this respect, numerous projects for developing and producing the most up-to-date weapons systems are particularly important. According to the US press, the Pentagon's expenses on arms procurement during the next few years would annually increase by 6-8 per cent.^^2^^ ``We're upbeat,'' says Laurence J. Adams, President of Martin Marietta Aerospace Corp., which got a big chunk of the Army's 5,000 million dollar Patriot Missile programme. Says Dolor P. Murray, Executive Vice-President of the McDonnell Douglas Corp.: "The defence industry is in a very healthy position.''^^3^^Such optimistic statements by top officials of the US militaryindustrial corporations are connected not only with the anticipated increase in military orders, but also with the fact that the US government is taking various measures to make these orders more and more profitable.
A study of the economic factors of disarmament should involve an analysis of the organisation of arms production in capitalist countries, as well as the extent of participation on the part of private companies in the manufacture of military products. Government and private enterprises both take part in arms production. In different countries, the share of state and privately-owned firms both in the overall military production and in the manufacture of specific products is found to vary. In the United States, for example, private corporations play a leading part in developing the military economy, and the role of state enterprises is relatively minor. In the midseventies, for instance, 81.8 per cent of the total cost of the Pentagon's initial orders were placed with private firms, 5.3 per cent were given to overseas companies, 11 per cent to state _-_-_
^^1^^ Business Week, January 10, 1977, p. 58.
^^2^^ Ibid.
^^3^^ Ibid., p. 52
55 enterprises, and 1.9 per cent to educational and non-profit institutions.^^1^^ In the West European countries, state enterprises play a more conspicuous role. However, there, too, an overwhelming part of military products is normally manufactured by private companies.Lots of firms in the West are engaged in military production. In the United States, it involves over 20,000 contractors and 100,000 subcontractors. Large corporations play a leading role in manufacturing armaments. For instance, the share of 100 big US corporations in the total cost of prime contracts from the Department of Defence amounted to 68.9 per cent in 1965, 69.7 per cent in 1970, 66.3 per cent in 1975, and 69 per cent in 1976. The role of the first 20 big contractors, whose share amounts to about 45 per cent of the total cost of all the Pentagon contracts, is especially conspicuous (Table 6).
In the fiscal years of 1961--1976 the Pentagon's highest orders were placed with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, which specialised in the manufacturing of aircraft, missiles and space technology. In the sixties, Lockheed was chief contractor for developing and producing Polaris and Poseidon missiles; they also made C-130, C-141 and C-5A military transport planes. Lockheed will be manufacturing anti-submarine P-3 aircraft for the US Navy (the project will cost 3,400 million dollars) and for export through the early eighties. The Lockheed Aircraft Corporation is a major exporter of armaments. During the post-war years, they have been supplying military technology to about 40 countries.
In 1961--1976, the General Dynamics Corporation was the second largest Pentagon contractor. The company has been manufacturing strategic B-58 bombers and multipurpose F-lll fighters and has begun the construction of the Trident submarines, a project which by 1981 should ensure sales in the sum of 13,000 million dollars. General Dynamics has developed a new F-16 fighter, which will generate sales 7,000 million dollars to the Pentagon and to the NATO countries.^^2^^ They also manufacture many other types of military equipment, and in 1976 received an additional 5,300 million dollars worth of orders and reached a record level of 6,500 million dollars.^^3^^ In 1961--1976, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation was _-_-_
^^1^^ Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1976, p. 332.
^^2^^ Business Week, January 10, 1977, p. 55.
^^3^^ Aerospace Daily, Vol. 84, No. 5, March 7, 1977, p. 37.
56 the Pentagon's third major contractor, but in 1976 it overtook its competitors and now ranks first. McDonnell produces diversified military equipment, and is chiefly responsible for developing and manufacturing the F-4 and F-5 fighters, various missile systems, ground equipment for monitoring spaceships, and so on. In the next few years, sales of F-15 fighters alone will provide them with contracts in the sum of 11,000 million dollars. In 1976, the total sales amounted to 3,500 million dollars of which 68 per cent was covered by federal procurement. By the end of 1976, McDonnell had been awarded contracts in the sum of 2,900 million dollars.The General Electric Corporation, the Boeing Co., United Technologies Corp. and the Rockwell International Corp. are also major Pentagon suppliers of military technology. These and other military-industrial corporations are not only prominent in arms production, but in other spheres of the US economy as well. All the leading manufacturers of US military equipment are technologically the most advanced corporations; they employ the most qualified labour and possess a high scientific and technological potential.
A highly concentrated and monopolised military industry is characteristic of Britain, where the major suppliers of armaments and combat equipment are: British Aerospace (the main contractors for aeromissile technology) and Vickers (warships, artillery, bombs, machine guns, rifles, etc.). But there are other companies as well.
In West Germany, the principal producers of military equipment are Friedrich Flick, whose numerous enterprises manufacture tanks, aircraft equipment, ammunition and other weaponry; Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm, which produces aircraft, missiles, space technology, and other military equipment; Quandt, which makes small arms, ammunition, etc.; Rheinmetall Berlin AG, which specialises in small arms; and other military-industrial concerns.
In France, most of the military equipment is manufactured by a few specialised companies, primarily by Dassault, 82 per cent of whose sales in the mid-seventies included armaments, by Snecma (76 per cent), by Thomson-CSF (55 per cent), by Matra (52 per cent), and others.^^1^^
Japan has a highly concentrated level of military contracts. The Japan Defence Agency places contracts with over 1,800 __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ _-_-_
~^^1^^ Usine Nouvelle, No. 4, 1977, pp. 16, 17.
57 Table 6 Awards of Prime Military Contracts to Major Suppliers of the US Department of Defence (million dollars) Company Total for 1961-- 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Total for 1961 1976 Lockheed* United Aircraft until 1975.
** North American Rockwell until 1973.
Compiled from: R. E. Lapp, The Weapons Culture, W. W. Norton &
Company Inc., New York, 1968, pp. 186 87;
US News and World Report, April 21, 1969, p. 63;
Aviation Week and Space Technology, November 25,
1967, p. 62; February 2, 1976, p. 54.
The major suppliers of armaments form the nucleus of the military-industrial complex. The history of capitalism shows that the military-industrial monopolies always aimed for bigger contracts at higher prices. In pursuing their objectives of self-interest the arms manufactures have always succeeded in aggravating international relations, bringing reactionary regimes to power, and instigating wars. For instance, that the German armament manufactures (Krupp, Flick and others) helped the Nazis come to power and prepare the Second World War is well known. Today, for the sake of increasing their profits and consolidating their positions, the military-industrial monopolies are doing their utmost to hamper detente, and seek to intensify the arms race and militarise the economy.
Contradictions among the monopolies from different countries become increasingly acute when the question of sharing the profits arises.
The desire of the monopolies, who are at the same time allies and competitors with each other, to snatch a major share in the highly profitable armament business is actuated by powerful pressure from military-industrial complexes which seek to get both bigger contracts for their national armed forces and to increase their arms exports. National frontiers are no obstacles for the "merchants of death''. To boost their profits they supply arms not only to their own countries and allies, but also, as past wars have shown, they sell arms to hostile nations and even those which are at war with their own countries. Arms manufacturers in the different capitalist countries have close and long-standing ties and work together. Even before the First World War, several international syndicates are known to have been organised for the joint manufacture of explosives, cannons, machine guns, battleships, etc. Prior to the Second World War, the principal military syndicates were located in Western Europe which was then the centre of militarism and reaction. By their joint efforts, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Nihon Keizai Shimbun, June 24, 1975, p. 7.
59 they sought to step up military preparations in the imperialist countries and to turn them against each other.International ties among the military-industrial complexes became particularly strong after the Second World War, when military production levels reached unprecedented heights for peacetime and when the integration of military economies became widespread. In the military sphere, economic integration is intensified through inter-state projects involving monopolies from the different countries and also through increased export of capital, establishment of branches of military-- industrial monopolies in other countries, and much greater activity of international corporations. Major US military-industrial monopolies play a leading part in this process.
National military-industrial complexes compete ruthlessly for sales markets. A vivid example was the contest between the US and the West European companies for selling the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium and Norway 350 new fighter planes to replace the outdated American Starfighters. The sharp rivalry which took many months involved political, economic and diplomatic pressure, advertising through all available connections, blackmail, bribery of influential personalities, and other methods. The battle was won by General Dynamics. The Financial Times wrote the following about the arguments and machinations connected with this major arms contract: "But the commercial bitterness and political wrangling with which the search was conducted showed just how deeply divided the countries of NATO still are on this whole question of common procurement.''^^1^^
The total arms exports from capitalist countries had grown from 300 million dollars in 1952 to 3,000 million in 1970 and 20,000 million in 1976. As President Carter noted in his May 1977 statement on US policies in sales of conventional armaments to other countries, over half come from the United States. The rapid growth of arms sales is primarily due to the military and political interests of states who use the weapons business to strengthen their positions in different areas of the globe and to fight against the growing influence of socialist countries and against national liberation and anti-imperialist movements. Besides, increasing arms exports are essentially stimulated by economic factors. The United States and other major capitalist countries seek to increase their exports of _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Financial Times, July 9, 1975.
60 armaments in order to improve their trade and payments balances. In some years, arms sales accounted for as much as 10 per cent of the total foreign trade of the United States and the other leading arms suppliers. The 1974 US trade balance was positive solely due to arms exports, without which its deficit would have amounted to 5,000 million dollars.^^1^^ Export of armaments is also used to boost military production efficiency, e. g. by increasing serial production of armaments and equipment, and to provide for full employment of production capcity and ensure mobilisational alertness of the military industry.The annual volume of US arms sales abroad grew from 900 million dollars in 1970 to 3,800 million in 1973 and 12,700 million in 1976. Arms supplies overseas constitute about 7 per cent of the total US exports.
McDonnell Douglas, which in the 1975 fiscal year exported 419 million dollars worth of arms, Grumman (298 million), General Electric (209 million), United Technologies (132 million), Lockheed Aircraft (172 million) and other militaryindustrial corporations are all major suppliers of American military equipment abroad. The international arms trade has become an extremely profitable business. According to figures published in 1975 by the US Department of State, over 1,000 American companies have received licenses for manufacturing or selling arms overseas, and it is notable that major American and mixed oil companies, e. g. Texaco, Standard Oil, Aramco, Mobil Oil and others, are also intensively exporting arms. They sell, or rather resell, to oil-producing countries small arms, ammunition, explosives, warplanes and spare parts for them, military electronic instruments, ancillary military equipment, and many other military commodities.^^2^^
In the mid-seventies, the Middle East became the largest market for American arms exports. The share of Mideast nations in the total orders for US armaments grew from 5.6 per cent in 1950--1963 to 19.4 per cent in 1964--1970, and to 35 and 53 per cent in 1972 and 1975, respectively. Israel heads the list of Mideast importers of American weaponry; it is followed by the Persian Gulf states, who in 1975 imported 4,300 million dollars worth or 46 per cent of the total US exports of military equipment. The United States also supplies considerable quantities of arms to Egypt.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 17. 1975, p. 8.
~^^2^^ The New York Times. October 21, 1975.
61France ranks second among the capitalist countries in the exports of armaments. Her military industry employs 270,000 workers, of which every fourth produces arms for export; at least 6 per cent of the total cost of French exports involve armaments. The chief markets for French weapons are the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Only 7 and less than 2 per cent of the total cost of French arms exports go to the Common Market and the United States, respectively.
Britain is also among the world's leading suppliers of arms.
West Germany, too, is showing considerable activity in the sphere of arms exports. Her military concerns strive to win positions on the international arms markets. For that purpose, they seek government support and a reduced export ban, which, however, they often circumvent. West Germany has built military plants in Argentina, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and other countries and concluded agreements with Brazil and South Africa for supplying them with nuclear technology, materials and equipment for enriching uranium. This fact in itself might promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Military-industrial companies in Italy, Japan and other countries are also increasing their activity in sales of arms overseas.
The rapidly growing export of armaments is fraught with serious consequences. It promotes further intensification of the arms race and the resultant involvement of still newer countries, an aggravation of international tensions, and creates dangerous hotbeds for future military conflicts. Huge exports of arms threaten world peace. The threat becomes greater now since no longer are outdated weapons involved but the most up-to-date equipment. The arms race as a continued operation for the enrichment of military-industrial complexes is a serious obstacle to disarmament.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. How Military Expenses Affect the EconomyOpponents of disarmament widely publicise the myth that military expenses stimulate economic development, are an important factor for scientific and technological progress, and serve to offset unemployment and an economic crisis. At the same time, they do everything to prove that it would lead to economic recession and higher unemployment.
Justification of the arms race as a stimulus to capitalist economic development became widespread in the United States 62 especially in the first post-war years. The Second World War is known to have led the US economy out of critical stagnation and to speed up its development considerably. This was primarily caused by increased military production in conditions favourable to the United States. Basing themselves on the experience of the Second World War, many Western economists regarded military expenses as an effective means of stabilising economic conditions and preventing crises. They did their best to prove that with military expenditures one could ensure eternal ``prosperity'' and "high employment''. These views were reflected in the economic policies of the US government. As a result, state-monopoly regulation of the American economy was largely achieved in the form of military preparations, whereas the period before the Second World War was involved with various public works, provision of welfare benefits, etc. Speaking of the role of the US government in the nation's economy, the well-known American economist, John K. Galbraith wrote: "If a large public sector of the economy, supported by personal and corporate income taxation, is the fulcrum for the regulation of demand, plainly military expenditures are the pivot on which the fulcrum rests.''^^1^^
In the first post-war years, US government officials and representatives of big business stressed that the arms race and the huge government spending related to it could free the economy of crises and provide full employment. In countering this view, the well-known progressive US economist, Victor Perlo wrote that "The Truman administration made the most brazen use of the military budget for contracyclical purposes. Its cynical concept of economic planning was expressed as follows by the pro-Establishment journal, U. S. News and World Report: 'Government planners figure they have found the magic formula for almost endless good times. They are now beginning to wonder if there may be something to perpetuate motion after all... Cold war is the catalyst. Cold war is an automatic pump-primer. Turn a spigot, and the public clamors for more arms spending. Turn another, the clamor ceases. Truman confidence cockiness is based on this 'Truman formula'. Truman era of good times, President is told, can run much beyond 1952. Cold war demands, if fully exploited, are almost limitless.''^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ John K.Galbraith, The New Industrial Slate, London, 1967, p. 22').
^^2^^ Victor Perlo, The Unstable Economy. Booms and Recessions in the United States Since 1945, International Publishers, New York, 1974, p. 157.
63The wide use by the US government of military-economic preparations for state-monopoly regulation of the economy is evidenced by the fact that by 1972 248,000 million of the 454,500 million dollars of the total cost of government property involved the military sphere (equipment and facilities, other unproductive assets, industrial equipment for manufacturing armaments, etc.).^^1^^ This is also confirmed by the fact that about 75 per cent of US government spending on commodities and services involve military procurement which is chiefly determined by military and political motivations and also by existing economic conditions. According to former Defence Secretary, James R. Schlesinger, the 1974/75 military budget was increased at the last minute by more than 1,000 million dollars by the White House in order to help provide a stimulus for a lagging domestic economy.^^2^^ By manipulating spending from a huge military budget, distribution of military orders, pricing of military products, use of government property and other economic levers, the US government determines the size and structure of the military economy and thereby exerts considerable influence on the nation's entire economy. A similar situation, though smaller in scope, can be observed in other capitalist countries.
State control of capitalist reproduction can be achieved by increasing the military and other expenditures, particularly those spent on public works, social needs, etc. However, in deciding how to use the budgetary funds for state-monopoly stimulation of economic development, capitalist states often give preference to military expenditures. This is due to a number of reasons, of which the most substantial are as follows: first, military expenditures are directed at creating and maintaining the military machine for consolidating class domination and preserving capitalist production relations. Second, the level of military expenditures may be quite easily increased on the military, political, technological and other pretexts, and the details of these expenses would not make it possible for the public to judge whether their further increase was well-- grounded and purposeful. Third, military-economic preparations by the state do not contradict the economic interests of the monopolies; neither do they compete with private capital which is involved in the production of civilian goods and services. Fourth, military expenditures are a source of enrichment and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1976, p. 235.
^^2^^ The New York Times, February 27, 1974.
64 a material basis for continued operation of the military-industrial complexes, which have a major influence on policy-making.Even the Western press occasionally admits the fact that expenditures for social needs and similar aspects of government spending outside definite limits would contradict the economic and political interests of the bourgeoisie. These types of spending do not have the advantages of military expenditures, which are in greater harmony with maintaining and reproducing the basic social foundations of capitalism.^^1^^
The extent to which military expenditures influence a nation's economy depends first of all on their absolute and relative levels. During the two world wars, these expenses attained a maximum which absorbed over half of the national income of the warring nations, and decisively affected reproduction and the economy as a whole. In peacetime, however, relatively smaller military expenditures have a more modest effect on reproduction.
Events show that the assertions by Western theorists, politicians and statesmen which try to prove that the arms race is a means of preventing crises are groundless. Naturally, one cannot deny that the huge expenses necessary for military needs in a way do affect the cycles of capitalist reproduction. In regulating contracts on armaments, the capitalist governments may avert an imminent crisis or weaken it slightly. But in peacetime, military spending generally cannot exclude the cyclical nature of capitalist reproduction. This was proven by the numerous economic crises in the capitalist countries which occurred during the post-war years, particularly by the world economic crisis of 1974--1975 which was the acutest and deepest.
In some cases, military-economic preparations trigger off and intensify economic crises. The point is that considerable vacillations in the scope and structure of military production systematically occur with changes in military strategy, technology, etc. In comparison with the civilian economy, military production is characterised by greater fluctuation and more abrupt shifts. In some instances these are instrumental in aggravating capitalist contradictions and worsening the economic conditions. For instance, considerable cuts in US armament contracts following the end of the Korean War hastened the beginning of the 1953--1954 economic crisis.
Nor can huge military spending on the part of the capitalist _-_-_
^^1^^ The American Economic Review, May 1972, pp. 296--303.
65 countries cure them of such a chronic ailment as unemployment. In 1974--1975, unemployment in these countries increased sharply and reached the highest level in 40 years. In 1979, officially registered unemployed in 22 major capitalist states amounted to 18 million, including 6 million in the United States, 1.7 million in Italy, 1.4 million in France, 1.3 million in Britain, and 0.9 million in West Germany.Not only does the arms race not save capitalist countries from crises, unemployment and other chronic ailments, but it also increases the economic difficulties and impedes the development of their productive forces. Marx wrote that "war, in the direct economic sense, is as if a nation were to cast part of its capital into water''.^^1^^ An analysis of the existing realities in capitalist countries shows that all assertions by those who support the arms race and who say military expenditures have a beneficial effect on economic development and employment are groundless. Exhaustive and well-reasoned studies are essentially needed to anticipate the socio-economic consequences of disarmament. In examining the economic aspects of the problem, it would also be necessary to reveal the diversely negative effects of the arms race on the development of the productive forces.
It is difficult to thoroughly and accurately assess all the negative economic consequences of huge unproductive military expenditures, but the following six are ostensibly the most significant.
1. The arms race diverts the creative use of huge human resources. According to some evidence, 60 million people are currently occupied in the military sphere and include the most able-bodied and qualified workers and specialists. By 1976, the armed forces of NATO alone numbered 4,863,000 officers and men, of which 2,088,000 were from the United States, 512,900 from France, 495,000 from West Germany, 460,000 from Turkey, 344,200 from Britain and 352,000 from Italy.^^2^^
In addition to the armed forces, the use of human resources for military purposes involves civilian employees, armament production workers, and other essentially military categories. According to American figures, in 1979 a total of 4,899,000 including 2,050,000 servicemen, 994,000 civilians and 1,855,000 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Archives of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Vol. 4, p. 29.
^^2^^ The Military Balance 1976--1977, The International Institute for StrategicStudies, London, 1976, p. 80.
__PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5---18 66 industrial workers, were employed in the military sphere.^^1^^According to assessments by UN experts, about 25 per cent of the world's scientific workers and engineers are employed in the military sphere, particularly in those areas which develop and produce new types of weapons. The militarisation of science impedes scientific and technological progress in the civilian branches of the capitalist economies. The advocates of the arms race often play up to the fact that some results of the military R & D projects are used for peaceful purposes, but they conceal the costs involved. Further specialisation of military R & D projects entails lesser opportunities for using their achievements in the civilian sphere. If it were possible to direct the efforts of scientists and the vast resources towards civilian needs, the economic, scientific and technological gains would be colossal.
Because of the arms race, millions of people in the capitalist countries do not work for creative purposes, but for preserving and continuously strengthening the military machine. Due to the social conditions and the existing class system, under which they live, they manufacture modern weapons and service the military machine whereas they should be producing material wealth and rendering services for peaceful purposes. As a result, the use of enormous labour power and intellectual resources constituting the basic productive force causes huge economic losses. In effect, the work of people who are occupied in the military sphere do not increase the real social product. On the contrary, this work leads to a decrease in the social product, since they are dependants of society and exist at the expense of the redistribution of the country's social product. According to Marx, "The soldier belongs to the incidental expenses of production, in the same way as a large part of the unproductive labourers who produce nothing themselves, either spiritual or material, but who are useful and necessary only because of the faulty social relations---they owe their existence to social evils.''^^2^^
Employment in the military sphere causes economic losses not only for the present but also for the future generations. It results in a larger number of military pensioners and war _-_-_
~^^1^^ Department of Defense. Annual Report. Fiscal Year 1980. Report of Secretary of Defense Harold Brown to the Congress, January 25, 1979, p. C-2.
~^^2^^ Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, Part I, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 289.
67 veterans. According to the Pentagon's statistics, in 1964 the number of discharged US servicemen who were entitled to benefits amounted to 411,000. By 1990 it will increase to 1,514,000. Expenses for social security and other services for former servicemen and their dependants will correspondingly rise. In the mid-seventies, the total number of war veterans in the United States was about 29.6 million, and 19,000 million dollars were spent to cover their needs in 1976.Prof. James L. Clayton estimates that the benefits paid over many years to veterans of five major wars which were waged in the past by the United States, exceed by about three times the initial budgetary expenses on those wars, and writes: "...the estimated original cost of the Civil War is $ 3.2 billion. ... Veterans' benefits for that war to 1967 have amounted to $ 8.6 billion, or an increase over the original cost of 265 per cent."^^1^^ Almost three hundred dependants of former Civil War veterans still get benefits despite the fact that it ended in 1865 and the last soldier who took part in it died in 1959. The latest pension paid to the family of a War of Independence veteran was paid in 1911, and the family of a war veteran of 1812 was paid in 1946, and the family of an 1846--1848 Mexican War veteran was paid in 1962. According to current forecasts, the payment of benefits to war veterans of World War II, the Korean war and the Indochina war will end in about the beginning of the second half of the next century.
2. Under the arms race and militarisation of the economy, huge industrial facilities, vast plots of land, and numerous buildings and structures are used for military purposes. As was noted above, many capitalist countries have built large facilities for the armament industry. As a rule, however, they do not operate at full capacity and are designed to speed up military production in case of emergency. In terms of society's economic interests, all this signifies the freezing of capital. Excess production facilities for armament production are not used for manufacturing products. Moreover, their maintenance entails large irrational costs. According to some estimates, the cost of the excess capacity in the US aircraft industry alone, amounts to at least 300--500 million dollars per year.^^2^^ In addition, the military industry utilises the latest achievements _-_-_
~^^1^^ Congressional Record. Proceedings and Debates of the 91st Congress, First Session, July 1, 1969, p. 7425.
~^^2^^ Defense /Space Business Daily, May 16, 1977, p. 83.
68 of science and technology with up-to-date production techniques, and employs a major and most qualified part of scientists, engineers and workers. In many countries, all this restricts the development of the civilian branches of the economy and their productive forces.3. The arms race deflects huge quantities of highly valuable and scarce raw materials, energy, and other resources from civilian use. At present, the leading capitalist countries divert 5 to 10 per cent of their basic raw materials to military needs. In some countries, there exist huge strategic reserves of raw material and other resources for expanding the armament industries in case of war.
