Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie

[AK]

One thing that I keep thinking about is how the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is prevalent in modern society. This means that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class in this society but in reality, this is only really achieved by having a bourgeoisie-supporting government (and state) in power. So what exactly is it that keeps the government/state in power to support the bourgeoisie; whats the government's incentive?

[Misanthrope]

So what exactly is it that keeps the government/state in power to support the bourgeoisie;

Ideological support from the majority of society and force to control the minority that does not see the state as just.




whats the government's incentive?

The state is the bourgeoisie. The politicians have common interests with the owners of the means of production.

[AK]

The state is the bourgeoisie. The politicians have common interests with the owners of the means of production.
Elaborate on this, just what are the common interests; do the politicians own the MoP too?

[Q]

The vast majority of the members of parliament and, by consequence, government are directly coming from big business and after they're done with their political career they'll return as successful business people. Many in the Obama administration for example have direct connections to Goldman Sachs.

"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." - Communist Manifesto

Still very much correct :)

[khad]

According to Marx, the state is but an instrument of class rule. Naturally, the dominant class is the bourgeoisie under capitalism. For a revolutionary/transitional government, most forms of Marxism posit that the working class would have to seize the apparatus of the state and turn it against the bourgeoisie. Only without the meddling of capitalists can socialism begin in earnest.

[AK]

The vast majority of the members of parliament and, by consequence, government are directly coming from big business and after they're done with their political career they'll return as successful business people. Many in the Obama administration for example have direct connections to Goldman Sachs.

"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." - Communist Manifesto

Still very much correct :)
So essentially the politicians want to secure their futures as succesful business people after they inevitably get voted/kicked out of office, so that they'll get money.

[Q]

So essentially the politicians want to secure their futures as succesful business people after they inevitably get voted/kicked out of office, so that they'll get money.
From a purely individual perspective, this is undoubtedly true. Is it that strange that most laws are pro-business? Of course not.

[AK]

From a purely individual perspective, this is undoubtedly true. Is it that strange that most laws are pro-business? Of course not.
And current laws are one of the many things that make up the state, as they are used to oppress, are they not?

[StalinFanboy]

The only way to use the state against the ruling class is to destroy it. As long as there is a state, there will be a ruling class, be it capitalist bourgeoisie or "socialist" bureaucrats.

[Q]

The only way to use the state against the ruling class is to destroy it. As long as there is a state, there will be a ruling class, be it capitalist bourgeoisie or "socialist" bureaucrats.
Or the working class in a decaying class society :)

[Thirsty Crow]

It's more than that politicians have a direct interest in parliamentary action.

If you look more closely to the make-up of the parliament, one prominent aspect you can notice is that the vast majority of politicians, ruling or in opposition, have a common bourgeoisie background. Entry into "high" politics is heavily filtered by all sorts of factors, but these factors can be subsumed under the category of the privilege the bourgeoisie enjoys as a class. Education ("proper education is expensive"), social networks, common ideology. This is the root of the governments' role.

[el_chavista]

"Gramsci's formula" may be useful:

STATE = POLITIC SOCIETY (coercion, dictatorship) + CIVIL SOCIETY (consensus, cultural hegemony)

[Sheldon]

Others are correct when they say that the state equals the bourgeois, but I wanted to comment that the role of the state in modern capitalist economy is far more pervasive than simply being an organ on the part of the bourgeoisie. Capital is a social relationship and it transcends beyond simply the personalities of the people involved in running the state. The state operates as a mediator for different segments of "national capital." This means that at any given moment, one segment of the bourgeois may seem to "lose" but national capital as a whole will gain (presumably)--these segments of national capital include not just the wall street interests but also labor unions (for proof, search for "UAW ownership of GM," unions are almost indistinguishable from traditional business entities nowadays. This is also important to understand because the state actually functions to reinforce nationalist/imperialist worldviews (which, of course, have reciprocal effects for the working class).

The state is not an outside entity regulating capitalism, it is a highly integrated aspect of contemporary capitalism.

[Dimentio]

One thing that I keep thinking about is how the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is prevalent in modern society. This means that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class in this society but in reality, this is only really achieved by having a bourgeoisie-supporting government (and state) in power. So what exactly is it that keeps the government/state in power to support the bourgeoisie; whats the government's incentive?

A government doesn't need any more incentive than to sit in power.

But liberal democracy is hardly a dictatorship. It is more like an oligarchic republic with some traits of democracy.

The people's incentive to support the system is the same as for the people's incentive to support any other system. Namely security, safety and a guarantee that things would stay the same.

[Muzk]

1. Lobbyism was yesterday. Now big business representants sit in the government and make the laws for themselves. There's lobbyism too, though, but this is worse.
2. Politicians are rich. They get lots of money and many benefits the working class doesn't.
3. Politicians depend on big business supporting their election campaign in the first place. Therefore, they are corrupt. Must be, somehow.

Workers see "representants" of the "workers" on TV, like Obama, or labour parties in general, and, through their populist campagin think they'll change something. Somehow, people don't look back how the politicians have always betrayed the workers in the past ...2300 years?

[Misanthrope]

Elaborate on this, just what are the common interests; do the politicians own the MoP too?

Their main common interest: Consolidate power as a social class and make profit by any means, be it war, exploitation taxes ect. The politicians don't necessarily own the means of production, although they could possibly.

[Nwoye]

Although it is correct that the state is primarily made up of representatives of the upper class, it's important to note that the reason the state supports bourgeois interests isn't just because of this fact, and that simply voting in proletarians or people who support the proletariat's interests into national office (cough cough Chavez cough cough) won't bring about qualitative change in society. This is what Marx was referring to when he said the proletariat cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery.

There are two examples here. One, the state is structured (I'm mostly referring to the United States and to a lesser extent the UK here since that's what I'm most familiar with) so that in order to occupy a position of power one must receive significant support from both bourgeois controlled parties, large corporations, and bourgeois political organizations (I would include unions in here as well). It takes millions of dollars just to run for national office, and that means a candidate needs to luck for funding in places with lots of money. If a well-intended candidate does win, thanks to those various sources of funding, they're forever indebted to those corporations or political organizations. Even if they'd like to institute widespread sweeping reform, the money which got them elected and keeps them in office prevents them from doing so by linking them to bourgeois interests.

The state's subservience to bourgeois interests also has to do with the very nature of the state in the capitalist structure. In capitalism, the role of the state is to promote economic prosperity and efficiency. Also, we know that in capitalism wealth and control of the means of production become increasingly centralized in fewer and fewer hands. That means less and less people have control of the economy, and their decisions have more and more sway over the prosperity of the economy. They can export jobs out of the country, invest capital overseas, lower wages, or benefits, and take other forms of action which have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. For fear of these things occurring the state must ensure that the bourgeois class is not disenfranchised or upset by public policy, essentially making the state subservient to bourgeois interests. It is in this way that economic power (the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the few) transfers directly into political power.

[Nwoye]

oops

[LeninistKing]

Hello, you are so right, specially in USA where you see the obvious propaganda all around you from the moment you wake up, from the moment you get out of your house, you will see the big street signs with Mcdonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut and Dominos ads forcing you, tricking you and tempting you to buy their junk foods. You see it in the way people behave, like conformist-drones, etc.

.



Ideological support from the majority of society and force to control the minority that does not see the state as just.




The state is the bourgeoisie. The politicians have common interests with the owners of the means of production.