Kevin Narizny, “Both Guns and Butter, or Neither: Class Interests in the Political Economy of Rearmament,”

rearmament reshapes

the balance of power between different societal groups

rearmament requires

• higher government spending

• progressive taxation

• increased state intervention in the economy

3 basic strategic responses to external threats

1. strengthen the military

2. form alliances

3. attempt reconicliation

strengthen the military

maintains diplomatic freedom, but harms the economy due to military production strain

form alliances

reduces the need for rearmament but risks abandonment or entanglement in unwanted ways

attempt reconciliation

easiest short-term option, but most dangerous as it transfers resources to a potential enemy

Who pays?

massive military expansion requires significant increases in government spending, raising the question:

sudden shift from civilian to military production

creates different challenges for labor and capital

state as a tool for wealth redistribution

taxes for military buildup often redistribute wealth from the upper to lower classes

dilemma for conservative leaders facing external threats

regressive taxation v. taxing the wealthy

regressive taxation (burdening lower classes)

political disaster in elections

taxing the wealthy

risk of revolt within conservative coalitions

conservative leaders alternative

borrow funds, then repay debt once crisis end

influenced by popular economic theories

voter tolerance for taxation and deficit spending

leftists gov on rearmament

• more willing to accept the fiscal burden of rearmament

• compensate lower classes through progressive reforms

right-wing gov on rearmament

• resist raising taxes on the wealthy

• unwilling to fund large-scale military expansion

scope conditions of the theory

• applies only when sudden increases in external threats force rapid change

• limited to great powers

• class-based political systems, where at least one party represents the working poor and another serves the wealthy elite

• democratic states, where leaders are elected and the lower classes have political representation

Britain 1895-1905

• Britain’s imperial dominance faced threats from F and R

• lacked funding for large-scale rearmament —> pursued alternative strategies: allied with Japan and pressed dominions to contribute to defense

• The People’s Budget (1909)

• After WW1: The Labour Party replaced the liberals, further dividing politics along class lines

The People’s Budget (GB)

• introduced progressive taxation to fund military spending

• provoked a constitutional crisis

difference between France and GB

• did not have 3 party system

• class cleavages existed but governments were not ideologically polarized

• rigid fiscal policies —> chronic deficits and downward pressure on military spending

Popular Front (1936 - F)

• coalition of radicals, socialists, and communists

• gained clear majority and shifted government leftward

US rearmament 1930s

• the US had little reason to rearm

• Roosevelt’s defense spending was preceded by the New Deal, which mitigated economic concerns

• By 1938, most Americans supported rearmament

US rearmament post-WW2

• americans initially supported deep defense cuts

• Truman (1948): increased military budget due to Cold War tensions

• Eisenhower’s “New Look” strategy

• late 1960s-70s: improved US-Soviet relations + withdrawal from Vietnam —> decline in military spending

Eisenhower’s “New Look” strategy

• relied on nuclear deterrence

• avoided direct military interventions

leftist coaltions

more likely to increase military spending

right-wing gov

hesitant to reform due to opposition to taxation

Reagan’s military buildup

shows ideology still plays a role in rearmament

challenges assumption that states act as unitary actors

class interests shape responses to security threats

rearmament is shaped by

class interests