In the fifties, the United States accumulated strategic reserves that would cover the nation's military and civilian needs in wartime for five years. Stockpiling norms were subsequently revised: in 1958 they were changed to correspond to prospective requirements for three years, in 1973, for one year, and in 1976 again for three years. According to official figures, by October 1, 1976 the total cost of US strategic stockpiles ( including over 90 items) was estimated at 7,400 million dollars.
World reserves of raw materials and fuel are known to be limited. In these conditions, the use of huge quantities of highly valuable and irreplaceable raw materials and fuel for military purposes is a crime against humanity.
4. The arms race absorbs enormous financial resources. Today, the world's military expenditures amount to more than 400,000 million dollars per year. In capitalist countries, military allocations involve about 5-6 per cent of the gross national product and an average of 30 per cent of the total expenses from state budgets. By deflecting huge funds from the civilian sphere, military preparations hamper the solution of numerous economic problems and substantially limit capital investment for civilian needs and thus impede the development of productive forces.
Huge military expenditures increase financial difficulties. Precisely because of the high level of military allocations, budgetary spending in capitalist countries largely and systematically creates huge deficits. From 1945/46 to 1977/78, the US government budget showed a deficit on 25 occasions, and in only seven instances were the revenues noted to have slightly exceeded the expenditures. The largest deficit in the US budget 69 occurred in recent years: in 1975 it amounted to 43,600 and in 1976 to 66,500 million dollars. The budgets of other capitalist countries are also characterised by chronic deficits. Deficit financing is accompanied by a rapid increase of the national debt. For instance, the US government's debt grew from 291,000 million dollars in 1960 to 383,000 million in 1970 and to 839,000 million in 1979.^^1^^ On the other hand, a growing national debt leads to additional emission of money and an accumulation of excess funds in the money circulation channels, this is a major cause of the rapidly growing inflation in the capitalist countries.
Inflation is also intensified by the existing system of pricing military products and by the desire of the military-industrial monopolies to inflate prices on armaments.
Thus, in modern conditions, the arms race has become an important factor in escalating inflation in capitalist countries and Western economists and statesmen admit this. In mid-April 1977, President Carter declared: "Difficult inflationary problems began more than a decade ago as large budget deficits during the Vietnam war led to excess demand and an overheated economy. That war was financed, in part, through the hidden tax of inflation.''^^2^^ Table 7 shows the growth of inflation in the leading capitalist countries.
Table 7 Growth of Consumer Prices (per cent against previous year) Country Mean annual growth rates in 1961--1970 Mean annual growth rates in 1971--1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 ( estimated) United States 2.8 6.7 5.8 6.5 7.6 7.0 Canada 2.7 7.3 7.5 8.0 9.0 7.0 Britain 4.1 13.0 16.5 15.9 8.3 9.0 France 4.0 8.8 9.6 9.8 9.1 9.3 West Germany 2.7 6.1 4.5 3.9 2.6 2.8 Italy 3.9 11.3 16.8 170 12.1 11.0 Japan 5.8 11.5 9.3 8.1 3.8 4.0Source: International Economic Report of the President Transmitted to the Congress, January 1977, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1977, p. 142.
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1980, p. 577.
~^^2^^ Public Papers of the Presidents. Jimmy Carter, 1977, p. 624.
70The arms race was one of the causes of the chronic deficits in the balances of payments of the United States and of other capitalist countries and resulted in a crisis in the monetary system of capitalism. Connected with this US military expenditures, particularly costs for maintaining military bases and the armed forces overseas, played a major role. These expenses promoted a systematic increase of deficits in the US balance of payments. The United States covers the main part of this deficit at the expense of the dollar reserves of the other countries. As a result, the US liabilities abroad have grown rapidly, and by December 31, 1976 amounted to 246,000 million dollars, which is several times more than the total US gold and currency reserves. The influx of excessive sums of US dollars to stock exchanges in the capitalist countries was accompanied by a continuous efflux of gold from the United States (whose gold reserves had decreased from 21,800 million dollars in 1953 to 11,500 million in 1967 and 9,600 million in 1976). A loss of confidence in the dollar was apparent, as it devaluated (as compared to the other capitalist currencies). American products were less able to compete in international markets, and instability of the dollar as an international currency increased. In the final analysis, militarisation of the US economy undermined the strength of the dollar as a world currency and led to its devaluation twice. It also precipitated a crisis of the entire monetary system of modern capitalism.
5. War preparations have a negative effect on the economic development in many countries, in which mobilisation plans involve measures for strengthening their military-economic potential, ensuring the integrity of their industrial and other significant military-economic enterprises, deconcentration and transfer of these enterprises to underground premises, civil defence, and so on. These measures entail big material and financial costs and, in addition, sometimes interfere with specifying the optimum size of the structure and the territorial distribution of respective industries. All this, naturally, reduces economic efficiency.
6. Militarism and the arms race do not permit the full use of the advantages of international division of labour and violate the normal economic ties among states, especially those with different social systems. In the gloomy years of the cold war, the United States and other countries set up artificial barriers that hampered trade with the socialist countries. The US and its allies compiled extensive lists of commodities which were 71 banned for export to the socialist countries for strategic reasons, and these lists are still valid today. The economic interests of both the socialist and the capitalist states suffer from policies in which mutually profitable international trade is artificially hindered.
The above-cited as well as certain other consequences of militarism and the arms race deprive society of opportunities to productively utilise its vast labour, material, financial and other resources. These "lost opportunities" bring about huge economic losses, whose scale is hard to estimate. Military preparations result in a situation in which the possibility of creating additional material wealth that would by far exceed the astronomical total military expenditures of modern capitalism would be unrealistic. A fuller idea of the burden of the arms race could be conceived by taking into account these unrealised economic opportunities.
In many countries, the arms race and militarisation of the economy have become fetters that prevent development of the productive forces. In his January 1977 message to the World Forum of Peace Forces, Leonid Brezhnev wrote: "Even if no mention were made of a direct danger of a nuclear holocaust, the arms race in itself is a purposeless waste of material and spiritual wealth, which mankind needs so much to fight hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to solve social, energy, raw material and ecological problems.''^^1^^
Military expenses are a wasteful and unproductive use of material and manpower resources. The arms race depletes a country's domestic resources and reduces the possibilities for boosting its economic potential. This applies even in those cases where military preparations promote increases in current production levels and for a time step up economic growth rates. Growth of production through military expenditures is accompanied by an increasing share in the gross national product of items designed neither for industrial nor for personal consumption. Military products fall out of the sphere of reproduction and constitute a deduction from the social product.
During the first two post-war decades, the United States developed its strategic plans on the assumption that the nation's economic potential permits it to systematically spend huge _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin's Course. Speeches and Articles, Politicheskaya Literatura Publishers, Moscow, Vol. 6, 1975, p. 280 (in Russian).
72 material resources (as much as 15 per cent of the gross national product) for military needs without overheating the economy. However, practice, particularly that of financing the Indochina war, has shown the global strategic plans of the United States to be at odds with its actual economic and financial possibilities. A highly militarised economy has become a major cause of America's growing economic and financial difficulties. It is now clear that even the richest nation of the modern capitalist world cannot constantly bear huge military expenses and simultaneously resolve domestic economic and social problems; in other words, "guns and butter" cannot go together. Heated discussions were begun in the United States to determine priorities in distributing state resources for military and civilian needs and the desirability of huge military spending. Sharply aggravated domestic economic and socio-political problems were indicative of a crisis in the economic foundations of America's military and political course and showed that, if continued, it would lead to the undermining of the economic and social foundations of the United States.The relatively high level of militarisation of the US economy (in 1978 military expenditures per capita amounted to 517 dollars in the US, 337 dollars in West Germany, 299 dollars in Britain, 325 dollars in France, and 74 dollars in Japan) was not the last factor due to which America's economic positions in the capitalist world have become relatively weakened.^^1^^ A highly militarised economy also reduced America's share in the capitalist gross national product, industrial output, foreign trade balance, gold and currency reserves, etc. At the same time, the relatively low militarisation of the economy of Japan and some West European countries was helpful in strengthening their economic positions. For example, the West German economy developed especially quickly in the fifties and early sixties, i. e. when Bonn's expenses on military needs were still relatively low. Those were the years when West Germany achieved higher economic growth rates permitting her to overtake her partners in many areas. With increased military spendings, however, West Germany's economic development slowed down, and malfunctions in her economy became more frequent and protracted. Bonn's experience is thus also indicative of the negative influence the arms race has on the national economy. The arms race promotes increasingly uneven _-_-_
^^1^^ The Military Balance 1978--1979, p.
73 economic development in capitalist countries and clashes with their national interests.From the start of the second half of the sixties, the negative effects of military expenditures on capitalist economies became so apparent that even bourgeois economists became increasingly critical of militarisation. For example, such economists as John K. Galbraith and Arthur Burns began to criticise the arms race. Unlike during the first post-war years, even its advocates now propagate the ``benefits'' of militarisation in a more cautious and covert manner.
The arms race which is now being escalated in the capitalist countries has a negative effect on the economic growth in many developing states, as well as in the socialist countries. It is well known that the United States and other capitalist countries hope to ``exhaust'' the USSR economically by drawing it into costly military programmes. Yet, the entire course of post-war Soviet economic development proves how vain these hopes are.
A study of the increasingly negative economic consequences of militarisation once again shows how vitally important and urgent it is for all nations to struggle for ending the arms race and to strive for disarmament.
[74] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter 3 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Militarisation of ScienceIn modern conditions, the struggle of the progressive forces for real gains in the sphere of disarmament largely involves effective measures for preventing the use of the latest achievements of science and technology for the continued improvement of armaments. Systematic modernisation of military technology stimulates the arms race and complicates disarmament.
Capitalism is responsible to history for having allowed the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution to spread to the military sphere and become the basis of a revolution in military engineering and of its resultant unprecedentedly destructive nuclear missiles and other weapons of mass annihilation, which now constitute the main threat to international peace and security.
Further rapid technological improvement of conventional weapons for obtaining greater fire power, accuracy, speed and so on is fraught with extremely dangerous consequences. After the Second World War, all local conflicts involving loss of millions of human lives were waged with conventional arms. But production of many types of modern conventional weapons is based on the latest achievements of science and engineering, and their destructive power is so great that, in perspective, the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons might disappear altogether.
Given the danger that development of new weapons of mass destruction presents to mankind, Leonid Brezhnev proposed in 1975 to ban their development and production. He said: "Countries---notably the big powers---should sign an agreement banning the development of new kinds of weapons of mass annihilation and new systems of such weapons.''^^1^^ In order to implement this important Soviet initiative, USSR Foreign _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin's Course, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 575.
75 Minister Andrei Gromyko on September 23, 1975 sent a letter to UN Secretary-General, Kurt Waldheim, requesting him to include in the agenda of the 30th session of the UN General Assembly the question of banning development and production of new types of weapons of mass annihilation and new systems of such weapons. He simultaneously put forward a concrete draft of a corresponding international agreement.Seeking to attain military superiority over the socialist countries, the capitalist states continue their systematic and extensive special R & D projects. This is to further improve the existing types of weapons and create new and more destructive armaments. NATO is particularly active in this field of endeavour.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, of the 2,000,000 million dollars used in the world on military needs in 1961--1971, 200,000 million or 10 per cent were allocated to the military R & D project. Many research organisations, laboratories, universities and so on are doing military research according to government orders. Militaryindustrial monopolies conduct extensive military R & D studies either under contracts with the respective defence ministries or on their own initiative.
According to estimates by UN experts, annual spending on R & D amounts to 60,000 million dollars (2 per cent of the gross national product of all countries), including 25,000 million on military R & D (meanwhile, as little as 4,000 million are allocated to health projects). In the early seventies, over 400,000 people, or about 25 per cent of all the world's scientific workers and engineers, were engaged in military research.^^1^^
The United States leads in the R & D projects, its share amounting to about 70 per cent of the total relevant expenditures of all the capitalist countries combined. America is doing extensive research and development over the entire range of nuclear missile weapons and conventional strategic and tactical armaments. In his Statement to Congress on the Department of Defence Programme of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for Fiscal Year 1977/78, former Director of Defence Research and Engineering, US Department of Defence, Dr. Malcolm R. Currie declared: "A willingness to settle for _-_-_
~^^1^^ Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and of Military Expenditures. Report of the Secretary-General United Nations, New York, 1972, p. 16.
76 technological `equivalence' is not sufficient, it would be a step to eventual disaster. My overriding concern is that we ensure that we have the climate, the direction, and the national commitment always to seize and maintain the technological initiative. This is fundamental to our security, fundamental to our economic well-being, fundamental to our role in the world. It is our strength. We must recognize it as a national imperative for our future survival and prosperity.''^^1^^The absolute and relative costs of military R & D projects increased especially rapidly during the fifties. In 1949/50, the Pentagon's spending on R & D amounted to 700 million dollars; in 1954/55 to 2,300; in 1959/60 to 4,700; in 1964/65 to 6,200; in 1969/70 to 7,200 and in 1974/75 to 8,900 million dollars; the spending planned for 1979/80 are to equal 13,000 million dollars. In the 1950--1978 fiscal years, the total expenditures on the military R & D of the Defence Department alone amounted to over 170,000 million dollars, or about 10 per cent of the total national defence spending. Other departments and agencies of the US government also allocate considerable sums to military R & D, for example the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy, and others. Military-industrial monopolies are also very active in this sphere.
In the early seventies, the share of military R & D in the total federal allocations to science declined somewhat. This was due to a number of major military projects launched in the 60s which had been completed. It was also because of economic difficulties, accelerated spending on major national research programmes involving energy, environmental protection, comprehensive utilisation of ocean resources, etc. Yet, the absolute costs of military R & D continue to rise and amount to huge sums. Even according to the official figures, they involve over half of the federal spending on R & D (Table 8).
To determine the level of the militarisation of science as a whole, it is also necessary to reveal the share of military R & D in the total national spending on R & D. In 1976, 27.4 per cent of the total costs of scientific research involved R & D projects. However, if one were to include expenses on space research, __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Department of Defense Program of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. Fiscal Year 1978, Statement by Dr. Malcolm Currie, Director of Defense Research and Engineering to the Congress, First Session, January 18, 1977, Part I, p. 1.
77 Table 8 US Federal R & D Funding by Function (million dollars) Fiscal years Function 1970 1972 1974 1975 1976 1977 National Defence 7,976.3 8,897.7 8,974.6 9,620.9 10,641.4 11,987.1 Space 3,509.9 2,714.3 2,477.6 2,511.3 2,878.5 2,940.3 Health 1,125.8 1,589.9 2,097.9 2,178.3 2,368.3 2.268.6 Energy development andSource: An Analysis of Federal K <$ D Funding by Function. Fiscal Years 1969--1977, NSF Washington, 1976, p. 5.
78 __PARAGRAPH_CONT__ which is largely military in nature, the figure would be 35.8 per cent.^^1^^ These data show that in the United States the R & D project is militarised considerably more than the economy as a whole.The huge and constantly increasing allocations for the US military R & D are directed at fulfilling the country's extensive programme for modernising the existing armaments and developing new types of weapons. Table 9 shows that the US government gives high priority to improving missile, air force and naval technologies.
Table 9 The Composition of the Pentagon R & D Outlays (million dollars) Fiscal years Function 1965 1970 1975 1977 1978 Military sciences 573 509 412 524 596 Aircraft 1,017 1,641 1,627 2,273 2,481 Missiles 1,901 2,280 2,107 2,553 2,604 Ships and small craft 249 305 666 751 825 Ordnance, vehicles and' relatedSource: Armed Forces Journal, March 1972, pp. 30--31; Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 26, 1976, p. 22.
The R & D programme of the US Department of Defence involves about 500 major "programme elements" which are subdivided into thousands of projects, which in turn are subdivided into even more numerous specific assignments. According to the Pentagon's statistics, by the end of 1976 the total cost of merely 47 major projects for developing weapons systems amounted to 197,600 million dollars, including 25,300 million for the Department of the Army, 102,400 million for _-_-_
~^^1^^ National Patterns of R & D Resources. Funds and Manpower in the United States 1953--1976, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1976, p. 32.
79 the Department of the Navy, and 69,900 million for the Department of the Air Force.^^1^^Table 10 shows the total R & D outlays for ten major US armament projects.
Table 10 Major US Department of Defence Programmes for Developing Weapons Systems Project Department Chief contractor Planned cost, (thous million dollars) B-l strategic bomber Air Force Rockwell International 22.8 TridentSource: Defense/Space Business Daily, February 17, 1977, pp. 274--75.
Taking into account the previous years' experience in fulfilling US Department of Defence projects it may be said that the actual cost of R & D for the major weapons systems listed in Table 10 would be considerably higher than planned.
The United States gives top priority to improving its strategic armaments. In 1977/78, the Pentagon requested 2,400 million dollars or 20.3 per cent of the total R & D allocations.
The Trident nuclear submarine programme, estimated at 21,400 million dollars, is a major project for creating a new system of strategic armaments. The US plans to build 13 _-_-_
^^1^^ Defense I Spate Business Daily, February 17, 1977, pp. 274--75.
80 Tridents, each of which is capable of launching 24 long-range missiles. In the initial stage, they are to carry missiles that have a 6.5-7.4 thousand kilometre striking range which will subsequently be increased to 10,000--11,000 kilometres. In terms of power, speed and hitting accuracy, the Trident will presumably be superior to the present nuclear submarines. In addition, they will be capable of hitting strategic targets from more remote distances, i. e. practically from any point in the globe.Another major project was the manned strategic B-l bomber, which was to replace the B-52. The US Air Force planned to procure 244 B-l bombers during a ten-year period. The cost of the whole B-l project was estimated at 22,800 million dollars, with one B-l costing almost 100 million dollars. A total of 4,300 million dollars has already been spent on this project. The B-l created heated controversy. Those in favour of manufacturing the bomber praised in all possible ways its advantages over the B-52. Those opposed argued that it did not justify the enormous costs involved. In the final analysis, the Carter Administration decided to postpone its serial production and use the released funds for rapidly increasing the arsenal of cruise missiles.
The Pentagon pays major attention to building cruise missiles. These qualitatively new missile weapons are distinguished by their high efficiency and relatively low cost as compared to other types of strategic missiles. They can fly unobserved at very low altitudes to reach enemy targets, penetrate its AA defence systems, and hit with great accuracy any well-- defended targets. The total cost of the cruise missile project was estimated at 8,100 million dollars. The actual expenditures amounted to 72.3 million dollars in 1972/73, 12.6 in 1973/74, 92.6 in 1974/75, 207.8 in 1975/76, 296.2 in 1976/77, and 334.2 million dollars in 1977/78.
The creation of cruise missiles is fraught with dangerous consequences in that it may imperil international security and increase the burden of military expenditures. Despite their > relatively low cost, cruise missiles may ultimately lead to a new spiral in the arms race. This is because their proliferation could be accompanied by greater inter-state rivalries in this new sphere of the technological arms race and also by the enormous material and financial expenditures required for production and maintenance as well as on the development of defensive systems to counter the new weapon. According to American estimates, the cost of developing an adequate defence system 81 against the cruise missile could exceed 12--18 times the total cost of the cruise missile project itself. Some experts say that further improvement of the cruise missiles might lead to even higher spending on the defence system. The development and production of an effective defence against the cruise missiles would therefore require new expenditures amounting to tens of millions of dollars. The opportunities that cruise missiles would provide for developing new systems of weapons could also accelerate the arms race. Furthermore, the United States is continuing to rapidly develop its mobile intercontinental MX ballistic missile.
The American government also attaches major importance to modernising the conventional armaments. In 1977/78, they allocated for these purposes 4,400 million dollars or 36 per cent of the total R & D costs. Numerous programmes for developing new systems of conventional weapons are now under way. The US Army is continuing to develop its new XM-1 battle tank, the AAH helicopter, the Patriot (SAM-D) AA missile complex, the Tow antitank missile, and other weapons. The F-16 and F-16 fighters, the A-10 attack plane, and other projects are being continued in order to modernise and strengthen US tactical aviation. Considerable funds are allocated for developing naval technology, and various types of new ships and small craft with improved characteristics are being developed at an accelerated pace.
The modernisation of existing systems of weapons and the development of new systems are primarily based on the extensive use of vast scientific and technological knowledge. Current military programmes are based on many scientific and technological discoveries as well as on specialised theoretical and applied research.
The United States spends large sums not only to develop and use definite types of strategic and tactical weapons, but also to continuously expand the scientific and technological basis for the future development of increasingly better and new systems of weapons. The Pentagon gives much of its attention to the constant strengthening of the scientific and technological basis of the military industry. Long-term research is conducted on a wide scale. The expenditures for developing the scientific and technological basis of the armament industry as well as long-term research for 1977/78 were 2,568.2 million dollars or 21.3 per cent of all the funds requested by the Pentagon (Table 11).
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6--18 82 Table 11 US Department of Defence Programme of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation by Budget Activity (million dollars) Activity Fiscal years 1976 1977 1978 Technology base Advanced technological development Strategic programmes Tactical programmes Intelligence and communications 1,508.4 565.5 2,235.1 2,974.6 948.9 1,680.0 636.8 2,235.3 3,650.3 982.3 1,879.8 688.4 2,439.5 4,408.1 1,169.8 Programme-wide management and support 1,287.6 1,410.9 1,458.0 TOTAL 9,520.1 10,595.6 12,043.6Source: The Department of Defence Program of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. Fiscal Year 1978, p. 30.
In other major capitalist states expenditures for military R&D have also been large. (Table 12). In 1975, the share of military R & D in the overall government spending on science amounted to 28 per cent in Britain, 20 per cent in France, and over 10 per cent in West Germany. In the West European NATO countries, spending on military R&D increases faster than in the United States. These countries intend to strengthen their scientific and technological potential and decrease the "technological gap" between themselves and America. They want to hasten the transition from production on US licenses to the manufacture of domestic armaments and equipment.
From 1970 to 1975, 7,800 million Deutsche marks were
allocated by the West German government budget for military
R&D; this exceeded by 1,000 million the sum expended on
these needs in the preceding 15 years. In January 1976, the
West German Ministry of Defence declared in its White Book
on Security and Development of the Bundeswehr that expenses
on new armaments will increase in 1976 by 11 per cent. In
1976, West German expenditures on military R&D amounted
to 1,547 million Deutsche marks (4.9 per cent of the Ministry
__PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__
83
Table 12
Military R&D Expenditures of the Leading West European NATO
Countries
(current prices, thousand million dollars)
Total R&D expenditures
Including government
expenditures on military R&D
Year
We. si
Germany
France
Britain
West
Germany
France
Britain
I960
1.3
0.77
1.4
0.48
0.27
1965
2.5
1.87
2.2
0.18
0.56
0.79
1970
3.6
2.75
2.6
0.31
0.65
0.54
1971
4.5
3.02
2.7
0.39
0.67
0.67
1972
4.5
3.29
2.8
0.42
0.71
0.86
Source: World Armaments and Disarmament. SIPRI Yearbook 1973, Almqvist & Wilksell, Stockholm, 1973, pp. 292--93.
__PARAGRAPH_CONT__ of Defence budget), and in 1977 to 1,590 million (4.9 per cent of that budget). The country's major military development programmes involve the Leopard-2 battle tank, the Roland AA self-propelled missile launcher, wheeled vehicles, conventional and missile artillery, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, and the Tornado and Alpha Jet warplanes.^^1^^West European countries place special emphasis on developing new conventional armaments. Due to the limited national resources and scientific, technological and industrial bases, each country cannot by itself produce a broad range of modern costly weapons systems. Therefore, in addition to their national programmes, the West European countries make wide use of inter-state specialisation and cooperation and combine their efforts in implementing joint armament producing projects. For instance, they carry out many joint programmes involving the production of missiles (Roland, HOT, Otomat, etc.), warplanes (Jaguar, Alpha Jet, etc.), and other military equipment.
A major area of social activity is now involved in R & D. Prior to the Second World War, the capitalist states played an insignificant role in R & D. After the war, however, its role in organising, promoting and financing R&D projects became decisive. In the US and the other imperialist countries, most R&D projects are financed through the state budget. In 1976, _-_-_
^^1^^ Soldat und Technik, April 4, Frankfurt am Main, 1977, pp. 179--80.
