Bourgeoisie control of Democracies

[Red Sun]

I know that most anarchists and Marxists agree that even in supposed democracies, the bourgeoisie control the state.

Looking at the state of politics here in the U.S. and the rollback of hard-won reform in Europe, I can't help but agree with this analysis on an instinctive level.

However, since instinctive feelings are not sufficient basis for political views, can you tell me what some of the mechanisms are by which the bourgeoisie control nominally democratic states?

[Blake's Baby]

They control the rules by which the 'democracy' is conducted, they control the media channels that give us the political debates and context, they control the education system that provides the framework in which those debates take place.

Voters control politicians to approximately the same extent as shoppers control supermarkets.

[Zealot]

The bourgeoisie spend massive amounts of money sponsoring political candidates and parties. They also use their lobby groups and media organisations to influence public opinion. In the electoral process itself this is fairly obvious. In the US, for example, presidential debates are sponsored and moderated via the "Commission on Presidential Debates" (CPD).

What and who is the CPD? The CPD began in 1987 and is a "non-profit" private corporation that is entirely controlled by the two-party dictatorship of the Republicans and Democrats. See here (http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=commission-leadership) for the names of the leadership in the Commission and notice how all of them have had influential positions with either the Republican or Democrat parties and how some of them are big-time lobbyists on the side. This Commission is also exempt from the FECA's supposed-rule that bars corporations from influencing elections with contributions. See here (http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=national-debate-sponsors) the list of CPD's major corporate sponsors and note that some of the individuals involved with those corporations are also on CPD's board of directors. Before every presidential debate the Democrats and Republicans draft a secret contract, a "memorandum of understanding", which is handled by the CPD and includes such agreements as to whether or not third-party candidates should be excluded from the debate, the composition of the audience, selection of questioners, etc., etc. These agreements are always done in secret but the documents have been leaked on occasion. In 1988 the document was exposed by the "League of Women Voters" (more on them in a second) and was 16 pages long. By contrast, it was over 32 pages in the 2004 election.

Prior to 1988 the debates were sponsored and organised by the League of Women Voters who withdrew their sponsorship after refusing to implement (http://www.lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud) a "memorandum of understanding" presented to them before the 1988 George H.W. Bush-Michael Dukakis debate. You'll notice that the CPD was created in 1987, which was a year before the League of Women Voters canceled their sponsorship in 1988. That's because it was a calculated plot by the two-party dictatorship and the bourgeoisie to capture complete control over presidential debates by demanding concessions from the League that they knew would be found unacceptable. The vacuum was immediately filled by the Demopublican bourgeois-dominated CPD corporation. Note that before 1988 the League had capitulated on a number of ocassions. For example, during the Ronald Reagan-Walter Mondale 1984 debate the campaigns vetoed 80(!) moderators proposed by the League.

This is merely one way that the bourgeoisie exercises its dictatorship in the United States and I'm sure that if you dig deeper you'll find many more examples like it.

[Zealot]

To add on to my previous post, the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America has proven that it isn't always the case that the bourgeoisie can control the democratic process. Despite what some here will tell you, Hugo Chavez is no friend of the bourgeoisie who tried to replace him with a capitalist stooge in the 2002 coup. Moreover, the bourgeoisie control 95% of the media (again, despite what fox news wants you to believe, Venezuela's state-media only has 5% of the audience share according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/who-dominates-the-media-in-venezuela)). Chavez has found himself being continually elected, against all odds, within a bourgeois-democratic framework. However, the failed coup that occurred in 2002 demonstrates that his position as president is very unstable and that the gains made in Venezuela could be turned back at any moment.

The situation that made the first election of Chavez possible in Venezuela was very unique and isn't one that exists in places such as the United States, Canada, and so on. So in short, the bourgeoisie exercise complete control over their respective democracies in general but this advantage can be undermined in unique situations such as that which preceded the election of Hugo Chavez.

[Also, it's important to note that the CPD has always been co-chaired by one member from the Republicans and one from the Democrats. At its inception, the CPD was co-chaired by RNC chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. (who still co-chairs to this day) and DNC chairman Paul G. Kirk (since replaced by Michael D. McCurry, former press secretary for Bill Clinton, among many other things).]

[Red Sun]

So what do you think the bourgeoisie would do if a grassroots socialist third party did have electoral success in the U.S.? Not that I'm saying that could ever actually happen (because I doubt it would for the reasons you outlined), I'm just talking in purely hypothetical terms.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's primarily in the set up and construction. No one votes on if there should be private property, if society should be organized around profits etc. It's all built into the system and an assumption of it. The needs of the ruling class and that means the needs of market capitalism have shaped what the government looks like. Fight-back from the oppressed and past class struggles leaves an imprint, but the overall aims and purpose of the government are to ensure the growth and peace for "business as usual". They call it "order" but they mean "capitalist order".

With the government specifically, you can see as it develops that it is an organization for balencing the needs of the "important people". It wasn't even a question if non-propery holders could get a vote at first. Why would non-property holders matter to these people, they have no material power in society, and so why is their voice important? So at first popular votes in the US were very small and a narrow pool of people - and even today there are no direct votes for the executive and so there are hundreds of little mechanisms to ensure that the government mechanisms have an air of inclusiveness and consent, but are really practically unaccountable.

So on the day to day, the people who control the material power in the US, the major wealth-holders (J.P. Morgan single-handedly stopped a stock market crash once with his personal money, just to give a sense of how much totally autocratic and unaccountable power some of these people and groups hold) have total access to all levels of government as well as tons of civic-influence, writing the laws of cities as they please and creating privite social institutions that suit their interests (like think tanks and so on which influence academia and the media), charity that comes with strings etc. On the other hand is the other totally unaccountable real power of the military. There is no real democratic pressure on this force and so even if a mass movement sweeps some serious and dedicated reformers who are connected to popular power and savy about avoiding the traps and sink-holes of the capitalist government system... then you end up with military dictatorship most likely after the Generals make a junta to stop the reformist government.

[CryingWolf]

I know that most anarchists and Marxists agree that even in supposed democracies, the bourgeoisie control the state.

Looking at the state of politics here in the U.S. and the rollback of hard-won reform in Europe, I can't help but agree with this analysis on an instinctive level.

However, since instinctive feelings are not sufficient basis for political views, can you tell me what some of the mechanisms are by which the bourgeoisie control nominally democratic states?

Read the book, Who Rules America? by G. William Domhoff. It goes into the juicy little details on this very topic.

This is the official website. A lot of the main content of the book is available for free right here. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/book.html

[Zealot]

So what do you think the bourgeoisie would do if a grassroots socialist third party did have electoral success in the U.S.? Not that I'm saying that could ever actually happen (because I doubt it would for the reasons you outlined), I'm just talking in purely hypothetical terms.

It would be impossible. As Jimmie pointed out, the whole system is tipped in favour of the bourgeoisie on their own terms. A Socialist party challenging the notion of private property would have no hope to secure power in the US since private property is guaranteed in the constitution. If they tried to abolish private property within the present framework they would be completely overpowered by the bourgeois courts unless a new constitution was drafted. There are also many other barriers. For example, by law, union leaders are not allowed to be members of Communist parties.

In purely hypothetical terms you might get something similar to what is taking place in Venezuela (i.e., a relatively unstable government whose Socialist program is severely hampered by the bourgeois political system). The bourgeoisie will use everything at their disposal to remove the Socialists from power by mobilising their lackeys, their media, their courts, their capital, and so on. This is what they are attempting to do in Venezuela and what they have done in the past to Socialists who were elected into power (i.e., Salvador Allende in Chile).