84 the US federal budget accounted for 52.8 per cent of the total national expenses connected with R & D. Yet, government research organisations fulfil only a minor share of the federallyfinanced R & D projects, and most of the contracts are awarded to private companies, universities, colleges and Federal Contract Research Centres (Table 13). Table 13 Distribution of US Government Expenses on R & D by Executors 1973/74 1975/76* Executor million per million per dollars cent dollars cent Federal research organisations 4,815 27.6 5,756 26.6 Industrial companies 7,845 45.0 10,516 48.6 Universities and colleges 2,215 12.7 2,230 10.3 Federal Contract Research *Estimate
Calculated from: Federal Funds for Research, Development and Other Scientific
Activities. Fiscal Years 1974, 1975, and 1976, Washington. 1975.
Since a major part of government expenditures for science are advanced for military needs, the US government intervenes directly chiefly through its military R & D projects. In 1976, the Department of Defence awarded contracts for R & D totalling 6,900 million dollars. This included 6,000 million awarded to industrial companies; 700 million to universities, colleges and non-profit corporations; and 200 million to government and other agencies. In 1976, the Pentagon signed contracts (in the above-noted sum) with 1,816 contractors which included 1,472 American industrial companies. Contracts for military R & D projects are in the hands of a few big companies. In 1975, 500 major contractors accounted for 98.2 per cent of the total Pentagon contracts, and in 1976 it was 98.5 per cent. However, the decisive role is played by a relatively small group which included the Rockwell International Corp. (which in 1975/76 received 606.1 million dollars worth of 85 R~&~D contracts), Lockheed Corp. (598.9 million), General Dynamics Corp. (446.5 million),and BoeingCo. (389.6 million).
The military-industrial corporations fulfil almost all types of military R & D. However, they are primarily involved in "engineering development" and "operational development''. A major part of the industrial R & D projects includes aeromissile construction, electrical engineering, radioelectronics and chemical industry. Military research is also conducted in universities and colleges. Here various theoretical studies are made and elaborate militarily significant problems are formulated, and solved under contracts with the US Department of Defence and other organisations.
After the Second World War, the US government extensively used Federal Contract Research Centres for solving military, political and economic issues. These centres, which are sometimes also called "non-profit corporations'', "think tanks" or "the brain centres" of the Pentagon, have certain features characteristic of universities, government organisations, industrial companies and private foundations. But they are regarded as independent bodies and exist on funds they receive under contracts for completed projects, and also on subsidies from different private foundations.
The US Government established the Federal Contract Research Centres for the following principal reasons: first, because of the growing significance of science in solving political, military and economic questions. Second, because it is usually difficult to get highly qualified scientists to work for government organisations, where the salaries are relatively low and the normal conditions for research are lacking. Third, because of Uncle Sam's desire to provide the government policy-makers with analytical data free of all the red tape and departmental interests. Federal Contract Research Centres meet these conditions better than all the other organisations. Scientists are paid considerably more than in the government institutions and are provided with better conditions for intellectual work.
Fulfilling government orders for military R & D has become a profitable business. Industrial corporations receive high profits as a result of the R & D contracts. In addition, when competing with each other, they use the latest scientific achievements (which result in the modernisation of the existing commodities and the production of new ones and an improvement of the production processes). The corporations are granted patent rights on inventions which result from the government-- 86 subsidised research, and they enjoy other advantages. The militaryindustrial complex in the United States, therefore, makes use of all available possibilities and connections in order to be granted bigger government contracts.
The development and production of modern sophisticated and labour-consuming systems of weapons entails large expenditures of materials and funds, and every new generation of weapons costs much more than its predecessors (Table 14).
Table 14 Rise in American Armament Costs Weapon Average procurement price for unit weapon (thousand dollars) during the Second World War at present Battle tank 54.8 1,100.0 Antitank rocket 0.1 8.6 Submarine 5,200.0 350,000.0 Destroyer Long-range bomber 3,000.0 433.0 140,000.0 93,800.0Source: US News and World Report, November 1, 1976, p. 44
The figures in Table 14 show that the costs of modern weapons increased considerably since the Second World War. The rapid growth in the costs of armament was influenced by numerous factors. In addition to inflation and the escalation of prices on the part of the military-industrial corporations, an important factor is the increasing expenditures on military R & D projects. The latter involves a considerable share of the cost of the modern weapons systems: 20 per cent for warplanes; 60 per cent for missiles; and almost 90 per cent for space technology. In stimulating the increase of armament prices, the military R & D projects promote growing military spending.
The increasing scale of these military projects involves spending also by accelerating the obsolescence of armaments. The expenditures involved in replacing obsolete systems of weapons are indeed impressive. For instance, 2,000 million dollars were needed to develop and produce the B-36 bomber, while the B-52 that replaced it cost as much as 6,000-8,000 million. The cost of the next generation of strategic B-1 bombers is estimated at 22,900 million. The total costs of developing 87 and producing the following four generations of post-WW 2 US tanks were: 300--400 million for M-46, 500--600 million for M-47, 1,200 million for M-48, and 2,400 million for M-60, and the cost of the most recent XM-1 battle tank is estimated at 4,800 million dollars.
Not infrequently, armaments grow obsolete during the development stage. Over 1,000 million dollars were spent in ten years for developing a US warplane equipped with an atomic engine, and the costs involved in the Skybolt and Navajo projects amounted to 440 and 680 million dollars, respectively. Together with the manned orbital space lab, which also cost over 1,000 million, all these were major projects which were abandoned at the R & D stage.
The urge to devise more and more sophisticated armaments and military equipment, the struggle of the military-industrial monopolies for profitable military contracts, and other factors often lead to attempts to develop new types of weapons without consideration for the country's actual economic and technological possibilities. Not infrequently, this leads to big losses. By the beginning of the seventies, Britain had to abandon the development of a number of major weapons systems on which a total of 700 million pounds sterling had already been spent. In the early seventies she had to stop the Atlas and Swingfire projects, among others.
Shortcomings in R & D organisation and planning lead to unreasonably large expenditures. West German General Johannes Steinhoff, former Chief of NATO's Military Committee, claims that, in the mid-seventies, the NATO countries were spending a total of 20,000 million dollars a year on military R & D, and that half of the sum was used for duplicating investigations and projects. All such losses and unreasonable expenditures are shifted to the government, and in the final analysis to the taxpayer.
Over the entire history of mankind, development of productive forces and scientific and technological progress were, on the one hand, accompanied by greater possibilities for producing material and spiritual wealth and, on the other, by greater military prerequisites for their destruction. The appearance of nuclear missile weaponry and the improvement of conventional arms greatly increased the destructive potential of modern armaments, which have already been stockpiled in the world in such quantities that their use would be catastrophic to civilisation. UN experts have noted that "current stocks of nuclear 88 weapons are sufficient to destroy the world many times over.''^^1^^ Despite this, however, modernisation of all arms and military equipment is continuing at full swing. One should also keep in mind that science and technology have developed to such a level as to make possible the creation of basically new systems of weapons of mass destruction. These possibilities of armamentmaking plus the aggressive aspirations of certain circles in capitalist countries are a major danger to all mankind.
Practice shows ever more convincingly that, despite the huge spendings on military R & D and the unprecedented militarisation of science, the United States and the other capitalist countries have failed to attain the desired military superiority over the socialist countries. By developing new systems of weapons of mass destruction, the West compels the USSR and the other socialist countries to improve their armaments so as to strengthen their defensive capabilities and neutralise the impending danger. G. B. Kistiakowsky, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University and former President Eisenhower's assistant in the fields of science and technology, wrote: "In this history of the nuclear arms race, the United States has been first with most of the technological innovations and new weapon systems, except for some systems of defense, to which the Soviet Union has traditionally dedicated a far greater portion of its military effort.''^^2^^ America's desire to develop new weapons systems was accompanied by escalation of the arms race.
In this sense, the US government's plans to develop the cruise missile and the neutron bomb are particularly dangerous. Development of the neutron bomb, that terrible weapon that kills people and leaves property intact, has been covertly financed for 15--20 years. The Pentagon's plans to procure the bomb have evoked deep concern and indignation on the part of the world public. In many countries, including the United States, there were mass demonstrations demanding that production of the N-bomb be banned. The progressives and peace forces, numerous public organisations, politicians and statesmen have all come out against the N-bomb, and a worldwide campaign against its production and deployment is presently under way.
The Carter Administration's plans to develop the cruise _-_-_
^^1^^ UN Document A/32/88, United Nations General Assembly, 32nd Session, August 12, 1977, p. 10.
~^^2^^ The New York Times Magazine, November 27, 1977, p. 76.
89 missile, the N-bomb and other weapons of mass destruction could seriously destabilise the international situation and initiate a new, even more wasteful and dangerous round in the arms race. When interviewed by a Pravda correspondent, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet Leonid Brezhnev gave the following serious warning about the possible disastrous consequences of the US decision to develop the neutron bomb: "The Soviet Union is strongly opposed to the development of the neutron bomb. We understand and wholly support the millions of people throughout the world who are protesting against it. But if such a bomb were developed in the West--- developed against us, a fact which nobody even tries to conceal---it should be clearly understood there that the USSR will not remain a passive onlooker. We shall be confronted with the need to answer this challenge in order to ensure the security of the Soviet people, its allies and friends. In the final analysis, all this would raise the arms race to an even more dangerous level...``We do not want this to happen and that is why we propose reaching an agreement on the mutual renunciation of the production of the neutron bomb so as to save the world from the advent of this new mass annihilation weapon. This is our sincere desire, this is our proposal to the Western powers.''^^1^^
The USSR has for a long time been pressing for a ban on developing new systems of weapons of mass destruction. In 1975, at the 30th Session of the UN General Assembly, the Soviet delegation brought forth a concrete draft agreement on the issue, and the document was approved and referred to the Disarmament Committee. When the question was discussed by the Committee, the representatives of some countries claimed that the wording on what should be precisely understood as new types of weapons was ``vague''. The USSR then submitted an additional draft agreement on banning the development and production of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; this was done on August 9, 1977 at the summer session of the Disarmament Committee. According to the Soviet definition, "new types and new systems of weapons of mass destruction include weapons which might be developed in the future on the basis of either some currently _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. 1. Brezhnev, = Our Course: Peace and Socialism, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1978, p. 214.
90 known scientific and technological principles that had not thus far been used either individually or jointly for developing weapons of mass destruction, or scientific and technological principles which may be discovered in the future and could possess properties that have either similar or even more destructive and/ or damaging effects than the known weapons of mass annihilation.'' In addition to the draft agreement, the Soviet delegation submitted an addendum with an approximate list of such weapons systems.^^1^^Without prohibiting the development of any new systems of weapons of mass destruction, and without curtailing military R & D it would be impossible to attain any substantial progress in the struggle for deepening detente, for strengthening international security, for stopping the arms race, or for disarmament.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. The Effect of Militarisation of ScienceThe revolution in science and technology that has been taking place ever since the end of the Second World War is accompanied by the growing significance of science in social development. Extensive and quicker introduction of the results of scientific and technological progress into all spheres of human endeavour has resulted in qualitative changes in the productive forces, changes that are still continuing. This is manifested in basically new instruments and objects of labour as well as in the production processes and energy sources. It is reflected also in a substantially changed structure of social production, in the changed composition of the workforce by industry and occupation as man's role as society's main productive force increases, etc.
The increasing attention given to science is evidenced by the fact that R & D expenditures have risen several times. Before the Second World War, government expenses on R & D involved insignificant sums (in the thirties, less than 100 million dollars a year in the United States), whose share in the total spending for science was very small (in the forties, it was about 20 per cent in the US), but after the war the picture changed radically. The absolute and relative government spending on R & D soared in all the capitalist countries, as did _-_-_
^^1^^ International Affairs, No. 10, 1977, pp. 130--131 (in Russian).
91 that of private industrial companies, universities and other research institutions. The overall expenditures on scientific development became huge.During the post-war years, the role of the capitalist states became much more important not only in financing R & D but also in determining the basic trends of the R & D projects and the research policy of a given country. All this was caused by a number of factors, the most important of which are as follows: first, extensive R & D projects require vast material, financial and intellectual resources which even the largest single monopoly cannot manage but only the state can. Second, private capital seeks to shift the spending on scientific and technological progress on to the state, but intends to use the achievements of that progress in its own interests. Third, the role of the state becomes stronger because of the militarisation of science.
The scientific and technical revolution creates immense possibilities for sharply raising labour productivity and the effectiveness of the whole economy, and for improving life conditions. However, the question of how and to what extent the achievements of scientific and technological progress and its socio-economic consequences could be utilised is largely dependent on the production relations prevailing in a given society. Under capitalism, the possibilities of the scientific and technological revolution are used by the monopolies to increase their profits, to increase their competitive potentials at home and abroad, and to seize new markets. Ruling circles in the capitalist countries regard the achievements of science and technology as an important means for preserving and strengthening the capitalist mode of production. Yet, the scientific and technological revolution not only does not bolster the foundations of capitalism, but on the contrary is accompanied by the aggravation of its old contradictions and the emergence of new ones. "This applies, in particular, to the contradiction between the unlimited possibilities opened up by the scientific and technological revolution and the roadblocks raised by capitalism to their utilisation for the benefit of society as a whole. Capitalism squanders national wealth, allocating for war purposes a great proportion of scientific discoveries and immense material resources.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, IV6V, p. 19.
92On the eve of and during the Second World War, science began to be increasingly used for military purposes. In the United States, government expenses on R & D were sharply increased to satisfy the war needs; this marked the beginning of an intensified systematic organisation of specialised research for improving existing armaments and developing new types of weapons and military equipment. This research was lavishly financed by the US government and resulted in the A-bomb, radar, the radio fuse, and many other new armaments and military equipment. The war stimulated scientific and technological progress only in line with its military needs, i. e. endowed it with its one-sided militaristic slant. Thus, this war-oriented development of science and technology has been largely preserved in the post-war years, when the militarisation of science and spending on military R & D in the imperialist countries attained unprecedented heights.
In seeking to justify such criminal wastefulness, the advocates of the arms race widely publicise the idea that military R & D have a beneficial effect on the economic development and on scientific and technological progress.
Military R & D are obviously directed at the systematic improving of arms and combat materiel, and at achieving military superiority. However, extensive military R & D are also accompanied by scientific and technological discoveries which, besides being used chiefly in the military sphere, may also be used for civilian needs.
Indeed, the results of military R & D affect the development of technology and production methods in the civilian branches of the economy, as well as the variety, quality, quantity and cost of products manufactured by these branches. Computers, numerous synthetic materials and other widely known types of equipment, materials and instruments were developed through military R & D, and have long since been used for civilian needs.
Other examples can be cited: in 1958 Honeywell Inc. was developing an unmanned aircraft control system on a Pentagon contract. Some elements of the system subsequently served as a basis for developing blind landing instruments for civil aircraft. Laser range finders were originally developed in the United States for military purposes, but subsequently were used in civilian topography. In the US and Britain, gas-turbine engines, which were first developed for warplanes, are now widely used for covering peak loads in energy systems. In 93 atomic power engineering, military R & D are chiefly intended for developing, improving and manufacturing nuclear weapons; the results of such R & D are also used for peaceful purposes in power engineering (construction of atomic power stations), medicine and agriculture (radioisotopes), civil engineering and mining (nuclear blasts), and so on.
Western researchers have written much about the use for civilian needs of military R & D results, also termed ``spin-off'' or ``spill-over''. However, these works, as a rule, lack scientific assessment of the effect of military R & D on the economic development and on scientific and technological progress. They often allude to the difficulty of quantitatively estimating this influence and usually merely list the principal spheres and ways in which the results of military R & D are used in civilian branches of the economy. In the United States, for instance, such a study was made by the Denver Research Institute. In the literature on spin-off, the following are regarded as the most tangible forms of influence of the military R & D results on civilian economy: civilian use of certain products and production methods developed through military R & D; wide use in the civilian economy of new planning and management techniques which were (e. g. systems analysis method) developed for the military projects; cuts in production costs of various industrial commodities and expansion of their sales markets; and so on. In addition, the literature on spin-off underscores the existence of the less obvious forms whereby military R & D affect civilian economic development. For example, the above-- mentioned study by the Denver Research Institute notes that military R & D help spread new scientific knowledge, exchange personnel among the commercial companies, enhance the knowledge and efficiency of the research personnel all over the country, and so on.
Various factors, including the system of execution, are helpful in applying military R & D results to civilian needs. The fact that in the United States about 75 per cent of government-sponsored military R & D are carried out by private companies and government research institutions facilitates access to information. Major incentives and opportunities for private companies to use military R & D results are provided by the US government's policy on patent. These companies are entitled to obtain patents on numerous inventions which are a result of government-sponsored R & D and they take advantage of this.
94Declassification of information and publication of technological reports serve as important channels for spreading the military R & D results. These reports are compulsory for private companies who do military R & D, and are submitted to government institutions financing the work immediately after its completion. The technological reports are the property of the respective government agencies, in which special divisions study them and then decide on their subsequent use and declassification. Some technological reports are classified on the grounds of "national security" and for protecting property rights. They are then duly reviewed by special commissions, declassified and published as review papers in specialised journals as well as others. In 1964, a special centre was set up in the United States for disseminating scientific and technological information; it is responsible for collecting, processing, storing and spreading non-classified data obtained from government-sponsored R & D. Such information is published by the Department of Defence and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Generally speaking, we do not deny the existence of spin-off, and yet it should be said that Western publications on military R & D for civilian use distort the actual state of things. To justify the huge unproductive expenditures on military R & D, they exaggerate their role as incentives for economic development, and many Western authors have been forced to admit this. For instance, John S. Tompkins, a well-known US military expert, notes: "But NASA's understandable enthusiasm has been unable to generate much of a list of fallout examples, and has sometimes overwhelmed its respect for facts.''^^1^^ As stated in a Department of Commerce report, the Department of Defence demonstrated little interest in promoting technology transfer activities.^^2^^
There is a big gap between the theoretical and practical possibilities of using military R & D results in civilian production. High-quality construction materials, advanced technology and production methods are needed to make modern sophisticated weapons. The military industry uses a wide range of metals and alloys, as well as non-metal and composite materials, many _-_-_
~^^1^^ John S. Tompkins, = The Weapons of World War III, Doubleday & Co., Inc., New York, 1966, p. 232.
~^^2^^ Technology Transfer, Ed. by Harold F. Davidson, Marvin J. Cetron, Joel D. Goldhar, Noordhoff-Leiden, 1974, p. 279.
95 of which are still rarely employed in the civilian economy because of their shortage and high cost. Berillium, titanium, molybdenum, niobium, tungsten, tantalum, vanadium, chromium, zirconium and other metals which are used in the military industry as independent construction materials are still employed in the civilian branches as constituents for steels and alloys. Greater specialisation and the growing discrepancy between the items of ultimate military consumption (which military R & D serve) and civilian needs result in lesser possibilities for the peaceful use of commodities manufactured for military needs. This is what the afore-mentioned John S. Tompkins writes in this regard: "Moreover, as defense production has shifted from the World War II variety of guns, tanks, and planes to the sophisticated hardware of missilery, it has also moved farther and farther away from any obvious opportunities for useful fallout.''^^1^^John Foster, Jr., former US Defence Department R & D Chief, in testifying before the Senate Aeronautical and Space Science Committee, admitted that out of 981.4 million dollars specified for aeronautics in the fiscal year 1969, about 843 million dollars was allocated to projects for which technology transfer was considered infeasible or irrelevant.^^2^^
A certain spill-over does not afford grounds to regard military R & D as incentives of economic development and technological progress. If we compare the advantages of spin-off with the unquestionable large negative consequences of military R & D, the latter would on the whole prove very harmful in that they slow down the development of the productive forces in many countries. Having examined this problem, competent UN experts concluded: "Military technology is moving further and further away from any conceivable civilian use, and is anyway focusing on fields which are mostly irrelevant for the solution of the more important present and future problems of the world. There can be no doubt that in the final analysis technological innovation in the civilian sector and, with it, growth are not furthered by military research and development, but are greatly impaired by it.^^3^^
According to the estimates of Richard S. Morse, former _-_-_
~^^1^^ John S. Tompkins, = op. cit., pp. 231--32.
~^^2^^ Quoted from: Marvin Berkowitz, The Conversion of Military-Oriented Research and Development to Civilian Uses, New York, 1970, p. 110.
~^^3^^ UN Document A/32/88, United Nations General Assembly, 32nd Session, August 12, 1977, pp. 49--50.
96 Assistant US Secretary of Defence, if capital investments in space research were to bring the same returns as every dollar spent on civilian R & D, the American economy would receive almost an additional 100,000 million dollars a year. If the Pentagon's huge R & D expenditures were added to the space projects, the losses suffered by the US economy from the militarisation of science would be much more impressive. The negative consequences of the militarisation of science is seen more distinctly in the following factors. Table 15 R & Expenditures by Branches of US IndustrySource: Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 54, No 46, pp. 7-8.
First, enormous material and financial resources, as well as the most qualified scientific personnel are diverted to military R & D. This slows down development of the civilian economy and stimulates mainly military production. From the figures cited in Table 15 it is apparent that, in 1975, 47.8 per cent of the national and 80 per cent of the federal spending on R & D in the US industry involved only "Aircraft and missiles" and "Electrical and communications'', whereas these two branches account for a relatively small portion of America's industrial output. On the other hand, such major branches as "Primary 97 metals" and "Fabricated metal products" accounted for an insignificant portion of the total, especially federal, spendings on industrial R & D. This policy naturally inhibits the development of many branches of the US economy. Here is what Prof. Kenneth E. Boulding wrote in this connection: "There is much evidence to suggest that civilian industry is deprived of able research scientists and engineers because of the 'internal brain drain' into the war industry. ...Because of the obsessive expansion of the war industry, many vital sectors of the civilian economy are failing to solve their technical problems. We see this in transportation, in building, even in many areas of general manufacturing.''^^1^^
Second, militarisation of science slows down overall scientific and technological progress. Speaking of the influence of the Second World War on scientific development, the well-known British scientist Prof. John D. Bernal wrote: "It was especially in physics that the war led to the greatest interruption in Britain and America. Most academic laboratories were closed or turned over to war uses, and the most brilliant men occupied themselves with problems which had no relation to their previous work.''^^2^^ In the years following the war, scientists, engineers, research institutions, universities and colleges continued to be broadly oriented to military projects. Here is what a group of experts from the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development write: "It is a frequent complaint in the United States that too many students and engineers turn towards the defence or aerospace industries and neglect the current consumption products.''^^3^^ Concentration of the principal material, financial and intellectual resources in the sphere of military R & D impedes scientific and technological progress and restricts it to narrow militaristic limits.
Third, subordination of science to military interests is accompanied by exceedingly intense secrecy, which hampers the spread and implementation of new scientific discoveries, complicates the exchange of scientific and technological information, and leads to unreasonable duplication and waste of vast resources in R & D, not only in individual countries, but _-_-_
~^^1^^ American Militarism 1970, Ed. by Erwin Knoll and Judith Nies McFadden, The Viking Press, New York, 1969, p. 94.
~^^2^^ J. D. Bernal, Science in History, Watts & Co., London, 1954, p. 582.
~^^3^^ Review of National Science Policy, United States, OECD Publications, Paris, 1963, p. 259.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7--18 98 in the respective ministries and agencies as well. In the final analysis, all this violates the normal development of science and hinders scientific and technological progress.Fourth, militarisation of science promotes the technological arms race, a major reason for the current increase in military spending in the world, with all its negative socio-economic consequences.
Fifth, development, production, testing and storage of new weapons of mass destruction (especially of nuclear weapons) involve a major threat to people's health and to the environment, and may lead to other unforeseen events.
In examining the negative economic consequences of the militarisation of science, it should be emphasised that the development and further improvement of modern weaponry would eliminate the difference between the battlefront and the rear and, in case of a world thermonuclear conflict, would greatly increase the chances for the warring sides to mutually, and just within a few hours, inflict irreparable damage to their civilian populations and productive forces.
[99] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter 4 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Economic Aspects of Disarmament __ALPHA_LVL2__ [introduction.]The world's progressive forces are taking many steps to curb the arms race and achieve success in solving the complex problem of disarmament. However, this involves major difficulties, which are primarily of a political and military nature. Naturally, disarmament would become a reality only if the confronting states reach coordinated agreement, primarily with regard to the political and military aspects of the problem, e. g. non-use of force in international affairs, disbandment of military blocs, dismantling of military bases on foreign territories, cessation of the arms race, reduction and subsequent destruction of all armament stocks, and so on.
However, in modern conditions the economic aspects of disarmament are also of no small importance. As was shown above, military production has become a significant and permanent factor in national economies. Tens of millions of people are employed in the armed forces and in military production. It is therefore quite natural that discussions on disarmament give rise to important and complicated questions concerning its socio-economic consequences, the possibilities of converting to civilian uses the huge human and material resources now employed for military purposes, and the effects of this process on the economic development, on unemployment, and so on. In recent years, these issues are being discussed in scientific literature, at various meetings, at the UN and other international organisations, and by politicians and statesmen. The increased attention of the world public towards the problem of disarmament is due to the growing danger and economic burden of the arms race, to political detente, and to resultant favourable conditions for curbing the arms race and for disarmament.
From the economic viewpoint, disarmament will require the solution of numerous problems, both at macroeconomic and microeconomic levels. All these complex and highly specific issues could be studied comprehensively and deeply only through the joint efforts of a large number of scientists and specialists from various fields of science and technology. In the present chapter, I have made an attempt to examine some general and specific aspects of the conversion of a military economy to civilian needs and to show the possible effect of disarmament on the development of the productive forces.
__PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 100 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1981/DE172/20080409/172.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.04.09) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ top __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Conversion of a Military EconomyDifferent, not infrequently opposite, viewpoints exist on the possibilities and socio-economic consequences of converting a military economy to civilian uses. Relevant discussions give rise to heated arguments and greater ideological struggle, which, apart from being caused by political and social factors, is also somewhat due to certain specific aspects of modern military production.
Prior to the appearance of nuclear missiles, peacetime military production generally developed on a relatively small scale. Only on the eve of and during a war did a military economy substantially develop. As a matter of fact, the development of military equipment in the past was of such a nature that civilian branches could relatively be easily converted to military use, and vice versa after the war ended. Such conversions and reconversions of national economies occurred repeatedly in a number of countries which reached their peaks during the First and Second World wars. In 1918, the share of war production in the overall industrial output of Germany, France, Britain and the United States was 75, 75, 65 and 40 per cent, respectively.^^1^^ After the First World War ended, their industries were converted to civilian needs. Similar developments, but even on a greater scale, were observed after the Second World War. According to some estimates, during 1941--1945 the share of military production in the overall US industrial output amounted to an average of 60.6 per cent.^^2^^
In a situation, in which the economies of the warring nations were subordinated to military interests, the government was the main consumer of a major portion of the industrial output, and the demand for military products had grown unprecedentedly. It also called for the centralised state control of all economic activities and for substantial cutbacks in civilian production. During previous wars, a sharp increase in the output of armaments and other military equipment was provided chiefly by converting them to wartime needs, by using previously underemployed capacity, and by considerably increasing _-_-_
^^1^^ See P. A. Belov, Problems of Economics in Modern Warfare, Moscow, 1951, p. 113 (in Russian).
^^2^^ See Militarism. Disarmament, A Handbook, Moscow, 1963, p. 15 (in Russian).
101 employment. In wartime, capital investment is very meagre, and this leads to a violation of even the basic wear of equipment, to cutbacks in the fixed capital, and to its ``erosion''. Functioning of the economy in specific wartime conditions is marked by the accumulation of free funds and an unsatisfied demand for civilian products of an industrial and personal nature. After the end of the war, a large "delayed demand" and the relatively similar production methods and equipment as well as the skills of the civilian and military labour force facilitate the conversion of a military economy to civilian uses and stimulate economic development.In modern conditions, in which the militarisation of the economy has reached a high level and the manufacture of nuclear missiles and even conventional weapons is becoming an increasingly specialised field, conversion of military production involves new aspects. Specialised military enterprises are being built to produce sophisticated armaments, and they substantially differ from those manufacturing civilian products. Hence, the conversion of military production involves greater difficulties than before.
The opponents of disarmament seek by all means to exaggerate the difficulties of conversion, to intimidate the public with the negative consequences that would allegedly result from disarmament, and to prove that the arms race is of benefit to economic development and scientific and technological progress. The advocates of militarism have long ago been publicising such views. In his book Economic Significance of the German Armed Services, published in Germany as early as in 1913, Prof. R. Hoeniger did his best to emphasise the positive effects of military expenditure on the economic development. In exposing the author's conjectures, Lenin called the book the "banalities of a pro-militarist who seeks to prove that military expenditure is not a loss, for the money remains in the country and yields vast profits, that military service educates, strengthens, etc., etc.''^^1^^
After the Second World War, vindication of the arms race became a most widespread trend in the United States. For instance, in his book The New Economics of National Defense, the US economist John J. Clark attempted to prove that _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, "Notebook v ( ' Cam ma')'', Collected Works, Vol. 39, Moscow, 1968, p. 203.
102 military allocations counteract cyclic unemployment and stimulate development of the basic industrial branches, and that military R & D are allegedly an important factor of scientific and technological progress.^^1^^ The military-industrial complex uses different mass media to come out against stopping or even curbing arms production, and brings strong pressure to bear on public opinion, especially on the workers, engineers and office employees who are occupied in military production.Current research on conversion shows that the arguments of the advocates of the arms race who say that disarmament would inescapably lead to a deep economic recession and sharply increased unemployment are totally groundless. The results of such studies in the United States and other countries showed that, although conversion involves certain difficulties, it can actually be achieved without any noticeably negative economic consequences. On top of that, it promises great economic advantages, which would by far surpass the temporary difficulties involved. Yet, to attain this very important goal of converting military production to civilian uses, it would be necessary to have thoroughly organised plans and to prepare and carry out various national and international measures. Back in 1962, a report by the UN Secretary-General on the economic and social consequences of disarmament noted that "all the problems and difficulties in transition connected with disarmament could be met by appropriate national and international measures and that there should thus be no doubt that the diversion to peaceful purposes of the resources now in military use could be accomplished to the benefit of all countries and lead to the improvement of world economic and social conditions".^^2^^
Other studies by UN experts, as well as works by economists from different countries, including the capitalist states, also showed that a smooth conversion from a military economy is possible. For example, Disarmament and the Economy, a volume of collected articles published in 1963 in the United States under the editorship of the American economists Emile _-_-_
~^^1^^ John J. Clark, = The New Economics of National Defense, Random House, New York, 1966.
~^^2^^ Economic and Social Coseauences of Disarmament, Report of the Secretary-General Transmitting the Study of His Consultative Group, United Nations, New York, 1962, p. IV.
103 Benoit and Kenneth E. Boulding, was among the fim and most serious attempts to assess the economic consequences of disarmament. The work cited a model of a four-stage disarmament plan to take place during twelve years. The model envisaged a staged reduction of US armed forces in 1965--1977 from 3 million to 0.5 million men, and of military and related expenses from 60,200 million to 28,200 million dollars. The study also examined the possibilities of and trends for utilising the thus released resources, and also the effect of disarmament on the various branches of the US economy, on finances, on the balance of payments and so on. The book as a whole shows that organised and gradual disarmament could help overcome the temporary difficulties and ultimately produce an essentially positive effect.^^1^^The Economic Effects of Disarmament^^2^^, a book prepared by a research group from The Economist, again showed that there were no insurmountable obstacles in the way of of converting a military economy. This book was one of the most exhaustive studies on the effect of militarism and disarmament on the British economy. It made an analysis based on abundant statistical data and on replies given by numerous British companies to a special questionnaire. This analysis once again disproved the far-fetched allegations made by the advocates of the arms race concerning the so-called catastrophic economic consequences that disarmament would entail. The authors convincingly showed that general and complete disarmament was not only feasible, but would lead to beneficial socio-economic consequences.
In 1977, a book called Sense About Defence^^3^^ was published in Britain. It cited the results of a three-year-long study by a Labour Party Defence Study Group. The authors analysed military expenditures and their negative effects on economic development, and indicated the necessity of specific directions for reducing the military budget without impairing the country's defence. In a well-reasoned way they showed the availability of economic and technical conditions for converting military expenditures to civilian needs and the probable positive effect _-_-_
~^^1^^ Disarmament and the Economy, Ed. by Emile Benoit & Kenneth E. Boulding, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1963.
~^^2^^ The Economic Effects of Disarmament, London, 1963.
~^^3^^ Sense About Defence. The Report of -the Labour Party Defence Study Group, Quartet Books, London, 1977.
104 of such conversion on the British economy and employment.The works of US economists Wassily Leontief, Seymour Melman and others also testify to the economic and technical feasibility of converting a military-oriented economy to civilian uses.
In recent years, conversion of military production to civilian needs has been widely discussed among different sections of the world public, at international forums and meetings. On March 30-April 1, 1979, a scientific symposium on Problems of the Conversion from War to Peace Production was held in Vienna; the sponsors were the International Institute for Peace and the World Federation of Scientific Workers. The participants (46 people from 18 countries and four international organisations) discussed a wide range of the economic and social problems of disarmament, and an overwhelming majority of speakers emphasised that there were no insurmountable technical or economic obstacles in the way of disarmament.
The most acute and debatable aspect of conversion of military production is in its effects on employment. In justifying the arms race, representatives of the military-industrial complex claim that war preparations allegedly ensure high employment, while disarmament would lead to a sharp increase in unemployment. The advocates of disarmament and consolidation of peace are interested in having an impartial assessment of the effects of disarmament on employment, since this issue affects the vital interests of about 60 million people employed in the armed forces and armaments industries of all countries. Relevant studies permit one to assert that the arms race does not ensure high employment; neither does it resolve the problem of unemployment, which in recent years has attained unprecedentedly high levels in the capitalist countries. In this connection, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USA, Gus Hall wrote: "The cost of war production and the profits are high but the number of workers employed is relatively low. The shortsighted and opportunistic argument that war orders mean more jobs has had the rug pulled from under it. The billions of our tax dollars that the government spends for war orders do not result in a corresponding increase in jobs, since the new engines of mass destruction do not depend to the same extent on the job-making materials and processes called for in earlier wars. The highest rate of unemployment is now in 105 the cities and states where war production is a dominant industry.''^^1^^
High unemployment rates are mainly due to the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, and to changes in the level and structure of the demand on manpower that occur under the influence of scientific and technological progress. However, special studies in the United States and other capitalist countries show that the arms race, too, indirectly promotes unemployment.
According to the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan, in 1970--1974 when the annual level of military spending averaged 78,000 million dollars, the United States lost a total of 907,000 jobs each year. This estimate was obtained by analysing the effect of military expenditures on the principal areas of economic activity: production of consumer goods; housing and industrial construction; services; expenditures by states and local governments; exports and imports; federal civilian procurement; and manufacture of capital equipment.
The Michigan Group established that in terms of annual production of goods and services, say in the sum of 1,000 million dollars, military expenditures would create fewer jobs than other types of government spending with the exception of space research. For example, in 1970--1974, an average of 45,000 jobs in industry or 58,000 jobs in government institutions could have been created with 1,000 million dollars which was expended on military needs, while 59,000 jobs in industry or 88,000 jobs in government institutions could have been created with the same sum of civilian expenses. Thus, 1,000 million dollars spent on military needs leads to a loss of 14,000 jobs in industry and 30,000 in government institutions. Reason: the military sector is distinguished by a considerably higher level of capital consumption and a lower level of labour consumption. Hence, the growth of military expenditures ultimately leads to lesser employment.
According to US estimates, 60 per cent of Americans who live in states which have increasing military expenditures lose their jobs. Every major industrially developed state with the exception of California and Texas loses many jobs. For instance, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Gus Hall, Imperialism Today. An Evaluation of Major Issues and Events of Our Time, International Publishers, New York, 1972, p. 85.
106 in 1970--1974 New York lost an average of 392,000 jobs a year, Illinois 165,000, Michigan 155,000, Ohio 136,000, and Pennsylvania 121,000.^^1^^The Second World War pulled the economy of the United States and the other capitalist countries out of a lengthy period of stagnation and eliminated mass unemployment. This was instrumental in widely spreading among those nations the myth that military spending ensures high employment. The above-mentioned elimination of unemployment was not due to some specific economic properties of military expenditures, but to the huge demand of the war. The mounting growth of military production for meeting that demand was necessary, as was an army of many-million strong. The war ended, but the people never forgot the terrible unemployment years of the thirties and remembered that it was eliminated during the period of the war. The vitality of the myth is largely due to all these factors, which are widely publicised by the military-industrial complex. However, practice shows that military expenditures not only do not ensure high employment rates, but on the contrary, strongly aggravate the problem of unemployment.
At the same time, calculations show that well-planned and gradual disarmament and conversion of the released resources to civilian needs would result in higher employment rates. According to American estimates, for instance, 718,000 additional jobs could be created by reducing the US military budget by 30,000 million dollars and by converting them to civilian uses, and there are other forecasts of the kind.
For example, the Peace Budget which was submitted in 1975 in Chicago at the National Conference for a Drastic Cutback in Military Spending provided for decreasing the armed forces by one million men and cutting military spending (by 58,000 million dollars) and other expenditures (connected with the CIA, FBI and other suppressive agencies) by a total of 85,000 million dollars. It also planned for increasing the budgetary expenses for various civilian projects. The authors of the Peace Budget concluded that a drastic cutback in military allocations with a simultaneous substantial increase in federal _-_-_
~^^1^^ First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget Fiscal Year 1979. Hearings before the Committee on the Budget, US Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Vol. 1, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1978, pp. 434--39.
107 spending for civilian needs would create 4.8 million additional jobs in the United States (7.2 million new jobs less 2.4 million jobs due to the lower employment rate in the war industry).^^1^^ These data, which are approximate, disprove the view widely publicised in bourgeois literature that military spending ensures high employment. At the same time, they show that disarmament and conversion of the resources to civilian uses would be accompanied by higher employment.One should, of course, also remember the temporary difficulties that may arise with the conversion of the military economy. The switch-over of material resources and manpower from military to civilian uses is neither a mechanical nor a simple process. It would, in effect, require well thought-out measures, time and definite costs. This should, for instance, undoubtedly involve a special national conversion programme, as well as measures for creating new jobs, providing subsidies and allowances to workers, and helping them find jobs as well as receive vocational training. It should also involve a geographic and inter-branch redistribution of the manpower that would be released from the military sector of the economy. The experiences of past wars and the research on the problem of converting military production to civilian uses show that all the objective conditions are at hand for solving the employment issue in case of disarmament.
When studying the possibilities for switching over the manpower from the military sector to civilian uses, one should keep in mind that relatively more qualified workers are employed in military production. In the early seventies, the share of qualified workers in US military production was 20.3 per cent, and of semi-qualified workers 24.5 per cent; at the same time, their share in the entire US economy was 13 and 18.7 per cent, respectively. A considerable number of scientists and engineers work for the military industry. In the late sixties, the US military industry employed 59 per cent of all aviation engineers, 54 per cent of aviation technicians, 38 per cent of physicists, 22 per cent of electrical engineers, 20 per cent of mechanical engineers. 13 per cent of electricians and 10 per cent of chemists.^^2^^ In 1970, it employed 74 scientists per 1,000 workers, while the manufacturing industry had only ten scientists for
_-_-_^^1^^ Economic Notes, May 1975, p. 6.
^^2^^ Monthly Labor Review, February 1970, p. 12.
108 the same number of industrial workers.The high skills of the workers who are employed in the military sector of the economy is still another indication that in case of disarmament it could be converted relatively easily to civilian production. According to a special study at an aeromissile plant in California, "Altogether, the skills of 121 of the 127 occupations were found to be transferable to civilian industry with not more than six months of retraining being required in any instance.''^^1^^
Considerable changes have taken place in the occupations and skills of the personnel in the US armed forces. The same applies to their educational levels: the number of technical specialists increased noticeably while the number of servicemen who were purely combat-oriented has correspondingly declined (Table 16).
About 60--75 per cent of military occupations now have civilian analogues. It should also be stressed that in the United States and in some other capitalist countries special courses have been organised for training the men in civilian professions to thus stimulate military enrollment. All this indicates the objective possibilities for converting servicemen to civilian activity.
To resolve the problem of disarmament, it would be extremely important to explain to the workers in the military enterprises that by carefully planned conversion of the military economy in stages it would be possible to avoid not only the serious complications connected with employment, but also to create new jobs and reduce unemployment.
One of the most complex economic aspects of disarmament is in assessing the possibilities of and the basic trends for converting to civilian needs the material resources which are now used for military purposes. Military-economic preparations are achieved in different ways, and one can get a general idea about their structure from the budget of the US Department of Defence (Table 17). Military-economic preparations differ not only in purpose, content and execution, but also in the complexity of converting them to civilian uses. At present, about half of all the direct military spending by the leading NATO countries goes to the salaries for servicemen, military __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ _-_-_
^^1^^ Seymour Melman, The Permanent War Economy. American Capitalism in Decline, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1974, p. 257.
109 Table 16 Privates and Noncoms in the US Armed Forces: Percentage by Function Occupational groups 1945 1963 1974 Army Navy Marines Air force Army Navy Marines Air force Army Navy Marines Air foice Combat 39.3 33.6 9.5 28.8 40.5 21.1 13.8 28.2 0.0 Electronics 3.8 9.5 6.1 8.1 9.1 22.3 11.5 15.8 7.4 14.7 5.2 13.9 Other technical professions 6.6 9.1 3.9 7.6 8.6 8.0 3.1 8.5 16.6 22.5 9.1 14.6 Administration and office 15.1 11.1 15.0 19.9 18.6 9.5 18.1 26.2 21.5 11.6 15.5 21.2 Mechanics and repairers 8.9 37.6 21.8 35.9 16.5 41.2 15.5 25.4 16.6 19.8 17.5 27.6 Foremen 7.1 21.9 2.6 4.7 3.7 11.7 1.8 9.4 3.5 10.2 3.3 8.6 Service 19.2 10.9 14.9 14.5 14.5 7.2 9.3 12.6 13.2 7.4 21.2 14.0 110 __PARAGRAPH_CONT__ pensions, and the pay to civilian personnel. The transition in the United States, Britain and other capitalist countries to voluntary enrollment for military service and a rapidly growing inflation led to a considerable increase in the first half of the seventies of the absolute and relative expenditures for maintaining the armed forces. For example, the share of these expenditures (including all the spending on "Military personnel" and all the pay to the civilian personnel under "Operation and maintenance'') in the Pentagon budget increased from 37 per cent in 1967 to an average of 54.4 per cent in 1974--1976. In France, it reached almost 58 per cent of the total military spending in 1976 as against 48 per cent in 1968. However, recently, the expenses for the military personnel in the US and the French military budgets have been stabilised and even tend to decline somewhat.Under this budgetary item, money is paid directly to servicemen, retired officers, and civilian personnel. In the final analysis, these funds are apparently expended for the same purposes and in similar proportions as the incomes of other sections of the public. Hence, in case of complete or partial disarmament, a decrease in this portion of military spending would lead to a corresponding reduction of military personnel (which would have to be provided with jobs), but would not require conversion of industry, since the men involved would generally need and, with few exceptions, demand the same type, amount and quality of items of personal consumption as before, even though their sources of income would change depending on their new job. It may therefore be inferred that a cutback in expenses on maintaining military personnel is not connected with the problem of converting production.
Things are different, however, with expenditures on the operation and maintenance of war materials. This item of the military budget involves about one-third of the Pentagon's total spending and includes numerous and diversified expenses, such as the operation and maintenance of military equipment, military installations and structures, and also the means of transportation and communication; procurement of fuel and lubricants; operation of military educational establishments and medical institutions, reserve arsenals, shipyards, military enterprises, etc. In case of disarmament, each of these heterogeneous key elements would, from the viewpoint of conversion, require a specific approach. Closure of military installations __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ 111 Table 17 US Federal Government Expenditures for Major National Security Function (million dollars) Fiscal years Function 1951 1953 1955 1960 1965 *1968 1970 1975 1982 Military personnel Operation and maintenance Major procurement and production R&D Military public works and civil defence Revolving funds and other 7,469 6,715 3,976 1,602 440 -437 11,913 10,379 17,123 2,336 1,913 -54 11,062 7,905 12,997 2,349 1,582 -364 11,738 10,223 13,334 4,710 1,626 14,771 12,349 11,839 6,236 1,719 -741 21,954 20,578 23,283 7,747 1,884 1,927 25,880 21,609 21,584 7,166 1,862 -951 31,210 26,295 16,042 8,866 2,754 -182 53,863 59,659 40,120 18,485 7,873 TOTAL 19,765 43,610 35,531 41,215 46,173 77,373 77.150 84,985 18Q,OOQ
* Estimate ~
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1957, p. 238; 1967, p. 256; The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year
1968, pp. 456--57;
Fiscal Year 1977, p. 360; Fiscal Year 1979, p. 478; Fiscal Year 1980, p. 98. Fiscal Year 1982, p. 600.
Reduction of maintenance costs would require a discharge of a corresponding number of civilians, totalling about 1 million in the US armed forces. Since civilian employees in the armed forces have specialities resembling civilian occupations, when discharged they could be relatively easily provided with jobs in the civilian sector of the economy with the government's help.
The most complex aspect of conversion is in reducing government procurement of weapons and combat equipment. Approximately one-fourth of the military budget involves the procurement of aircraft, missiles, warships, radioelectronic equipment and communication devices, armour, artillery and small arms, ammunition, and other types of armaments. These expenses form the material foundation of the military industry. Naturally, a decrease in government military contracts would lead to a corresponding cutback in arms production and to a release of personnel from the respective military-oriented branches and factories. Production of modern weapons and combat equipment is characterised by high specialisation and substantially differs from the civilian branches. Hence, the conversion of military production to civilian needs represents a more complex issue than heretofore. However, today there are solutions, and there are no insurmountable obstacles in its way.
Conversion of a highly specialised military industry to civilian uses would require the solution of a number of complex but solvable issues. It would to some extent be facilitated by, first, the conversion could be achieved gradually and within a lengthy period and, second, most suppliers of military products are already manufacturing goods for civilian consumption in addition to military equipment. As the UN and other experts 113 note, successful conversion would, moreover, require governments to develop beforehand suitable conversion programmes, increase investments in the civilian branches of their economies, and find new long-term directions for the output of civilian goods. It would require a rendering of all the necessary economic assistance to companies, enterprises and regions in order to overcome the temporary difficulties concomitant with disarmament.
The scale and complexity involved in converting a given branch of the economy would be determined by different factors. In this sense, not only the absolute and relative volumes of military production by a given branch are of significance, but also the nature and technological specifics of the production. For instance, modern warplanes, nuclear submarines, missiles and other armaments cannot be used for civilian purposes. Moreover, the production capacity of the respective enterprises are only partially suitable for civilian manufacture. Conversion to civilian uses of these highly specialised enterprises would involve certain difficulties, which, with suitable organisation, however, could be gradually overcome to find an alternative and tjie most rational ways of manufacturing the civilian items.
Conversion would pose maximum problems for the aeromissile industry, which is a major militarised branch producing the most sophisticated types of weapons and equipment, and whose consumer qualities sharply differ from those of civilian commodities. Specialists believe that the aeromissile industry possesses sufficient technological and economic possibilities to substantially increase, in case of disarmament, the output of civil aircraft, vehicles, communication satellite equipment, industrial and household utensils, etc. This would permit to offset the reduction of government military contracts by increasing civilian production. Shipbuilding, radio-electronics, and similar military-oriented industries also possess considerable possibilities for offsetting reduction of military contracts by increasing production of civilian commodities.
In Britain, some trade unions studied the possibilities for converting military production to civilian uses and devised specific plans for this. In Liege, Belgium, trade union workers calculated the advantages obtainable by converting certain military enterprises to civilian needs. In relevant literature published outside the USSR, conversion of military industry is shown to be feasible not only by converting individual __PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---18 114 branches and factories, but by abandoning major military projects.
In Sense About Defence, which I have already cited above, the Labour Party Defence Study Group outlined concrete possibilities for converting two major military projects ( Tornado, a multirole combat aircraft, and the anti-submarine warfare cruiser) to civilian uses.^^1^^ The authors make a distinction between conversion and diversification. In their view, conversion involves a complete switch-over of part of the production capacity of the military industry to the output of civilian products, whereas diversification involves the use of the same production facilities for manufacturing both military and civilian products.
Started in 1968, the Tornado project is being handled jointly by Britain, West Germany and Italy. According to official estimates, one Tornado (different modifications) would cost from 6.3 to 7.7 million pounds sterling (1977--1978 prices). The costs of building and operating one Tornado during its whole life cycle would amount to about 16.8-20.2 million pounds sterling, and Britain's total expenses on the Tornados ordered would exceed 7,000 million pounds sterling. The chief British contractors for the project are British Aircraft and Rolls-Royce, which employ 5,500 and 4,000 workers, respectively, for just that project alone in addition to several thousand partially involved workers.
The Labour Party Defence Study Group maintains that if the Tornado project were cancelled, which is highly unlikely, taking into account the present policies of the British government, the released production capacity and manpower could be used for manufacturing civilian products, e. g. machinetools, waste-processing equipment, new types of energy plants, gas turbines for sea vessels, civil aircraft (for developing countries), building structures, railway rolling stock, medical equipment, and so on. According to the Group, conversion of military production to the manufacture of civilian commodities would require relevant political decisions, since, for instance, the manufacture of medical equipment would entail greater spending on health.
The authors of Sense About Defence believe that it would _-_-_
^^1^^ Sense About Defence. The Report of the Labour Party Defence Study Group, pp. 111--54.
115 not be too difficult to find alternatives to conversion and diversification. Rather, it would be much more complicated to choose correctly between the two so as to ensure good coordination and smooth transition to manufacture of new products. Besides, any major restructuring of the military industry would inevitably require definite changes in related branches and in the national economy as a whole. The book emphasises that the military industry employees themselves are not against cutbacks in military production, cutbacks allegedly threatening them with unemployment. On the contrary, workers' committees at military factories come out with various alternatives for manufacturing civilian products. Sense About Defence concludes that today there are favourable conditions for carrying out a programme of conversion and diversification.The second military project discussed in the book provides for the building of three anti-submarine warfare cruisers, which are essentially small aircraft carriers armed with antisubmarine helicopters and vertical take-off planes. According to official estimates, the total cost of building and operating these ships during 20 years would be about 2,360 million pounds sterling. However, many experts maintain that the actual expenditures would be at least three times more. The chief contractor is Vickers Shipbuilding Group; it employs about 13,000 workers, of which 2,600 are to be directly involved in the project. According to current estimates, approximately 7,000-8,000 man-years would be needed to build the cruisers themselves, and another 28,000--32,000 man-years to manufacture all the auxiliary equipment.
The authors of the book assume that if the project were cancelled, there would be several possibilities for applying the released capacity and manpower resources. For instance, through the construction of merchant vessels, the manufacture of equipment for the North Sea oil fields, underwater agriculture and the mining of minerals from the ocean floor, development of new power plants operating on wave energy, etc. As in the case of the Tornado, the principal difficulties in converting and diversifying the cruiser project would be the political issues involved, not the technical ones. The switch-over would make it necessary to revise the government investment policy.
In recent years, the world public has been discussing the possibilities of using the scientists and engineers who are __PRINTERS_P_115_COMMENT__ 8* 116 released through the conversion of the military economy. Attention towards this acute issue is becoming increasingly strong. First, for the reason that there are already many jobless scientists and engineers in the capitalist countries and, second, because many of those employed are presently engaged in military research. The total number of scientific workers doing military R & D all over the world exceeds 400,000. According to existing estimates about one-fourth of all scientists and engineers are engaged in military R & D. At present there is a rather ramified system of military R & D, whose restructuring for civilian needs would entail complications.
Some bourgeois authors assert that conversion of the military economy to civilian uses would increase the total number of jobs, but would simultaneously reduce employment among scientists and engineers. According to American estimates, reduction of military spending in the US by 20,000 million dollars and conversion of this sum to housing, environmental protection, increase in pensions, etc. would create an additional 325,000 jobs, but the demand for engineers would decrease by 78,000.^^1^^ But there are also contrary estimates to the effect that disarmament would lead to higher employment rates for scientists and engineers. For instance, Illinois State University economists estimate that conversion of funds from the military sector to education, health, and environmental protection would allow for the creation of an additional 6.7 million jobs, including 2.8 million for university and college graduates.^^2^^
In case of disarmament, the demand for scientists and engineers would increase considerably since the most up-to-date achievements of science and engineering, particularly highly automated technology would be used in civilian production more and more. Prof. John D. Bernal noted in this regard: "It is just the type of expert released by the cessation of modern weapon building that can be most usefully employed for this purpose. The electronics and control-gear of modern planes and rockets, without any serious alteration in principle, could be adapted to controlling industrial processes, and the higher class of designer, who work not by copying other designs _-_-_
~^^1^^ Scientific Manpower. A Dilemma for Graduate Education, Ed. by C. Brown and Brian B.Schwartz, The M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971, pp. 54--56.
~^^2^^ See World Economics and International Relations, 1976, No. 1 1, p. 62.
117 but from first principles, could switch over to the general re-designing and thinking out of the whole of industrial production planning.''^^1^^Conversion of military research to the civilian sector would create the necessary conditions for stepping up scientific and technological progress in the civilian sector and for coming to grips with many acute social problems confronting mankind. It would also considerably expand research in environmental protection, ocean exploration, energy, transport, raw material, urban development, food, measures against disease, and so on. All this would in turn be accompanied by an increased demand for highly skilled scientists and engineers. For example, the US National Planning Association foresaw an increased demand for scientists and engineers for the disposing of industrial waste in the food, chemical, paper, metal and oil-refining industries. The Association established that by 1980 the United States, depending on its scientific and technological policies, would need from 57,000 to 100,000 scientists and engineers for environmental protection work alone in the above-- mentioned industries.^^2^^ Participants in the International Scientific Symposium on The Role Played by Scientists and Their Organisations in the Struggle for Disarmament, held in July 1975 in Moscow on the initiative of the World Federation of Scientific Workers, also arrived at the conclusion that disarmament would not lead to unemployment among engineers and technicians who are presently occupied in the militaryoriented industries. Neither would it be difficult to convert to civilian needs the funds systematically used for military public works and some other military purposes. Conversion of a military economy to civilian uses is therefore connected with specific but quite surmountable difficulties.
The economic aspects of conversion evidently require still more fundamental research. It would be desirable, therefore, to conduct new comprehensive studies under the auspices of the UN or some other international organisation, and with the cooperation of competent scientists and experts, in order to reveal the socio-economic consequences of disarmament, _-_-_
^^1^^ J. D. Bernal, World Without War, London, Routledge & .Kegan Paul, 1958, p. 152.
~^^2^^ Manpower Report of the President Transmitted to the Congress April 1975, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1975, p. 126.
118 to determine the specific trends of conversion for various types of military-economic preparations, and make the results known to the world public. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Conversion of a Military Economy: National,In examining the economic aspects of disarmament and the feasibility of converting a military economy as a whole, one should keep in mind that a practical solution of this complex and diverse issue would require a specific approach to each respective country, region and industry taking into account their specific conditions and distinctive features.
The absolute and relative scales of military preparations in different countries are known to vary a great deal. Most of these preparations involve just a few major powers. Furthermore, the military industries whose conversion involves maximum difficulties are concentrated in even fewer countries. Hence, in case of an agreement on disarmament, the problem of conversion will first of all affect highly developed states, each of which possesses sufficient possibilities for converting its military economy to civilian uses.
The experience of past wars and recent studies show that conversion of military production could be achieved only under state supervision involving a number of nation-wide measures. This would for one thing require early development of a national programme for organised and phased conversion of the military economy to civilian needs taking into account its specific features in a given country.
When this problem is discussed, the usual argument is that it would be easier to convert the military economy of socialist countries than that of capitalist states. True, the socialist economic system has a number of advantages over capitalism in this respect, too. Public ownership of the means of production and a centralised planned economy create conditions for a more efficient conversion of the military economy to civilian uses. This is evidenced in the way the Soviet economy was converted after the Second World War. Within a short period of time, military enterprises, depending on their specialisation, were in an organised manner switched over to civilian production. Tank plants began making tractors, steam locomotives, carriages, etc. Artillery plants were switched over to production of 119 excavators, presses, drilling rigs, rolling mills, and so on. Corresponding changes also took place in the light industry. For example, shoe factories curtailed the manufacture of high boots to considerably raise the production of fashionable shoes.
By the beginning of 1948, 8.5 million men had been demobilised from the Soviet Armed Forces, and courses for improving skills or for teaching new trades were organised for them all over the country.
Reconverting the Soviet economy was naturally no easy task. But the measures taken by the Communist Party and Soviet government permitted them to surmount all difficulties. Reconversion of the economy to civilian needs was accomplished on a planned basis. It involved a sharp reduction of military spending; an increased investment in the economy; the reorganisation of state economic management bodies; the redistribution of manpower, raw and other materials; and so on. Reconversion of the economy was on the whole already completed in 1946, and this made it possible to intensify economic reconstruction and development. In 1946, the Supreme Soviet adopted the fourth five-year plan for reconstruction and development of the national economy of the USSR for the years 1946--1950. Its main tasks were to rebuild the regions that had suffered from the war, to attain and then surpass the pre-war level of industrial and agricultural development. The tasks of the fourth five-year plan were on the whole accomplished ahead of schedule. The total volume of industrial production grew rapidly, and in 1948 surpassed the pre-war level.
The experience of reconverting the Soviet economy was discussed with reference to the specific example of the Krasny Proletary Works, a Moscow machine-tool manufacturing plant, which during the war was making tanks, ammunition, and machine-tools for the war industry.^^1^^ Practice showed that conversion of this plant not only did not lead to mass sackings, but on the contrary made it possible to take back many former workers who had returned from the battlefronts. The plant did not experience any difficulties in marketing its growing output. Material and working conditions improved considerably. A similar picture was observed in other Soviet enterprises _-_-_
~^^1^^ See V. V. Yermilov, The Bliss of Thorny Pathways, Moscow, 1972 (in Russian).
120 which were converted to civilian production.In modern conditions, too, the USSR and the other socialist countries with their system of public ownership of the means of production and a planned economy, possess real possibilities for effectively and rapidly converting military production to civilian uses and for switching over resources presently used for defence needs. These countries also can peacefully construct and increase capital investments for satisfying the economic and social requirements of society. The leaders of the socialist countries have repeatedly spoken of their readiness to convert their military economies to civilian needs. In his speech on West German television on May 7, 1978, Leonid Brezhnev noted: "We in the Soviet Union have neither the classes, nor social strata, nor professional groups who would be interested in waging or preparing war, or who would reckon on profiting from war. Of course, we do have military plants and an army, but neither the plant managers nor the army commanders, neither the workers nor the soldiers, associate their well-being with war, with military orders. We would very much want---to the enormous benefit of the whole society---to convert military plants, too, to the manufacture of civilian commodities, to peaceful creative goals.''^^1^^
After the Second World War, reconversion of the US military economy did not involve any special difficulties. The total number of servicemen was reduced from 11.6 million in 1945 to 1.5 million in 1948, and military expenditures went down from 81,200 million to 11,800 million dollars. In addition, the year 1946 was marked by a temporary decrease in the total volume of industrial production, followed up by considerable growth. If we take the year 1967 for 100 per cent in US industrial production, the 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 levels would be 40.6, 35, 39.4 and 41 per cent, respectively.^^2^^ At the same time, despite ``prophesies'' that the army of unemployed would grow to 8 million, the unemployment rate of the first post-war years was considerably lower than that of the pre-war period, and did not reach the usual American level of 4 per cent of the nation's manpower. During the 16 months _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, May 7, 1978.
^^2^^ Economic Report of the President Transmitted to the Congress February 1975, US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1975, p. 288.
121 after the end of the war, employment in the British military sector declined from 9 million to 2 million, but unemployment on the whole did not exceed the pre-war level and was lower than the 4 per cent norm.During the post-war decades, partial conversion of military production to civilian needs took place in some countries in the wake of local conflicts. The experience of the post-war period of state-monopoly control of capitalist economy leads to the conclusion that capitalist states have sufficient possibilities for converting their military economies to civilian uses. Conversion would also be facilitated in that it would be lesser in scope than the post-war reconversion and could be prepared in advance. For reconverting their economies, the capitalist countries could use both direct administrative .and legislative measures and indirect financial and other levers. Organised conversion in capitalist countries could also be achieved on the basis of the experience of state control over the military economy, particularly the existing mechanism of military contracts. In case of conversion, this mechanism, which is most widespread in the United States, could serve as an important instrument for switching over government budgetary resources from the military sector to civilian needs.
In recent years, a tendency for the share of military expenditures to decline in the gross national product has been observed in a number of countries. This implies that their industries are becoming less dependent on military contracts and the prospects for resolving the problems of conversion are therefore more optimistic.
The issue of converting military production to civilian uses would loom especially large for the United States because military-economic preparations and militarisation of the economy have reached the highest level there. Conversion of the material resources and manpower from the military to the civilian sector would necessitate the solution of great complex problems. On the other hand, in Western Europe, Japan, and a few other capitalist countries, conversion of military industry would involve relatively less difficulties. The majority of states, particularly many developing countries, still have either no military industry at all, or only an incipient war economy. For them, the economic aspects of disarmament do not present any special difficulty. Most developing countries import armaments and military equipment from industrially developed nations; every year they spend huge sums on procuring weapons 122 and, as a result, their economies and finances are heavily burdened. In case of disarmament, the developing countries would free themselves of these oppressively heavy expenditures and could direct their generally limited financial resources to expanding imports of consumer goods their civilian population needs so badly.
There is a big difference in the degree of militarisation not only of the economies of the various countries, but also of their respective regions. Statistical publications lack accurate information on the geographic distribution of military economy, and regional defence contract awards are usually used to fill up the gap (see Table 18).
Military contracts give only an approximate idea of the territorial distribution of military industry. To begin with, they include only the prime contracts and do not take into account the subcontracts, under which part of the work to be done on the prime contracts is shifted to other states. Second, military contracts mainly concern shipments of end products and, therefore, only partially reflect the involvement of those industries, which supply raw materials and other essentials for manufacturing the end product, in military production. Third, these contracts do not apply to producing military products at government-owned factories; and, fourth, they do not account for contracts valued below 10,000 dollars.
During the Second World War, the Northeast and MidAtlantic states led US war production. At that time, the distribution of the US war industry generally corresponded to the geographic distribution of all industrial production, this being due to the fact that the manufacture of military products, most of which included armour, warships, artillery, small arms and other conventional weapons, could be organised by converting suitable industrial enterprises to military needs.
In the post-war years, substantial shifts in the structure
of military production occurred under the influence of the
scientific and technological revolution as well as other factors:
the share of warplanes, missiles; nuclear arms, and
radioelectronic equipment abruptly increased, and that of armour and
other conventional weapons decreased. In some countries,
this was accompanied by major internal changes in the
geographic distribution of the armaments industry. In the United
States, for instance, a considerable portion of military
production was concentrated in the Pacific and Southern states, i. e.
__PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__
123
Table 18
Geographical Distribution of the US Department of Defence
Prime Contract Awards
Region and state
1972/73
1974/75
million
dollars
per cent
million
dollars
per cent
New England
2,918
8.4
4,559
10.5
Maine
45
0.2
55
0.1
New Hampshire
157
0.4
189.
0.4
Vermont
36
0.1
123
0.3
Massachusetts
1,589
4.6
1,770
4.1
Rhode Island
86
0.2
73
0.2
Connecticut
1,005
2.9
2,349
5.4
Mid-Atlantic states
5,760
16.6
5,802
13.4
New York
3,476
10.0
3,744
8.6
New Jersey
1,043
3.0
991
2.3
Pennsylvania
1,241
3.6
1,068
2.5
Northeast Center
2,862
8.2
3,327
7.7
Ohio
952
2.7
1,014
2.3
Indiana
641
1.8
812
1.9
Illinois
476
1.4
498
1.2
Michigan
494
1.5
766
1.8
Wisconsin
299
0.8
237
0.5
Northwest Center
2,189
6.3
2,719
6.3
Minnesota
377
1.1
437
1.0
Iowa
153
0.4
173
0.4
Missouri
1,184
3.4
1,361
3.1
North Dakota
63
0.2
176
0.4
South Dakota
20
0.1
19
0.1
Nebraska
69
0.2
49
0.1
Kansas
323
0.9
504
1.2
South Atlantic states
3,829
11.0
4,925
11,4
Delaware
66
0.2
50
0.1
Maryland
685
2.0
802
1.8
Virginia
783
2.3
1,207
2.8
West Virginia
60
0.2
74
0.2
North Carolina
355
1.0
399
0.9
South Carolina
132
0.3
204
0.5
Georgia
438
1.3
630
1.5
Florida
782
2.2
1,030
2.4
District of Columbia
521
1.5
529
1.2
Southeast Center
1,217
3.5
1,916
4.4
Kentucky
104
0.3
167
0.4
Tennessee
424
1.2
359
0.8
Alabama
294
0.9
417
1.0
Mississippi
396
1.1
973
2.2
Southwest Center
2,650
7.6
2,764
6.4
Arkansas
62
0.2
48
0.1
124
Region and state
1972/73
1974/75
million
dollars
per cent
million
dollars
per cent
Louisiana
208
0.6
477
1.1
Oklahoma
148
0.4
215
0.5
Texas
2,232
6.4
2,024
4.7
Rocky-mountain states
1,050
3.0
1,285
2.9
Montana
18
0.1
5
0.01
Idaho
10
0.1
10
0.02
Wyoming
118
0.3
29
0.07
Colorado
238
0.7
294
0.7
New Mexico
104
0.2
93
0.2
Arizona
390
1.1
668
1.5
Utah
157
0.4
141
0.3
Nevada
15
0.1
45
0.1
Pacific states
7,590
21.9
10,034
23.1
Washington
1,051
3.0
1,637
3.8
Oregon
42
0.1
59
0.1
California
6,215
17.9
7,908
18.2
Alaska
127
0.4
132
0.3
Hawaii
155
0.5
298
0.7
Total for states
30,085
86.5
37,331
86.1
Contracts
undistributed in the states
4,676
13.5
6,036
13.9
GRAND TOTAL
34,881
100.0
43,355
100.0
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1976. p. 333.
__PARAGRAPH_CONT__ in centres of the aeromissile or radioelectronics industries. In 1974/75, the share of the Pacific states amounted to 23.1 per cent of the total cost of the Pentagon's military contracts, this being much more than their share in the overall output of the nation's manufacturing industry. California was particularly notable in this respect, its share in the total 1974/75 Pentagon contracts amounting to 18.2 per cent and putting it ahead of all the other states. The Southern states received 22.2 per cent of all the military contracts, which was also more than their share in the total cost of American industrial production. A considerable portion of US military production is concentrated in the states of New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The old industrial centres continue to play an important role in military production, especially of armour, artillery, small arms, ammunition, and other conventional weapons. However, their role as manufacturers of military 125 products is considerably inferior to the one they play in industrial production as a whole.An unequal distribution of military industry may be observed not only in the United States, but in other countries as well. In France, for instance, of the 270,000 workers employed in armaments production, 35 per cent work in the Paris region, 3.5 per cent in the Northern region, 20 per cent in the Western region, 19.5 per cent in the Southwest region, 20 per cent in the Southeast region, and 2 per cent in the region of Cent re-East.
Territorial distribution of the manufacture of specific types of weapons and combat equipment is particularly disproportionate. In the United States, the State of California leads in the manufacture of aeromissile and space technology, radioelectronic equipment and communication devices. Virginia and Connecticut are shipbuilding centres, but the New England states and the Northeast lead in the manufacture of armour, artillery, and small arms. Over half of the American ammunition plants are concentrated in the Northwest and Northeast.
The following data indicate where the basic US military products are mainly produced. Fifty-nine and a half per cent of all workers employed by the US aeromissile industry work at ten centres (13.8 per cent in Los Angeles---Long Beach, 8 per cent in Dallas---Fort Worth, and 7.2 per cent in Seattle---Everett); 63.4 per cent in shipbuilding (11.7 per cent in Newport---New Hampton; 9.8 per cent in New London---Groton-Norwich; and 9.7 per cent in Boston); 91 per cent in artillery and small arms (20 per cent in Bridgeport and 13.9 per cent in Minneapolis---Saint Paul) and 75.9 per cent in ammunition (22.5 per cent in Louisville and 9.9 per cent in Shreveport). In France, the Paris region alone makes about half of the nation's aeromissile products and a major portion of the radioe lee Ironic devices. Toulouse and Bordeaux also play an important role in military production.
From the viewpoint of the economic consequences of disarmament, not only the absolute size of military production in the respective regions or cities and its share in the national military-economic preparations are important, but also the extent to which each region or city depends on these military industries, i. e. the extent to which the local economy is militarised. The level of militarisation in specific regions and cities may be revealed, for instance, by comparing their 126 military and overall employment rates. In the United States, various states and cities differ sharply in this respect (Table 19).
Table 19 Ratio of Military Employment in the Total Employment by States Employment Employment rate in rate in State military State military sector sector (per cent) (per cent) Alaska 31.6 Arizona 9.0 Hawaii 18.8 South Carolina 8.8 District ofSource: The War Economy of the United Stales Ed. By Seymour Meiman, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1971, p. 231.
Nearly every third employee in Alaska, every fifth in Hawaii, every seventh in Virginia and every tenth in Maryland, California and other states are connected with military activity. There are several cities and localities, in which their economic development is largely determined by the presence of a military industry or by military bases. This is true in the United States of cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Baltimore, and others.
Since the absolute and relative levels of military economic development in the various regions and cities substantially differ, the respective conversion programmes should be undertaken with recognition of these differences, and other specific features of the local economy should be noted. Due to the high concentration of military enterprises and bases in certain regions and centres, conversion may lead to additional difficulties, the overcoming of which would require the concerted efforts of government officials, the local authorities as well as the personnel of the various industries. Disarmament would make a beneficial impact on the development of all regions and would open new prospects for their socio-economic progress. It would lead to elimination of the negative consequences of the arms race to thus considerably increase possibilities 127 for expanding production and employment in the civilian sectors.
Individual regions are characterised by non-uniform militarisation; in virtue of this, complete or partial disarmament would have a different impact on their economies. By using the inter-branch production and commodity distribution balance, Roger H. Bezdek, an American researcher, estimated the effect of increased or decreased military spending on specific regions in the United States. According to his data, a 30 per cent cutback in military expenditures by 1980 and reconversion of these funds saved to domestic civilian needs would in eight regions lead to an increase and in six to a decrease in the overall employment rates. On the other hand, a 30 per cent increase in the military budget would in eleven regions result in lower employment rates, and only in three regions in higher overall employment.^^1^^
Various studies, including those by bourgeois experts, show that, in terms of the regional aspect, the problem of converting the military economy to civilian use does not involve insurmountable obstacles. Yet, it is clear that certain difficulties would indeed arise in regions which have large military industries and military bases. However, with early appropriate measures, including government assistance, they could be successfully overcome. This would ultimately benefit the further economic development of both the individual regions and the country as a whole.
Conversion of the military economy would have a different impact not only on the regions but also on the industries. Wassily W. Leontief and Marvin Hoffenberg were among the first in the world to attempt to estimate the effect of disarmament on the various branches of industry.^^2^^ They determined the effect of reduced military spending on different industries on the basis of an inter-industry balance which makes it possible to calculate both the direct and the indirect expenditures of products and labour on production of military commodities. Although their estimates are not devoid of certain conventionalities, they nonetheless give a general idea of the economic effects of disarmament. Leontief and Hoffenberg established that a cutback in 1958 by 8,000 million dollars _-_-_
~^^1^^ Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1Q75, p. 193.
~^^2^^ Wassily W. Leontief and Marvin Hoffenberg. "The Economic Effects of Disarmament'', Scientific American, Vol. 204, No. 4, 1961, pp. 47--55.
128 (20 per cent) in US military spending should have caused lower employment (by 253,000 people) in 19 industries and increased employment (by 542,000) in 38 industries, i. e. the net increment to the employment rate would have amounted to 289,000 employees. At the same time, they found that the most sensitive response would be reflected in the aviation industry, the artillery and small arms industry, and in shipbuilding, the branches which are the most involved in military production. Roger H. Bezdek also assessed the probable impact of cutbacks in military spending on the US economy. His estimates showed that a 30 per cent reduction in US military expenditure by 1980 would lead to a decrease of total employment in 41 industries and to an increase in 38 branches of the economy; the total employment rate in the US economy would thus rise by 2.1 per cent.^^1^^Disarmament and the conversion of military production would also entail certain shifts in the demand for specific occupational groups. This would probably include greater need for specialists with top and medium qualifications in the civilian industries, such as medicine, education, etc. It would presumably also involve a somewhat reduced demand for aeromissile and radioelectronics engineers, who after retraining would find jobs in other sectors of the economy.
From the viewpoint of the possibilities of conversion, the specialisation of the monopolies in military production is also of no small significance. Although many companies manufacture military products, the lion's share of the government military contracts is awarded to a few monopolies: more than half of all the arms production in the capitalist world is controlled by a small group of 25--30 companies. Extensive monopolisation of the military industry reduces the number of companies which are greatly dependent on contracts for weapons and military technology. When determining the extent of this dependence, one should take into account not only the absolute volume of military orders, but also their share in the total volume of products manufactured by a given company. Only few companies specialise exclusively in armament production. Most firms manufacture both military and civilian products, the latter having a major share in the gross value of their output. This, plus the considerable experience of the military-industrial firms in manufacturing civilian _-_-_
^^1^^ Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1975, pp. 189--90.
129 products and the recently observed increased diversification of production, create conditions which enable these companies to overcome with government aid the temporary difficulties connected with conversion, and to fully switch over to the manufacture of civilian goods.The problem of conversion can be successfully resolved if each country would in good time develop its own scientifically grounded economic programme for disarmament. UN experts say that "the smoothness of the transition would largely depend on the ability of governments to anticipate the type of problems that might arise, and on the adequacy of preparations. This calls for an adequate assessment of the direct and indirect demands of military expenditure on each industrial sector and region, and of the extent to which a replacement of military by other expenditures would involve a modification of the structure of demand. Such a confrontation of military demands and of civilian alternatives can be carried out in detail only by national Governments.''^^1^^
Conversion programmes worked out on the basis of a careful study of national, regional, structural, sectoral, organisational and other factors of a national military economy and containing concrete recommendations on the rational methods, forms, rates, scale and sequence of conversion would allow to avoid the possible negative consequences of disarmament and to utilise the released resources more effectively for civilian needs.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. Economic Effect of DisarmamentA scientific analysis of conversion of military production to civilian use makes it possible to assert that disarmament not only would not lead to negative economic consequences, but in many countries would accelerate economic development. As was noted above, the arms race results in a situation in which vast human, material and financial resources are used for unproductive military purposes. It involves prominent scientists, highly skilled workers, engineers and technicians, and the most valuable and scarce natural resources, materials, and so on. All this slows down economic growth rates and the introduction of the most up-to-date achievements of science _-_-_
^^1^^ Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament, Report of the Secretary-General Transmitting the Study of His Consultative Group, p. 27.
__PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9-18 130 and technology in civilian industries; it also augments unemployment and leads to many other negative consequences. Disarmament would allow the conversion of huge resources from military to civilian production.The extent and character of the economic effect of disarmament are primarily determined by the absolute and relative amounts of released resources, as well as by their structure. In turn, the released resources would depend on the amounts and the structure of overt and covert government military spending. Every year, the world spends about 400,000 million dollars on military needs; 60 million people are employed in the armed forces and in military production; a large part of the industrial capacity in many branches of the economy is utilised for manufacturing military products; and defence ministries and related agencies have at their disposal diverse property, numerous buildings and structures, large land plots, etc. The question as to the amount and the sequence in which these huge resources are to be converted to peaceful economic uses would be decided by the extent and form of disarmament. Naturally, the highest economic effect could be obtained with general and complete disarmament, but even partial disarmament would release vast resources.
In case of disarmament, considerable government spending would apparently be needed during a certain period to convert the military economy to civilian uses in an organised and smooth way. It would, for instance, be necessary to help workers acquire new professional skills and move to other regions to assume new jobs; it would also be necessary to give subsidies to the regions and corporations substantially affected by conversion of military production. These and other possible expenditures could be covered by "disarmament dividends''. But even with these inevitable costs, disarmament would facilitate the release of vast material and financial resources for peaceful purposes.
Disarmament would unavoidably entail the need to revise the national priorities in spending. Resources could be used for many different purposes. Moreover, each country has many economic and other requirements that are either not fully satisfied or set aside due to the shortage of resources. Disarmament would make it possible to use the saved resources for satisfying those needs.
There can be no common approach in determining the spending priorities for national resources and in identifying the 131 specific purposes and the ways for utilising resources which are released through disarmament. Each nation would develop its own programme taking into account the possible amounts and structure of these released resources, its own requirements, its own specific development and economic conditions, etc. The vital interests of most of the population are that the resources that are released through disarmament be used for increasing economic growth rates and employment and improving socio-economic conditions for the working masses, rather than for bringing higher profits to the monopolies.
The need for increasing investments in economy, housing urban reconstruction, health, and education, as well as for solving the problems of energy, raw material, transport and others is felt in all countries. US News and World Report wrote in this connection: "Rarely in its history has the US faced a dilemma with such profound implications for the nation's future.
``Evidence is mounting steadily that, unless Americans can clean up the environment in which they live, their health, mental well-being and life expectancy are at stake.
``Yet the price to be paid for the cleaning up is staggering---in dollars, loss of convenience and perhaps the reduction of living standards.'' According to estimates by the President's Council on Environmental Quality, "the cost of an extensive war on pollution is enormous--- a minimum of 271 billion dollars over the next decade".^^1^^ These issues are no less acute in other countries.
Disarmament would also permit to substantially reduce taxes, and this would result in a situation in which the population's solvent demand would go up to stimulate production.
The most rational form of distributing the funds released through disarmament would be found for each specific country on the basis of a comprehensive study. Relevant literature sometimes cites the possibilities for the utilisation of these resources. For instance, one version was submitted at the Chicago National Conference for a Drastic Cutback in Military Spending. The authors suggested a total cutback by 85,000 million dollars in military and related spending in the US Federal Budget and the allocation of these funds _-_-_
~^^1^^ US News and World Report, February 7, 1977, pp. 40, 41.
132 to housing, education, health, and other civilian needs (Table 20).Seymour Melman suggests another way of increasing civilian spending in case of conversion of the US war economy. His estimates for 1967 show that the money thus saved could be used for increasing the annual expenses on housing by 15,000 million dollars, health by 8,000 million, education by 25,000 million, water supply by 4,000-5,000 million, transport by 1,500 million, conservation of natural resources by 2,000 million, power stations by 5,000 million, and technologically backward civilian branches by 10,000 million dollars. All these needs would require an additional spending of 76,000 million dollars per year, and this would create 9.5 million new jobs.^^1^^
The main trends in and the forms of utilising the resources may differ, depending on the country's specific conditions and main objectives.
Conversion of resources from unproductive to creative and peaceful purposes would have a great beneficial effect on the economy. It would aslo have a positive impact on the employment rate, and would decrease unemployment. First, this would occur through an increased overall economic activity and, second, because, as was noted above, each one thousand million dollars of civilian spending creates (in comparison with similar military expenditure) many more jobs since the civilian sector is relatively less capital-intensive and more labour-intensive. A considerable economic effect may be anticipated from converting the efforts of scientists, engineers and technicians to strengthening the scientific and technological basis of civilian production and accelerating the introduction of the latest achievements of science and technology.
It is difficult to quantitatively estimate in advance all the positive effects of disarmament. However, some understanding may be obtained from the book entitled The Economic Effects of Disarmament. The authors estimated the possible results of replacing Britain's military spending in 1959 (1,500 million pounds sterling) with expenditures (in equal shares) for additional personal consumption, investment in fixed capital, and foreign aid. They found that production would decline only in the aircraft industry, __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ _-_-_
^^1^^ The War Economy of the United States, pp. 206--07.
133 Table 20 President's Budget and Peace Budget Expenditures (billion dollars) Expenditure 1976 Budget Peace Budget Difference National Defense 94.0 36.0 -58.0 CIA and Related Agencies* (8.0) 0.0 (-8.0) International Affairs 6.3 2.3 -4.0 Science, Space and Technology 4.6 3.6 -1.0 Natural Resources, Environment and Energy 10.0 6.0 -4.0 Recreation and Culture* (1.0) 5.0 +5.0 Agriculture 1.8 1.8 0.0 Commerce and Transportation 13.7 17.7 +4.0 Housing* (3.0) 20.0 +20.0 Community and Regional *These expenses are included in other budgetary items, hence the figures in brackets are
excluded from the total.
Source: Economic Notes, May 1975, p. 7.
~^^1^^ The Economic Effects of Disarmament, = The Economic Intelligence Unit Ltd., London, 1963, p. 149.
134 effect of disarmament on the volume of production and employment. It is that the authors generally do not take into consideration the effect of scientific and technological progress and the influence of major structural shifts in the economy. These two factors would inevitably entail major investments for internal restructuring of the industry, improving its efficiency, and speeding up its development. There is a close correlation between capital investment,
military spending and economic growth rates. As was noted
above, high military expenditures reduce the capital
investment and slow down economic development, and vice versa
(Table 21). Should general or partial disarmament occur,
many countries would have the possibility of using the
saved resources to considerably increase investments in
their economies and thus accelerate growth rates. According
to available estimates, an industrially developed nation
__PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__
Table 21
Investments, Military Expenditures and Economic Growth Rates in
Capitalist Countries
Military expenditures in
1974
Capital
investments in
1974
Average
annual growth
Country
rates for
million
dollars
per cent
of GNP
per cent
of GNP
1963--1973
(per cent)
United States
85,900
6.15
18
3.9
Canada
2,790
2.05
23
5.2
Britain
10,000
5.24
20
2.7
France
10,600
3.63
25
5.7
West Germany
13,800
3.58
22
4.7
The Netherlands
2,320
3.45
22
5.4
Sweden
1,780
3.10
22
3.4
Norway
671
3.13
32
4.7
Italy
4,630
2.93
23
4.8
Belgium
1,460
2.77
22
4.8
Denmark
728
2.37
22
4.5
Switzerland
856
1.91
27
4.0
Finland
255
1.31
29
4.9
Austria
292
0.91
28
5.2
Luxemburg
18
0.87
26
3.4
Japan
3,670
0.83
34
10.5
New Zealand
237
1.75
26
3.4
Source: Sense About Defence. The Report of the Labour Parly Defence Study Group, p. 44.
135 __PARAGRAPH_CONT__ would have to increase its investments to a sum equivalent to 3-4 per cent of its gross national product in order to increase by 1 per cent its economic growth rates. According to estimates by UN experts, "if the greater part of world military expenditure could, instead, be allocated to investment, growth rates might be expected to increase by 1 or 2 per cent".^^1^^ The example cited below shows what enormous economic problems could be solved by converting military spending to civilian needs. Experts have computed that every 100,000 million dollars spent on armaments, or about five-sixths of the sum annually spent on armaments in the USA, would cover the cost of 300 thermal power stations with a capacity of 120,000 kw each; 300 oil refineries with an annual output of 3,250,000 tons of oil each; 1,000 chemical fertiliser plants; 200 synthetic rubber plants with an output capacity of 25,000 tons each; 1,600 sugar refineries that annually produce as much sugar as was produced throughout the world in 1958.^^2^^Effective redistribution and utilisation of the resources released through disarmament would also help establish optimum economic proportions and increase the overall solvent demand of the civilian population. Disarmament would make a substantial impact on the development of productive forces also in that it would create the conditions essential for removing discriminatory obstacles to expanding the international division of labour and mutually advantageous economic cooperation among states, including those with different social systems. Political detente has already led to some favourable changes in this sphere. In recent years, trade and economic ties among the socialist and capitalist countries have increasingly developed. Many Western states have slackened considerably discriminatory trade restrictions against the socialist countries, who in turn have taken effective measures to enlarge their exports and make their goods more competitive. As a result, trade between member-states of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and industrially developed capitalist countries is rapidly growing and involves compensation agreements based on long-term credit; industrial, scientific and technological _-_-_
~^^1^^ UN Document A/32/8S, United Nations General Assembly, 32nd Session, August 12, 1977, p. 46.
~^^2^^ World Mar.\isl Review, December 1977, No. 12, pp. 118--19.
136 cooperation; joint marketing and occasional joint production; and other new forms of economic cooperation.Development of trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation between the socialist and capitalist states have become important and mutually advantageous factors in world economy. Suffice it to say that, according to some estimates, all East-West trade provides employment for over 2 million people in the developed capitalist countries. The significance of this would be particularly clear if one recalls that these countries have a huge army of unemployed. Among the capitalist states, West Germany is the Soviet Union's largest trade partner. In recent years, the Soviet-West German commodity turnover had increased five times. Over 6,000 West German companies staffing about 500,000 employees have economic ties with socialist countries.^^1^^
However, only the initial steps have been made in developing East-West economic cooperation. The discriminatory measures and restrictions existing in Western countries impede and strongly impair international trade. This primarily concerns the United States, which persists in its discriminatory trade policies against the USSR. Such an approach essentially inhibits Soviet-American economic relations. Some circles in the West are stepping up their propaganda against expanding business cooperation between socialist and capitalist countries, maintaining that it would be to the advantage of the socialist states only and that the West would supposedly not benefit from such trade. According to The Washington Post, the Defence Department was even going to present to the State and Commerce departments a "detailed plan" "to extend and stiffen" the US embargo system that is intended "to deny the Soviets Western technology of strategic value.''^^2^^ The discriminatory barriers and numerous bans which are artificially enforced by the US Congress to halt the sales to the socialist countries of so-called strategic goods considerably impair the economic interests of many nations, primarily those of the United States itself.
Disarmament would create the conditions for eliminating these barriers, and would also eliminate the secrecy and distrust. It would establish mutually profitable cooperation in international economic, scientific and technological relations. This would, _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Za Rubezhom, No. 24, 1977, p. 10.
^^2^^ The Washington Pout, July 12, 1977.
137 in turn, open wide possibilities for speeding up the economic development of all states and for increasing the efficiency of world economy.Disarmament would also be highly important for accelerating economic development in the developing countries, for tackling the very acute socio-economic problems confronting them, and for implementing a new international economic order.
Disarmament and the conversion of a military economy to civilian uses would therefore produce important and diverse positive consequences which as a whole would give all the nations tremendous economic advantages and would create the objective basis for resolving the major problems facing humanity in the fields of health, the environment, energy, food, and others. It would speed up development of the productive forces, and substantially improve thereby the material and social well-being of the working masses.
[138] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter 5 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Social Aspects of Disarmament __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Disarmament, a Realistic WayTaking into account the urgency and economic significance of social problems, and also the continued struggle of the working people, the capitalist states have in recent years extended somewhat their measures for improving social welfare. Socialist countries regularly allocate huge funds for education, science, health, social security, etc. In line with the decisions of the 25th Congress of the CPSU and the Constitution of the USSR, the Soviet Union is implementing an extensive programme for developing education and culture and improving health programmes and social security. The 1979 expenditures for the social and cultural needs of the USSR State Budget alone totalled 91,200 million roubles, 4 per cent more than in 1978.
In order to neutralise the example set by socialism and avoid major social upheavals, and also reckoning with the fact that the scientific and technological revolution imposes increasing demands on the social sphere, the capitalist states are compelled to increase their spending for social needs. Under the impact of all these factors, expenditures on social projects in some capitalist countries grow somewhat quicker than the overall expenditures in their state budgets. However, the increase of investment in the social sphere lags far behind the growing need.
The fact that from year to year social requirements remain unfulfilled is also largely due to the arms race,^^1^^ since distribution of the national resources invariably gives priority to military spending. According to UN estimates, the world spends about twice as much on military needs as on health. The system of establishing priorities in budgetary spending has a negative effect on health, education, housing, community and regional development, social security, etc. In 1976, Professor Stanley _-_-_
~^^1^^ For further details see Ye. P. Kassirova, The (ISA: O/.v/.v of Social Policy (Slate And Social Security), Moscow, Mysl Publishers, 1978 (in Russian).
139 Aronowitz of the United States wrote: "During the last five years, such social programmes as federal aid for education, unemployment benefits, the symbolic programme for fighting poverty, and also nurseries for children of working mothers, suffered from a restriction of federal budgetary allocations. ...The Ford and Nixon administrations did not confine themselves to statements about their negative attitude towards social programmes, and started curtailing them.''^^1^^ Distinct priority of military expenditures will prevail also under President Reagan.His administration plans higher rates of military budget growth, while reducing spending on social programmes.The fact that in capitalist countries social requirements remain unfulfilled because of armament build-up is evidenced by comparisons of military expenses with spending on health, education, and other social needs.
The per capita world spending on health is approximately 44 dollars, and on military needs 81 dollars. In the mid-seventies, there were 2.5 million physicians in the world compared with 21.3 million servicemen. In the developed countries, there are 106 civilians to every soldier, and as many as 528 civilians to every doctor; in the developing states, these ratios are 233 to 1 and 3,656 to 1, respectively.^^2^^ One can also judge the significance given to military and health issues by governments from the following example. A total of 25,000 million dollars are spent annually in the world on military R & D, and only 4,000 million on medical research. Owing to insufficient attention given to health problems, medical care in many capitalist countries is on a low level. This leads to a high infant mortality, reduces life expectancy, spreads certain diseases, and so on. Another urgent social problem is the extremely high and rapidly growing cost of medical service. Because of this skilled aid is becoming less available for people in the capitalist countries, especially for elderly pensioners who need medical care more frequently than others.
The world spends less money on all types of education, including the teaching of about 1,000 million children of school age, than for military purposes. Very many children (over one-third in the developing countries) do not attend _-_-_
~^^1^^ Le Monde diplomatique, August 1976.
^^2^^ Ruth L. Sivard, = World Military and Social Expenditures, Institute for World Order, New York, 1974, pp. 10, 24-2.5.
140 school. About 900 million people in the world are illiterate. According to some estimates, world military spending amounts to an average of 14,800 dollars per soldier, and education expenditures to only 230 dollars per pupil.Housing is an extremely urgent problem in many capitalist countries. In Britain, for instance, there are 200,000 homeless (ten years ago they numbered three times less). Slums still exist even in the richest countries, and the food problem also remains unresolved. According to UN statistics, over 400 million people in the developing countries are constantly underfed. Solution of other social problems is also constantly being put off.
Disarmament would afford great opportunities for more extensive financing of health, education and other social programmes, on which most capitalist countries ``save'' money. Bourgeois literature proposes different ways of increasing these expenditures in case of disarmament. For example, the Peace Budget submitted at the National Conference in Chicago suggested, through a sharp cutback in military spending, an increase of the annual US Federal Budget expenditures on health by 32,000 million dollars, education by 15,000 million, housing by 20,000 million, incomes security by 32,000 million, public transport by 4,000 million, and aid to working mothers by 5,000 million.^^1^^
All the capitalist countries are in great need of additional social investments. Leonard A. Lecht estimates that by 1980 the 1969 expenses would have to be increased by 50 per cent for health, 40 per cent for housing, 60 per cent for social security, and 150 per cent for environmental protection. But he calculates that this would entail additional spending which, even with the reduction of the military budget to the 1969 level, would lead to a deficit of at least 236,000 million dollars (1969 prices).^^2^^ Hence, social problems could not be properly resolved without changing the existing system of establishing the national priorities in spending limited budgetary resources, without stopping the arms race, and without reorienting the released resources to civilian needs.
Such a redistribution is objectively needed not only to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Economic No/ex, May 1975, p. 6.
^^2^^ Leonard A. Lecht, = Dollars for National Goals: Looking Ahead to IV80. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974, pp. 25, 50.
141 approach the socio-economic issues in the respective countries, but to implement a whole series of programmes for the progress of all mankind. In recent years, the problem of protecting the environment, for instance, has been confronted increasingly by all nations. The environment is being polluted because of different factors, not least of all due to manufacture, testing and storage of weapons, military construction, troop movement, and other military preparations. Pollution is fraught with dangerous consequences for all peoples. According to World Health Organisation statistics, 70--90 per cent of all cancer diseases are associated with the presence in the environment of different chemical substances. Environmental protection requires colossal expenditures, and the need is rapidly growing. But one cannot keep the air or ocean pure only in some specific area of the globe. Concerted efforts by many states and large capital investments would be increasingly needed to resolve these and similar issues on a worldwide scale. In The Future of World Economy, a report prepared for the UN by a group of experts headed by Wassily Leontief, a well-known US economist, the capital needed to cover all the expenditures for environmental protection is estimated at 2.5-4 per cent of the GNP.^^1^^Disarmament would also help to eliminate illiteracy, and combat diseases, hunger, food shortages, etc. The UN experts estimate that 8-10 per cent of world military expenditures would be enough to eliminate hunger, diseases and illiteracy. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that a 5 per cent reduction of the defence budget of the large industrialised countries could pay for doubling the volume of some forms of aid to developing countries. The implementation of the USSR proposal for reducing military budgets of the Security Council permanent member-states could yield an ever greater effect. And, only naturally, general and complete disarmament would open even broader horizons for aiding these countries' socio-economic development.
Estimates of resourses needed for solving various social problems may be found in foreign literature. Ruth Sivard, an American researcher, in her pamphlet World Military and _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Future of the World Economy, = Report of a Group of UN experts headed by Wassily Leontief, United Nations, New York, 1977, p. 65.
142 Social Expenditures. J974 gives the following costs for meeting some of the world's most urgent needs: Table 22 Social problems Annual expenditures 'billions, US dollars) Eliminate illiteracy over a 5-year period 1.5 Double world spending for medical research 4.0 Provide special feedingSource: Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of [he 94 Congress, First Session, January 15, 1975, p. 422.
According Sivard's estimate, less than 7 per cent of military expenditures would therefore be needed to satisfy the above social needs. To make things clearer, this sum is considerably less than the total cost of the US Trident project alone.
It also becomes clear what a high price mankind has to pay for military preparations by comparing the cost of other military and social programmes. For instance, it would be possible to finance eight major projects similar to the WHO programme for eliminating smallpox on earth solely with the funds allocated by the US Air Force for developing and designing the F-16 fighter. The cost of one Trident submarine equals that of teaching 16 million children in the developing countries for one year. According to Seymour Melman's 1974 estimate, the cost of one 20-mm Vulcan cannon (200,000 dollars) equals that of eight one-family apartments, and the cost of one helicopter (1,000,000 dollars) that of 66 cottages. The 105,200 million dollars allocated in 1974 for developing and procuring new weapons systems would have 143 covered large-scale environment purification measures.^^1^^
A modern tank costs half a million dollars; this is the cost of the equipment needed for 520 classrooms. A modern destroyer costs 100 million dollars, a sum that would suffice to electrify 13 cities and 19 rural areas with a total population of 9 million.
According to Sense About Defence, a previously mentioned report by the Labour Party Defence Study Group, the expenditures for developing and manufacturing the new Tornado warplane would amount to 7,000 million pounds sterling, which is more than the total British spending on health and social security in the 1976/77 fiscal year. The 16 million pounds sterling allocated on building the frigate Ambuscade could be used for building a new hospital with 508 beds in Bangor, Wales. The Superb submarine would cost more than 4,000 new houses. West German experts have calculated that the new Leopard-2 tank costs the equivalent of 36 three-room apartments, exercises by a single armoured battalion cost as much as 28 kindergartens, and to deliver the world from a disease such as malaria would require an outlay of 450 million dollars, which is about half of what mankind has to pay daily for the arms race.^^2^^
Disarmament would make it possible to convert huge human, material and financial resources now used for military purposes to the satisfaction of civilian socio-economic needs. Experts have calculated how many extensive possibilities would open through a switch-over of unproductive military expenses to civilian uses. Speaking at the 34th Session of the UN General Assembly, Fidel Castro noted that the world annually spends over 300,000 million dollars on military needs, whereas this sum could be used for building 600,000 schools for 400 million children, or 60 million modern apartments for 300 million people, or 30,000 hospitals with 18 million beds, or 20,000 industrial enterprises providing jobs for over 20 million people, or for irrigating 150 million hectares of land, which if tilled with suitable farming techniques would make it possible to feed 1,000 million people.
All these obvious examples show the enormous damage being done by the arms race to the most vital interests of humanity; _-_-_
~^^1^^ The New York Times, December 4, 1974.
^^2^^ Sense About Defence. The Report of the Labour Party Defence Study Gr:,up, p. 10; World Marxist Review. No. 12, December 1977, p. 119.
144 they also show the vast opportunities disarmament could offer for stepping up socio-economic progress. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Disarmament and the Working PeopleWars were always a terrible scourge for all mankind, but they bring the greatest suffering, privations and other uncountable disasters to the working people. More than 15,000 major wars and conflicts are estimated to have been waged by humanity in its age-old history. With the improvement of armaments, wars have taken away increasingly more human lives. According to some estimates, a total 3,300,000 officers and men fell in action during the 17th century; 5,372,000 in the 18th century; 3,457,000 during the Napoleonic wars of 1801--1815; and 2,217,000 from 1815 to the First World War.^^1^^ The First World War took 10 million human lives, and the Second World War about 55 million. Many millions of people have fallen in local wars and conflicts since World War II. Yet, these colossal sacrifices are nothing in comparison with the disastrous consequences a new world war would bring. In January 1978, The New York Times published the results of a study by US government agencies which noted that a big nuclear war would take at least 140 million American lives. Experts extimate that an all-out thermonuclear war would devastate entire countries and areas, and that its baneful and unforeseen consequences would tell on many future generations to come.
Even in peacetime, the manufacture and storage of nuclear weapons are highly dangerous. Nuclear weapons tests result in radioactive fallout, a serious threat to all living creatures. Storage and tests of chemical, biological and other types of weapons are also very dangerous. General and complete disarmament would forever free mankind from the threat of a new world war and all the other hazards which are involved in manufacturing, testing and storing the modern weapons of mass destruction. It would, in effect, be instrumental in excluding wars from the life of society.
Apart from achieving this principal goal, disarmament would also bring tremendous socio-economic benefits.
_-_-_^^1^^ See B. Ts. Urlanis, Europe's Wars ami Population, Moscow, Sotsizdal 1%0, pp. 334, 472 (in Russian).
145Capitalist countries finance their military preparations by redistributing their national income in favour of arms suppliers. The system of military financing in these countries is so organised that the main burden of the military expenditures is shifted onto the shoulders of the working people. In this way, huge sums are accumulated by the "death merchants" at the expense of working people. In the capitalist countries, military spending involves a considerable portion of the state budget. It is noteworthy that the complex and disguised system of classifying budgetary expenses makes it difficult to accurately estimate the actual size of military expenses, which are included not only in the military items of the budget, but in numerous civilian items as well. In the 1977/78 US federal budget, allocations for national defence were to equal 118,000 million dollars. But even this astronomic figure was far from fully indicating the actual scale of military expenditures, which also include benefits for war veterans (19,100 million dollars), a major portion of interest payments on the national debt (46,800 million), the lion's share of expenses on international affairs (7,800 million), and part of the expenses on space research, the CIA, the FBI and other federal agencies. According to Labor Today, a progressive union newspaper, total US military allocations, including concealed and indirect military spending, would have grown by another 60,000 million dollars, and their share in the total federal budget would have amounted to 42 per cent, and not to the officially claimed 26 per cent.
All the huge and continually growing military expenditures are financed from the state budget, whose income is drawn chiefly from taxes, amounting in capitalist states to about 90 per cent of all the budgetary revenues. In 1975 alone, the total income tax paid by the population grew by 6.9 per cent in the United States; 3 per cent in West Germany; 12 per cent in Canada, France and Japan; 27 per cent in Italy; and 34 per cent in Britain.^^1^^ During three decades the total US taxation revenues grew almost nine-fold, from 48,000 million dollars in 1944 to 423,000 million in 1974. If, in 1944, taxes absorbed 26 per cent of the national revenue, in 1954, 1964 and 1974 these figures were 28, 31 and 37 per cent, respectively. _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Economic Situation in Capitalist and Developing Countries. Survey for IV75 and Early 1976, (Addendum to World Economics and International Relations, No. 8, 1976, p. 10) (in Russian).
__PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10---18 146 According to American estimates, if this trend to levy higher taxes persists, by the end of the century the average American will have to pay 50 cents for every dollar earned.^^1^^The main tax burden falls on the shoulders of the working people. Particularly notable in this respect, are the indirect taxes included in the price of almost all consumer goods in the form of special increments and thus reducing real wages. Lenin wrote: "In actual fact, however, it is notorious that indirect taxation affecting articles of mass consumption is distinguished by its extreme injustice. The entire burden is placed on the shoulders of the poor, while it creates a priviledge for the rich. The poorer a man is, the greater the share of his income that goes to the state in the form of indirect taxes.''^^2^^
The taxation system existing in capitalist countries provides capitalists with numerous opportunities and loopholes for concealing their incomes and not paying taxes. In July 1976, Le Monde diplomatique published an article by Andrew Zimbalist who noted that according to the US Internal Revenue Service, in 1974 244 people with individual annual incomes over 200,000 dollars did not pay any tax at all to the federal government. He also mentioned that in 1969, 100 of the biggest American companies paid only an average of 26.9 per cent of their taxes, even though the nominal taxation of profits exceeding 50,000 dollars was set a 48 per cent. Again in 1969, all the major oil companies paid a meagre 5.8 per cent tax.
The privileges which the US government lavishly grants to corporations as well as all sorts of machinations permit them to pay an increasingly smaller portion of their incomes. If in 1960, taxation of corporation profits covered 22.8 per cent of all the US federal budget revenues, in 1976 it was as little as 13.8 per cent. Under law, corporations must pay as much as 48 per cent of their profits in the form of income tax; in 1976, however, they paid only 27.8 per cent.
The taxation policies of the capitalist states are of a distinctly pronounced class character and promote greater financial exploitation of the working masses. Yet, the tax burden cannot be increased infinitely; there are definite social and economic _-_-_
~^^1^^ US News And World Report, February 3, 1975, p. 44.
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, = "Concerning the State Budget'', Collected Works, Vol 5 Moscow, 1975, p. 336.
147 bounds beyond which it would be dangerous for the bourgeoisie to go. Working people clash with the interests of capitalist states for maximum taxation with organised class struggle in pursuit of their vital interests. In these conditions, the growth rates of taxation revenues generally lag behind the increase in government spending which is chiefly military. As a result, state budgets in capitalist countries have a chronic surplus of expenditures over revenues. For example, in 1975/76, the actual deficit was 66,500 million dollars in the United States, 4,000 million in West Germany, 4,600 million in France, 5,000 million in Britain, and 1,100 million in Italy.^^1^^Capitalist countries cover their constant budgetary deficits by issuing loans to thus promote further growth of the national debt. For instance, the US national debt grew from 257,000 million dollars in 1960 to 291,000 million in 1960, 383,000 million in 1970 and 914,000 million in 1980.^^2^^
In effect, the national debt constitutes deferred taxes, since it is ultimately cleared up with interest payments at the expense of tax revenues. A growing national debt is a heavy burden not only for the present but also for the future generations, inasmuch as the latter would have to pay for part of the current military expenditures in the same way as the present generation has to pay off the military spending of past years.
Thus, the mechanism of financing military preparations increases the taxation pressure upon the working people. Furthermore, it has a substantially negative effect on the socio-economic status of the working masses in other respects as well.
To begin with, this is connected with inflationary price rises. The rapid growth of inflation in the capitalist world is due to different factors, e. g. the system of prices set by the monopolies. But it is also decidedly affected by the huge government military expenditures.
Inflation is also stimulated by the fact that the prices for military commodities, for reasons, which include the specific nature of the military contracts and pricing, increase _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Economic Situation in Capitalist and Developing Countries. Survey for 1976 and Earlv 1977, (Addendum to World Economics and International Relations, No. 8, 1977, p. 15).
^^2^^ The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1977, p. 367; The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1980, p. 577; The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1982, p. 611.
__PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 148 considerably more rapidly than prices on goods of civilian consumption.The system of deficit financing of military preparations and the resultant growth of the national debt and the issuance of paper money, leading to accumulation of surplus means of payment in money circulation channels, substantially affect the inflationary processes. To some degree, these very factors involving military-economic preparations were responsible for runaway inflation in many capitalist countries. The United States, for one, serves as a good example of inflation being closely related to the arms race. It is no wonder that the inflationary price growth rates began to ``gallop'' with the escalation of the US aggression in Indochina. Even some American government officials were forced to admit that it was precisely the Vietnam war that was chiefly responsible for the rapid escalation of prices and the devaluation of the dollar. According to official statistics, the dollar has lost over half of its purchasing power since 1967. Inflationary tendencies in the US economy and the rapid devaluation of the dollar were conducive to inflation in other capitalist states as well. The Western press calls inflation "social enemy No. 1'', "malignant tumor on the body of the economy'', and the "severest economic and social menace''. Inflation negatively affects not only the state of the economy and the monetary system, but also the welfare of the working people and is accompanied by rapidly growing cost of living. In recent years, the cost of living in some capitalist countries, such as Britain and France, has reached double figures. (Table 23).
It is characteristic of inflation that its growth is most rapid in countries which have a high level of militarisation. In Israel, for example, the mean annual rate of price rises was 29.4 for 1970--1978 and 87.8 per cent in 1979.^^1^^
Prices of consumer goods grow quickest. In many capitalist countries, consumer prices grow more rapidly than nominal wages. As a result, the small increase in real wages obtained by working people through persistent and lengthy class struggle come to naught. Inflation promotes the enrichment of the bourgeoisie and the lowering of workers' living standards.
In recent years, the extremely high growth rates of the cost of living and increased taxation led to a decline in real incomes in the capitalist countries. According to the Organisation of __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ _-_-_
^^1^^ US News and World Report, October 1, 1979, p. 48.
149 Table 23 Cost of Living Growth in Capitalist Countries (percentage ofSource: Economic Situation in Capitalist and Developing Countries. Survey for 1975 and Early 1976, (Addendum to World Economics and International Relations, No 8,1976, p. 9).
__PARAGRAPH_CONT__ Economic Cooperation and Development, the aggregate real incomes of the population of seven leading capitalist states went down by an average of 1.3 per cent in 1974--1975. In 1975 alone, they decreased by 2.6 per cent in the United States, 2.3 per cent in Italy, and 1.5 per cent in West Germany.^^1^^ These average figures, which include the high and constantly growing incomes of top management officials conceal an even greater reduction of workers' real wages. Inflation hits particularly hard those people who live on pensions and various government benefits. Women, young people and especially the aged suffer most. The position of the aged is continuously worsening because prices for food, medical care, public utilities, rent, etc. rise continuously.Disarmament would make possible a reduction of military spending and considerably alleviate the tax burden of the working people. This would increase personal incomes and improve the living standards of broad sections of the public. It would also increase the demand for consumer goods and help maintain the overall solvent demand of society, an _-_-_
~^^1^^ Economic Situation in Capitalist and Developing Countries. Survey for 1975 and Early 1976 (Addendum to World Economics and International Relations, No. 8, 1976, p. 10).
150 important factor for augmenting employment and stepping up economic development. A group of UN experts noted that the effect of disarmament on consumption "would depend on which type of tax were reduced, whether direct or indirect, and which income group were affected. Generally, reduction in taxes diminishing the burdens on low income groups is the most effective.''^^1^^Increasing pensions and other social security payments would also be of major significance in raising the living standards of a major section of the population. At the same time, it would stimulate the production of consumer goods. This would be especially beneficial for the aged and others who live solely on government allowances.
Disarmament would make it possible to stop further growth of the national debt in capitalist countries and gradually reduce its proportions. As was noted above, the rapid increase of the national debt caused by military preparations has a baneful effect on the monetary situation in these countries, particularly since it accelerates an inflationary price rise. Reduction of the national debt would slow down the surplus issuance of money and thus liquidate one of the major causes of the rapid price increase, which mainly affects the low income groups. In addition, disarmament would curb inflation by completely or partially eliminating unproductive expenditures and cutting back military production, in which prices increase 1.5-2 times quicker than in the civilian sector.
Due to a number of concrete factors, the arms race not only fails to ensure high employment rates, but on the contrary, is a large cause of unemployment, a terrible scourge of working people in capitalist countries. In 1974--1975, i.e. during the greatest post-war economic crisis, the unemployment rate in the capitalist world went up sharply. At the end of 1975, the total number of the completely unemployed in the developed capitalist countries was over 18 million. In subsequent years, unemployment remained at a high level (about 16.1 million in 1978). The figures rose dramatically in West Germany, France and Japan (Table 24). A considerable increase in the unemployment of women and young people was particularly evident. In the United States, for instance, unemployment __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ _-_-_
~^^1^^ Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament. = Report of the Secretary-General Transmitting the Study of His Consultative Group, p. 22.
151 Table 24 Number of Fully Unemployed in Leading Capitalist Countries (thousand) Year United States Japan West Germany France Britain 1965 3,366 390 147 142 347 1968 2,817 590 323 254 586 1969 2,831 570 179 223 581 1970 4,088 590 149 262 612 1971 4,993 640 185 338 792 1972 4,840 730 246 384 876 1973 4,304 670 273 394 619 1974 5,076 740 582 498 615 1975 7,830 1,000 1,074 840 978 1976 7,288 1,080 1,060 933 1,359 1977 6,855 1,100 1,030 1,072 1,484 1978 6,326 1,260 877 1,039 1,446 1979 5,963 1,167 870 1,350 1,307Source: Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 1978, ILO, 1978; Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, United Nations, New York, November 1977, pp 17--20; Addendum to World Economics and International Relations, No. 8, 1980, p. 87.
__PARAGRAPH_CONT__ increased for women from 30.3 per cent in 1950 to 46.1 per cent in 1976, and for people under 25 it increased from 32.6 to 45.9 per cent, respectively. The unemployment rate among young blacks, Puerto Ricans, Americans of Mexican origin, and other of the most oppressed minorities is as high as 40--60 per cent. In capitalist countries, there is an entire generation of people who have never worked simply because they could not find jobs. Their disastrous plight is becoming increasingly serious. According to UN estimates, over seven million young people are jobless in industrially developed capitalist countries (including North America and Japan).Modern capitalism is characterised by growing unemployment among scientists, engineers and technicians. This is largely due to the unstable structure of military preparations, the abrupt changes in military R & D programmes, and so on.
Growing taxes, cost of living and unemployment, which are all largely caused by the arms race, negatively affect the material welfare of the working people, and result in the 152 accumulation of wealth for the capitalists and poverty for the working masses.
The existing unequality in income distribution impoverishes the broad masses even in the United States, which is the wealthiest capitalist country in the world. According to the US press, in 1975 the income of 26 million (12.3 per cent) Americans was below the official poverty line. Moreover, 11 million people lived on incomes either equalling or slightly exceeding the official poverty line. And yet, these figures conceal the fact that in the United States national minorities live in even worse conditions. For example, 31 per cent of black people live below the official poverty line. According to the 1969 census, the average income of black Americans and Americans of Mexican descent, Puerto Ricans and American Indians was 54, 55, 53 and 46 per cent, respectively, of the average income of whites, and since then the gap has increased even more. In 1976, Professor Stanley Aronowitz of New York University wrote that distribution of income in the United States is now even less than it was ten years ago.^^1^^
Militarism and the arms race reduce the well-being of working people and bring huge profits to the military-industrial corporations, which regard military-economic preparations as a lucrative business. Lenin stressed that capitalists use war preparations and war itself for their personal enrichment, that wars are for them a "rain of gold''. For the sake of obtaining maximum profits, military-industrial corporations resort to all sorts of machinations, and first they inflate armament prices. Throughout human history, militarism and the arms race were accompanied by corruption, bribery, embezzlement of public property, deceit of the state, and subordination of arms production to the interests of "death merchants''. All this brought huge profits to the armament suppliers and led to wasteful expenditure of national funds.
During the post-war years, monopolies began to make more extensive use of militarisation of the economy as a major source of profits than ever before. In this connection, John D. Bernal wrote: "It is by no means only for political reasons, that is, as a consequence of the division of the world into two economic and political camps, that this militarisation has occurred. Militarisation has proved to be an essential feature of capitalist economy in the period following the economic crisis of the _-_-_
^^1^^ Le Monde diplomatique, August 1976.
153 thirties, and much more so in the Cold War period. Military expenditure has been invoked to solve one of the recurrent problems of capitalist economy---how to keep up profit from production without at the same time flooding the market with useful goods. The answer, as it appears in practice, is to produce useless goods. And from this point of view, weapons are not only useless, but have the additional good quality of becoming rapidly obsolescent, so that however many are made, even larger numbers are soon required.''^^1^^Production of armaments and materiel provides militaryindustrial corporations with huge profits, whose rates are considerably higher than in the civilian sector. According to the US economist M. L. Weidenbaum, in the mid-seventies the aerospace firms showed "an average 28 per cent return on investment for defense work, compared to an 18 per cent return for commercial work".^^2^^ For comparison, it should be noted that the rates of profit in the entire US manufacturing industry in the late sixties and early seventies were 17--18 per cent. According to the US government's General Accounting Office, it is not infrequent for the rates of profit of military corporations who work under specific government contracts to attain 50 and more per cent. After a careful analysis of 146 completed military contracts in the sum of 4,256 million dollars, it established that the actual return on investments (before taxes) was 56.1 per cent and not 18.9 per cent as indicated in the records of the corporations.^^3^^ Other data are also indicative of the high profits attained through military contracts. For example, after examining the financial standing of corporations specialising in military production, a US Senate committee established that 94 corporations had received 50 per cent of returns, 49 over 100 per cent, 22 over 200 per cent, three over 500 per cent, and one corporation over 2,000 per cent.
Military-industrial monopolies get such superprofits largely because the government grants them various privileges, e. g. "advanced payments'', the right to accelerated depreciation, lease of public property, etc. The existing system of awarding military contracts and pricing is conducive to the squandering on the part of the "death merchants" of national budgetary _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. D. Bernal, World Within// War. p. 139.
^^2^^ M. L. Weidenbaum, op. cil., p. 69.
^^3^^ Time, March 8, 1971, pp. 16--17.
154 funds. It permits the military-industrial monopolies to inflate prices in many ways, e. g. by artificially exaggerating production costs, they can increase the mass and rate of their overt, and especially their covert, profits.Increasingly sharp competition, serious clashes and speculative deals characterise the struggle for these highly profitable military contracts on both the national and international scale. This struggle involves military-industrial corporations, military officers, ministers, congressmen, governors, other top US officials and many others. The highest returns go to big military-industrial monopolies, suppliers of military products. Military-industrial complexes stubbornly resist the relaxation of international tensions and, by using the myth of a "Soviet threat'', seek to impose a new and more costly round of the arms race. This has dangerous consequences for international peace and security and for the socio-economic position of the working people. They want to multiply their profits and consolidate their positions in the economy and politics of capitalist countries.
Disarmament would bring enormous benefits to all peoples, and all the world progressive forces give major attention to attaining that goal. The international communist movement is in the vanguard of the struggle for disarmament. The final document of the Conference of 29 Communist and Workers' Parties of Europe held on June 29--30, 1976, in Berlin states: "The growing arms expenditure bears down more and more heavily on the working people and the mass of the people. If these huge resources were spent on raising the living standards of the peoples, on overcoming economic backwardness, on aid and support for the developing countries and on environmental protection, this would immensely benefit the advance of all mankind.''^^1^^
Trade unions in many countries come out ever more actively for disarmament. The leadership of the Metal Workers' Union, one of the largest in West Germany, demanded a cutback in the nation's military budget and called for allocation of the released funds for environmental protection, education, research and other still unresolved social and political issues. On top of that, the Union demanded that the West German government should come out in the United Nations for extensive disarmament, for reduction of military spending throughout the world.
_-_-_^^1^^ World Marxist Review, No. 8, 1976, p. 3.
155Disarmament would promote improvement in the welfare of all peoples, and would free them from the other dangerous social consequences of the arms race. Militarism and the arms race particularly threaten democratic freedoms. This is apparent in many capitalist countries, including the United States, where human rights are flagrantly violated by the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Pentagon's intelligence services, and others. All these federal agencies created a huge apparatus and worked out extensive programmes which were directed against the so-called "dissident minded" people and organisations, including the Communist Party of the USA. The Army intelligence had for many years shadowed "dissident minded" Americans, and had files on hundreds of thousands of people. In the US, letters are opened and telephone conversations are tapped, the CIA has files on 1.5 million Americans.
The arms race is accompanied by mounting repressions against the working class, democratic forces and their organisations. It promotes militarisation of all social life and encourages cult of violence. On the other hand, some capitalist states use military force as an important instrument for supplementing and strengthening the traditional means of economic and political subjugation of the working people to monopoly interests.
As a result of political detente, the threat of a new world war is less, though it still exists. It is the fault of capitalist countries that war preparations are intensely continuing. The danger of nuclear weapons proliferation is growing from year to year. Today the international scene is characterised by a situation where despite the measures on the part of progressive forces to curb the arms race countries are not prevented from a quantitative and especially qualitative arms build-up. As a result, the destructive arsenals of confronting states and military blocs are steadily growing and improving, and this increases the danger of war.
Disarmament would free society from the fetters of militarism, from the propaganda of the cult of force, chauvinism and racism. It would also allow for the elimination of the hotbeds of tension and conflicts, free the peoples of the world from the fear of war, consolidate national independence and trust among nations, and establish a just and lasting peace on earth.
It would, of course, be incorrect to say that in capitalist countries social problems have become aggravated and the socio-economic position of the broad masses of people 156 increasingly unstable due solely to the arms race. Neither would it be accurate to maintain that disarmament would automatically remove all the barriers that capitalism places in the way of social and economic progress since it has its inherent laws of development. At the same time, disarmament would make it possible to remove a very serious obstacle to resolving acute social problems in many countries by opening up broad opportunities for fundamentally improving living conditions and tackling the numerous urgent socio-economic issues facing mankind.
[157] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter 6 __ALPHA_LVL1__ Disarmament as an Important FactorIn modern conditions, there is a close relationship between socio-economic development and disarmament in many countries, this being particularly true of the developing states.
National liberation and anti-imperialist revolutions are known to have led to the collapse of the colonial system and the establishment of dozens of sovereign states in lieu of the former colonial empires. In his report "The Great October Revolution and Mankind's Progress'', Leonid Brezhnev emphasised: "Since the Second World War, since our victory over fascism, more than 2,000 million people have thrown off the yoke of the colonialists and have risen to independent statehood. The colonial system of imperialism in its classical forms can, on the whole, be regarded as having been dismantled.''^^1^^
The developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America essentially vary in their socio-economic development, political orientation, and otherwise. For centuries, they were subjected to ruthless colonial exploitation and were economic appendages of the parent states; the latter distorted and artificially slowed down the development of their productive forces, and misappropriated their wealth.
Having gained political independence, the liberated states achieved certain successes in resolving some urgent problems of their economic and social development. In the years 1950-- 1976, their total industrial output grew 6.6 times, and their share in the overall capitalist industrial production from 10.1 per cent in 1950 to 15.2 per cent in 1978. However, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and other misfortunes inherited from the colonial past still exist in developing countries. As a result, they remain economically dependent on imperialism, are exploited by monopoly capital, and continue to suffer from the system of inequitable international economic relations and other consequences of colonialism. The huge gap between the economies of developing countries and those of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. I. Brezhnev, The Great October Revolution and Mankind's Progress, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1077, p. 22.
158 developed capitalist states not only persists but continues to grow. For example, in the developed capitalist states the national per capita income grew from 2,000 dollars in 1952 to 4,000 dollars in 1972, while in the developing countries it grew from 175 to 300 dollars, respectively. Thus, in the developing countries, the share of the national per capita income is more than thirteen times lower than that of developed capitalist countries. In industrial per capita production, the capitalist states manufacture twenty-five times more than the developing countries, and in scientific research they are 100 times more efficient.The main historical task of the countries which have liberated themselves from colonial dependence is to overcome their age-old backwardness and ensure their people modern living standards. In tackling this unprecedented large and complex task, the young states are strongly handicapped by the deficient structure of their economies, their archaic production relations, the shortage of material and financial resources, the neocolonialist policies of capitalism, and interference by foreign capital.
The economic development rates in Asian, African and Latin American countries are not high enough to even start reducing the gap between the average per capita incomes in developed and developing countries. In the early seventies, production growth rates in almost one-third of the developing countries lagged behind their population growth. In 1974/75, per capita production of cereals was not above the average of that of the early sixties; in South Asia and in most of Africa, it was considerably lower.
The Future of the World Economy, a United Nations study by Prof. Wassily Leontief of New York University and a group of other American economists, noted that in order to substantially lessen the gap in the development rates of some nations, it would be necessary to considerably raise the economic growth rates of the developing countries, and this would be possible only if the rate of investment were increased to 30--40 per cent of their gross national product. Yet, in most developing countries, the actual accumulation rate (less than 20 per cent of the gross national product) and the absolute level of investment are low. According to A. Elyanov, a Soviet economist, in the mid-sixties 34 of 74 (46 per cent) Asian, African and Latin American states normally invested less than 100 million dollars each in economic development; 17 countries or 23 per cent invested from 100 to 200 million dollars; and only 7 countries or 9 per cent over 1,000 million dollars. The last sum is 159 less than the net returns of at least ten major US insurance companies.^^1^^
A comparison of the absolute proportions of these investments with the cost of the most modern industrial enterprises (for example, an artificial fibre factory with an average annual output of yarn equal to 20,000 tons costs about 100 million dollars) clearly shows them to be extremely limited. Scientific and technological progress is accompanied by rapid increase in the absolute capital investments needed to create new, up-to-date levels of production, to industrialise a given country, and to ensure normal operation of the economy. The national resources of most developing countries are in obvious disproportion with their growing requirements in material and financial resources. These nations experience an acute shortage of resources, which are so necessary in order to increase investments in their economies. In these conditions, substantially bigger investments could be provided only by taking radical measures for regulating the finances and the monetary and credit system, by strengthening the role of the public sector and by other socio-economic reforms.
Serious positive changes which are conducive to socio-- economic development are taking place in the developing countries. Whether or not they will be able to overcome their backwardness and hasten their socio-economic development will depend on the efficiency of management by the state. In their specific conditions, only the state would be able to raise the necessary funds and organise major programmes of social and economic development. Hence, in many of these countries, the public sector substantially affects the general state and development of the economy.
Therefore, in order to eliminate their backwardness, the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America would need a high increase in government investments. But the arms race consumes a substantial part of their limited resources and reduces their ability to increase investments for speeding up the social and economic development.
Developing states are becoming ever more involved in the arms race. According to some estimates, the total sum of their military spending increased from 7,200 million dollars in 1960 to 33,800 million dollars in 1975 (1973 prices). It is especially _-_-_
~^^1^^ A. Elyanov, The Developing Countries: Problems of Economic Growth and the Market, Mysl Publishers, Moscow, 1976, p. 133 (in Russian).
160 noteworthy that their military expenses increase much more quickly than in the world as a whole. For example, in 1965--1970, the average annual growth rate of world military spending (1973 prices) was 5 per cent, and in 1970--1975 1.1 per cent, whereas in the developing countries it was 8.1 and 14.7 per cent, respectively. As a result, their share in world military expenditures grew from 4.6 per cent in 1960 to 12.6 per cent in 1975.^^1^^As is apparent from Table 25, military spending in developing countries varies extremely. In absolute figures, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Brazil, Indonesia and other states are the biggest spenders. The share of military expenditures on the part of developing countries in their gross national product varies from less than 1 percent (Mexico and Columbia) to 37 percent (Egypt). According to the Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 1975 three developing countries accounted for 26 per cent of the total military spending of 93 Asian, African and Latin American nations; five countries for 49 per cent; and twelve countries for 70 per cent.^^2^^
In recent years, military spending in the developing states on the whole absorbed about 4 per cent of their gross national product, and in the developed capitalist countries about 6 per cent. If we take into account that the per capita national income in the former is much less than in the latter, it can be clearly seen what a huge burden military expenditures are for developing countries. To make a more accurate estimate of this burden, it would be necessary to compare it not only with the total gross national product of a given country, but with its proportions per inhabitant. Many developing states with very low per capita income spend a considerable part of their gross national product on military needs.
The arms race in Asia, Africa and Latin America is becoming stronger owing to different factors, and the policies of capitalist countries substantially affect this baneful process. Having lost political power in their former colonies and semi-colonies they strive by all means to keep them within the orbit of their economic and political influence, to subjugate the development and wealth of these relatively young and economically underdeveloped states to their economic, political and strategic _-_-_
~^^1^^ UN Document A/32/88, United Nations General Assembly, 32nd Session, August 12, 1977, pp. 38, 39.
~^^2^^ New Scientist, Vol. 74, N<_> 1048, April 21, 1977, pp. 137--39.
161 interests. To achieve this goal in new historical conditions, the capitalist countries have in the post-war years resorted to the policy of neo-colonialism.To continue exploiting the liberated countries and to preserve their subordination to the capitalist economic system, the international monopolies take advantage of their dominant positions in the world commodity and money markets; in markets of modern capital goods, in patents and licenses; in scientific and technological know-how; in the monetary and financial field; in transport. They also control the sources of raw materials in the developing states, and have other economic levers.
In addition to these means of retaining their economic, political and strategic positions in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the capitalist countries quite often resort to the direct or indirect use of armed force. They intervene militarily in the domestic affairs of their former colonies and semicolonies under various pretexts, e. g. to fight "communist aggression'', to settle territorial disputes, and so on.
Capitalist countries, chiefly the United States, use different means to make developing countries join their military blocs and conclude bilateral military-political agreements to build military bases on their land, to impose a burdensome arms race on their poorly developed economies.
Various kinds of so-called aid play substantial roles in implementing these plans. Assistance to economically underdeveloped countries is provided under different programmes and in various forms (economic, technical, military, etc.). But no matter what form is used, it is wholly subordinate to the strategic, military-political and economic interests of capitalism. A major portion of this aid goes for direct or indirect financing of military preparations, for creating and equipping the armies of many developing states. Military assistance is provided in the form of materiel, arms procurement funds, various services, etc. It is provided under conditions which compel the recipients to maintain considerable armed forces and to spend increasingly large sums on military needs. Hence, such aid stimulates the arms race in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
During the post-war years, the forms of military aid to developing countries have gradually changed. If, in the fifties, American aid was for the most part free, in subsequent years it was granted mainly in the form of loans. The increase in __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11--18 162 Table 25 Comparison of Defence Expenditures in Developing Countries (1974--1977) Regions and countries Sum million dollars Per capita (dollars) Per cent of government spending Per cent of gross national product 1974 1975 1978 1974 1975 1978 1974 1975 1978 1974 1975 1978 Middle East and Africa Algeria Egypt Iran Iraq Jordan 221 4,071 5,500 2,701 142 285 6,103 8,800 1,191 155 456 9,942 14 111 172 251 54 17 163 268 107 57 25 273 6.2 26.8 27.1 59.4 26.6 4.7 42.0 24.9 43.7 22.0 5.7 1.8 22.8 14.0 18.7 12.1 2.2 3.9 23.8 17.4 10.9 10.2 15.5 304 103 25.6 12.2 Lybia 169 203 448 72 83 162 16.1 13.7 19.5 1.4 1.7 1.8 Morocco 190 224 681 11 13 19 8.6 4.5 11.6 3.0 9.8 3.6 Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Ethiopia 1,808 118 452 89 6,771 120 706 84 13,170 329 7 64 3 1,153 7 96 3 1,005 25.6 14.9 24.5 19.8 20.0 15.1 25.3 19.4 35.1 7.3 43 18.0 13.6 5.4 16.4 1,121 165 138 6 24.1 21.6 11.0 3.3 15.1 2.9 163 Nigeria 653 1,786 11 28 15.2 11.8 2.9 7.8 South Rhodesia 80 102 159 13 16 35 11,1 12.3 17,1 2.6 3.0 7.7 Asia India 2,443 2,660 3,571 4 6 4 22.1 21.1 16.0 2.7 3.0 3.1 Indonesia 601 1,108 1,691 5 9 12 15.8 16.7 14.5 2.6 3.8 3.5 South Korea 742 943 2,600 22 28 72 25.3 29.2 35.4 4.3 5.1 6.5 Malaysia 311 385 699 26 31 54 17.3 17.3 13.4 3.8 4.0 4.4 Pakistan 713 725 938 11 10 12 12.7 12.3 42.7 8.4 7.2 4.6 Phillippines 312 407 793 8 10 17 24.4 19.3 17.2 2.1 2.6 3.4 Singapore 263 344 118 152 19,1 18.1 5.1 5.3 6.3 Thailand 430 542 10 13 24.5 25.7 3.2 3.7 4.1 Latin America Argentina 1,609 1,031 1,659 65 41 69 8.5 9.7 14.9 1.9 0.9 Brazil 1,154 1,283 2,039 11 12 18 11.0 9.3 8.6 1.3 1.3 1.1 Colombia 102 106 173 4 6 8.0 7.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 Mexico 423 586 557 8 10 8 2.2 2.4 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 Peru 226 383 17 24 9.9 15.3 2.4 3.1 3.1 Venezuela 406 494 615 35 41 47 8.9 5.4 5.9 1.6 1.7 1.4 Compiled from: The Military Balance 1977--1978. 1977, pp. 82--83. __PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 11* 164 __PARAGRAPH_CONT__ the share of loans is accompanied by the growing burden of the arms race, since the developing countries have to pay back a major part of their financial resources in order to pay up their loans plus interest. From the beginning of the sixties, free US military aid was gradually replaced by arms sales on credit and for hard cash. In this way, the United States seeks to increase its allies' share in financing joint military preparations, reduce the deficit of its balance of payments, increase the employment of its industrial capacity and military production efficiency, and augment returns of military-industrial corporations. Not only have the forms changed, but arms exports have grown rapidly, too. US arms sales to the developing countries were especially big in the seventies. France and Britain have also increased their armaments exports to Asia, Africa and Latin America, and West Germany, Japan and Italy are actively following suit. According to UN statistics, the total cost of big arms deliveries from industrially developed countries to developing states was 6,800 million dollars in 1950--1959, 14,200 million in 1960--1969 and as much as 19,200 million in 1970--1975.
The share of developing Asian, African and Latin American countries in the world arms trade has substantially increased. About 75 per cent of the world arms exports are shipped there. The geographic distribution of arms deliveries is characterised by major changes: at present, about 75 developing countries import armaments. In the sixties, East Asian countries led in armaments imports. In the seventies, the Mideast nations became major buyers of weaponry: in 1975, they imported 2,696 million dollars worth of armaments, or over half of all the arms shipments to developing countries. Some Mideast states are now wholesale buyers of weapons. This abrupt increase in arms deliveries to the Mideast was due to the fact that capitalist countries are highly interested in the big Mideast oil reserves and the region's strategic position.
Especially big shipments of American arms are delivered to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and other states. Huge military supplies to the Middle East have resulted in an unprecedented stockpiling of armaments in the area, including modern weapons systems.
A most dangerous consequence of uncontrolled and rapidly growing export of armaments is that it intensifies the world arms race and involves numerous developing countries. This is most distinctly seen from the example of the Persian Gulf 165 states, which in recent years have become major importes of arms. In the early seventies, military spending in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman increased eight-, five- and over six-fold, respectively. Even taking into account inflationary price rises, these are extremely high growth rates. In Latin America, over half of the armaments imports go to Brazil and Argentina. Capitalist countries are stepping up arms supplies to African states, too. However, the latter's share in the total world arms exports is small.
Rapidly growing arms shipments have a destabilising effect on the military and political situation in some areas of the globe, create dangerous hotbeds of conflicts, impede settlement of inter-state disputes, and intensify international tensions.
Like other forms of arms shipments and military aid, the arms trade is used as an important means of preserving and strengthening the economic and military dependence of developing countries upon industrially developed states. This is largely due to the fact that they lack the capacity to operate imported sophisticated weaponry and depend on the exporting countries with regard to personnel training, spare parts, maintenance, road and airport construction, and so on. As a result, numerous experts and instructors from capitalist countries come to developing states. In 1975, for instance, American technical experts and instructors were stationed in 34 developing countries under contracts for US military aid. This influx of military specialists from the exporting country permits them to strengthen their influence on the governments and military circles of the importing nations and often virtually control their armed forces.
Increasing military dependence is also instrumental in influencing the political orientation of the importing nations and the military and political situation in areas of interest to the exporting countries; furthermore, it is used to consolidate capitalist social relations, ensure control over sources of raw materials and fuel, and retain old and acquire new military and intelligence bases on foreign soil. By supplying weapons to developing states, capitalist countries also seek to strengthen their military potential to use it against national liberation movements, against progressive regimes, against the growing influence of socialist countries, etc. To achieve its goals and step up the arms race, capitalism takes advantage of the contradictions and territorial disputes existing between developing states, stirs up national strife, backs reactionary and repressive regimes, and so on.
166A complex process of delimitation of class forces, a growing class struggle and increasing differentiation also have a marked effect on military preparations in developing countries. Speaking of the increasing differentiation among the developing countries, Academician N. N. Inozemtsev noted that they "differ sharply in population, geographic conditions, natural resources, per capita national income and other economic factors, as well as in historical development, and so on. They also differ profoundly both socially and politically. Some have socialist-oriented economies and a revolutionary-democratic leadership, while others are ruled by pro-bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic forces which, however, pursue an anti-imperialist policy and carry out progressive reforms. There are also many developing countries with bourgeois-bureaucratic pro-imperialist regimes that have openly taken the capitalist road. Finally, there are states with highly reactionary, semi-fascist regimes.''^^1^^ In some cases, the arms race is stimulated by hegemonist aspirations of some developing states in a particular area. The growing military preparations of some other countries are, on the contrary, caused by the need to defend themselves against aggression and racist regimes, to consolidate their national independence, and by other defensive considerations. The USSR and other socialist states give them all kinds of assistance, including weapons; such assistance serves to strengthen their defence potential and promotes the liberation of peoples from colonial yoke. The aims and terms of this selfless assistance by socialist countries to the progressive regimes in developing states fundamentally differ from those of imperialist ``aid''.
The arms race which capitalist countries instigate in Asia, Africa and Latin America contradicts the genuine interests of their peoples and is a tremendous threat to their security. Military expenditures absorb a considerable part of their scanty budgetary revenues. Some developing countries have started to rapidly develop their own military industry. This and greater arms imports serve to increase their balance of payments deficit and national debt. All this leads to negative consequences and seriously impedes social and economic development.
The vital interests of developing countries require that they discontinue the arms race, stop importing arms, and achieve real disarmament, which would have a major positive impact _-_-_
~^^1^^ N. N. Inozemtsev, = "The Major Event of the 20th Century''. In: World Economics and International Relations, No. 11, 1977, pp. 22--23.
167 on their social and economic progress. First and foremost, it would free them of huge unproductive military expenditures and make it possible for them to convert the released funds to civilian needs. The saved domestic resources could thus be used for channeling additional investments into the economy in the amount of many thousand millions of dollars, and this would help accelerate industrialisation, overcome backwardness, achieve economic, scientific and technological independence, and resolve some other urgent economic issues. "Disarmament dividends" would considerably extend the domestic possibilities for increasing agricultural production to solve the food problem. According to UN statistics, even in normal conditions the food consumption in developing countries is 5-10 per cent lower than is required by established norms, and among the poor sections it is much below the average. In years of bad harvest, famine is disastrous. In 1974, the UN World Food Conference noted that, in order to increase food production, annual aid for developing farming should be increased to 5,000-6,000 million dollars by the end of the century. In recent years, such aid has been increased somewhat, but it is still 2,000-3,000 million dollars below the projected sum. According to UN estimates, a reduction on the part of the developed nations of their military budgets by only one per cent would suffice to overcome this lag.^^1^^ Most developing nations have an acute shortage of skilled labour in all branches of their economies. The people with the best skills serve in the armed forces. Disarmament would permit them to transfer skilled personnel from military to civilian needs, and this would have a great effect economically.Disarmament would make it possible to convert some of the released domestic resources and help eliminate poverty. According to the World Bank, nearly 750 million people or about 46 per cent-of the population in developing countries live in absolute or relative poverty (absolute poverty means that per capita income is less than 50 dollars per annum).
Disarmament would also open major prospects for increasing investments in education, health and other urgent social needs. A total of 73.7 and 46.8 per cent of adults are illiterate in Africa and Asia, respectively.^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ UN Document A/32/88, United Nations General Assembly, 32nd Session, August 12, 1977, p. 29.
~^^2^^ Sixty Victorious Years. Figures and Facts, p. 148.
168In 1975, over 1,000 million people in 66 developing countries lived in malaria-stricken areas. A considerable part of the population suffers from intestinal and other diseases. In 1965-- 1970, the average life expectancy in these countries was 49, as compared to 70 in the developed countries.^^1^^
Despite mass illiteracy and poor medical care, many developing states spend little on health and education. This is particularly apparent against the background of their growing military spending. The Future of World Economy, a UN report I have already mentioned, notes that developing countries would have to additionally invest 15,000--20,000 million dollars per annum during the coming decade in order to create social and economic conditions that would ensure an average life expectancy of 65, a literacy rate of 75 per cent, and a mortality rate of less than 50 per 1,000 persons.
Disarmament would substantially accelerate social and economic progress in the developing countries not only through conversion of their own material, financial and other resources from military to civilian use, but also by providing major possibilities for increased economic, scientific and technological aid from the developed states. However, when the situation is marked by an unrestrained arms race, such aid is limited. In recent years, total world military spending exceeded 20--25 times the total annual aid that the developed countries gave the developing countries. It is noteworthy that the former tend to curtail the relative volume of their aid. According to UN norms, it should amount to 0.7 per cent of the gross national product of the developed countries. Actually, however, in the mid-sixties it amounted to 0.44 per cent, and in 1977 to 0.33 per cent (United States 0.23 per cent).
Disarmament would provide additional possibilities for considerably increasing aid to the developing countries. UN experts have estimated that a shift of 10 per cent from world military expenditures to investment would provide enough resources to increase the total volume of the fixed capital by almost a third.^^2^^
In his address to the 34th Session of the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Fidel Castro of Cuba mentioned _-_-_
~^^1^^ UN Document A/32/88/A, United Nations General Assembly, 32nd Session, September 12, 1977, pp. 154--55.
~^^2^^ Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race anil of Military Expenditures. Report of the Secretary-General, p. 34.
169 that in order to eliminate backwardness and accelerate social and economic progress in developing countries it would be necessary in the coming decade to provide them with additional aid in the amount of at least 300,000 million dollars (at fixed 1977 prices), or 25,000 million dollars per annum. To solve the urgent social and economic problems in developing Asian, African and Latin American countries it would therefore require less money in the coming ten-year period than military ministries spend today.Increasing foreign aid on more favourable terms would be a major condition for accelerating social and economic development in Asia, Africa and Latin America. As early as September 25, 1973, the USSR proposed to the 28th Session of the UN General Assembly a reduction of the military budgets of the permanent members of the UN Security Council by 10 per cent and proposed the use of part of the saved resources to help developing countries.^^1^^
In 1978, the USSR submitted to a special session of the UN General Assembly a new proposal under which the states with great economic and military potentials would reach an agreement on the specific sums by which they would reduce their military budgets in absolute figures, not percentage. The Soviet Union also proposed an agreement on the concrete amounts that each state which reduced its military budget would allocate for additional aid to the developing countries.
Elimination of the inequitable status of the developing countries in the international division of labour would be exceptionally significant in overcoming their age-old backwardness and for speeding up their development. After achieving political independence, they have been focusing their attention on economic problems increasingly, and attained a measure of success. Some developing states, e. g. Iraq, Algeria, Lybia, Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela and Qatar, have already nationalised foreign oil concessions or are about to do so. Many developing countries are stepping up their drive against the exploitive positions of foreign capital and for taking full control of their own national wealth.
In the struggle for their economic interests, they receive all-round support from the socialist countries. Economic, scientific and technological assistance by the USSR and other _-_-_
~^^1^^ See The USSR in the Struggle for Disarmament. Collection of Documents, Politizdat, Moscow, 1977, p. 206 (in Russian).
170 socialist states during the past-25 years have played a tremendous role in developing the national economies of many liberated states, and international detente has had a beneficial effect on improving their economic positions in the world.However, despite some successes, the developing nations are still subjected to various forms of economic exploitation by international monopoly capital. By means of investments, "price scissors'', inflation, arms trade, and other economic levers imperialism continues to exploit and inflict upon them immense economic damage. Largely because of inequitable economic relations, and also due to increased arms imports, their balance of payments deficit and the national debt have rapidly grown in recent years. As a matter of fact, their national debt has already hit a 335,000 million dollar level. According to some estimates, the developing countries pay over 40,000 million dollars of interest per annum, which exceeds by more than 20 per cent the total cost of their annual export.
Disarmament would not only make a positive impact on their social and economic development, but would also create better conditions for continuing their struggle for national independence and genuine sovereignty.
[171] __ALPHA_LVL1__ CONCLUSIONThe realities of current international development show ever more convincingly that the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of mankind demand an early cessation of the arms race and disarmament. Studies of the economic and social aspects of disarmament show that conversion of military production is no doubt feasible, even though it would involve some temporary difficulties. Disarmament faces neither technical nor economic problems, but is confronted by reactionary and militarist forces. No temporary difficulties or issues resulting from disarmament, no costs involved could compare with the actual damage resulting from the continuing arms race, with the mortal danger it brings to humanity.
Countering these designs, the Soviet Union has again come forward with a full-scale programme of struggle for peace and social progress, with concrete proposals that would, if implemented, help to prevent a nuclear disaster, to safeguard world peace.
These proposals, Leonid Brezhnev said at the 26th Congress of the CPSU, "are an organic continuation and development of our Peace Programme in reference to the most burning, topical problems of present-day international life''.
Disarmament is the most reliable way of eliminating the threat of a thermonuclear war and ensuring real security for all states. It would, in fact, bring enormous benefits to all peoples. Conversion to civilian needs of immense human, material and financial resources which are now used for military purposes would either directly or indirectly promote better living standards for all nations and quicker social and economic progress throughout the world.
However, it is not a simple thing to secure the cessation of the arms race. Militarist circles in the United States and in other NATO countries are doing their best to hamper the solution of the problem of disarmament and continue to build up their military arsenals.
In recent years, when the idea of disarmament has become increasingly popular among different sections of the world public, the opponents of disarmament and detente have also become more active. Using the hackneyed and long exposed myth of a "Soviet threat'', they seek to intensify international tensions, weaken mutual trust, increase suspicion among the states, and revert the world to the cold war and to unrestrained 172 military rivalry. This climate is mainly in the interest of the military-industrial complexes, which use the continuation and intensification of the arms race to consolidate their positions and accumulate even greater wealth. The advocates of militarism put their interests above those of their own peoples, above the striving for a lasting peace.
It is quite evident that reckless intensification of the arms race is becoming extremely dangerous. The arms race cannot ensure reliable international security, on the contrary, it pushes the world towards a military cataclysm. Moreover, it is accompanied by a further increase in military spending with all the baneful economic and social consequences involved.
The whole world is now the scene of a growing mass movement against war, a movement for peace, for cessation of the arms race, for destroying the stockpiles of weapons, for disarmament. This movement against a common peril unites people of completely diverse political convictions and religions, and also includes numerous international and national bodies. The influence of the social forces on modern international relations is enormous.
__ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END] [173]REQUEST TO READERS ~
Progress Publishers would be glad to have
your opinion of this book, its translation and
design and any suggestions you may have for
future publications.
Please send all your comments to 17,
Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics