Modern State and Bourgeoisie.

[Guardia Rossa]

I have seen some theories around, mainly that either the bourgeois are related/tied to the bureocracy or that the structure of the Modern State make it impossible to not be for the bourgeois, or you will end up with a failed state (economically speaking).

So I was reading about Venezuela and Chave's and Maduro's attempts to convert (kinda) peacefully the Modern State to a Proletarian State (That was what I heard).

Are these things correct, and if so, do Venezuela proves one point of view while discrediting the other?

[Tim Cornelis]

It proves the structural account. As James O'Connor (born 1930) points out, the state relies on tax revenues to fund its costs, whatever these may be. Thus, its financial health is contingent on the health of the rate of capital accumulation. As such, the state is structurally constrained by the reproduction of capitalism, and consequently the state is compelled to act in ways that facilitates capital accumulation. Thus, “In this way, the capacity of social democratic governments to reshape the class structure of society has been inherently self-limiting: attempts at radical redistribution always threaten to destroy the engine of capitalist wealth-creation on which those governments ultimately depend.” (Cockshott/Cotrell, Towards a New Socialism). Bolivia is a perfect example of this.

Morales' social welfare provisions were funded by gas export revenues. If gas prices drop, the system will more or less crumble. Gas revenue is not a solid foundation for government revenue. Thus, he is compelled to create a more hospitable business and investment climate/environment, which is exactly what he is doing by relaxing regulations for multinational corporations (De Volkskrant, 11 October 2014). The actual climate's health has also disappeared to the background of his campaign promises.

Venezuela has taken another route. Instead of capitulating to capital as Morales has done, Maduro stubborinly pushes through. His regime has been charged with horrible economic policy and economic mismanagement. 'Horrible economic policy' means economic policies that largely ignores the interests of capital causing capital flight. It is a bourgeois state that doesn't rule in the interests of capital, which is termed "economic mismanagement" in mainstream terminology. This includes price controls and maximum prices to ensure affordability of consumer goods for the common people, but the result is that capitalists scale back production to remain profitable, and therefore shortages of goods as we see in Venezuela. It's almost trying to create a for-needs economy within the framework of profit maximisation, and that's bound to fail.

[Guardia Rossa]

Thanks Tim.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

The state is structurally tied to the capitalist mode of production. Any attempt to change the form of distribution or generally enact laws that would go against the interests of capital is counter-productive and futile. One can take many examples from history - one of the major ones being Mitterrand's "socialist" government, which enacted all sorts of "socialist" laws, redistributing income, helping the poor etc. and then due to capital outflow and the strikes of industrial capital, he reversed his position and enacted austerity in the interest of capital. The point is not that he was a bad person, the point is not that anyone who happens to find himself or herself at the head of the state is a bad person - they might as well be the most honest and caring humanists - the point, however, is that they can't build socialism or "socialist" laws, which wouldn't be self-defeating, which wouldn't harm capital's interests and hence the economy as a whole, which then would create unemployment, less revenue for the state, more debt etc. That's why Mitterrand was forced to reverse his policies, that's why social-democratic countries has been undergoing liberalisation for decades now etc.

Historically, due to specific circumstances (WW II, which caused destruction of capital and hence high profitability, strong and nationally-based labour unions, nationally as opposed to internationally based capital, presence of the Soviet Union etc.) contributed to the rise of social democracy. All of these things made social democratic policies possible, because capital was on the rise, leading to the Golden Age of capitalism. However, these days are long gone and capitalism is simply structurally incapable of allowing social democracy. Profit margins are too low, capital is to global, too much of it is finance-capital etc. Social democracy, at this point, is objectively reactionary, incapable of basing itself in the current state of affairs.

As for Venezuela et al. It is self-evident that such an approach can't work. Its experience simply proves the points raised above. If I remember reading correctly, Chavez himself understood at the end of his life that one can't have half of a revolution. Due to all the reasons stated above, Cuba, Venezuela, together with the European social democracies (aka Nordic countries) are undergoing increasing liberalisations or plans of thereof. Controlling a valuable natural resource helps to delay the process, but it is impossible to guard oneself from its effects.

[tuwix]

So I was reading about Venezuela and Chave's and Maduro's attempts to convert (kinda) peacefully the Modern State to a Proletarian State (That was what I heard).

He says so but he doesn't do it. It's just empty propaganda. In Venezuela, a private property is virtually untouched. The means of productions in hand of private owners aren't democratized. The government is saying that they fight with bourgeoisie but only thing what they do in such terms is nationalization with compensation... So bourgeoisie is still strong and conspires against the government with great support of American agents.

Venezuela has nothing to do with proletarian state and don't attempt to be it, although their propaganda says something opposite. Venezuela just build a welfare state (benefits for unemployment, relatively high minimal salary, state program of cheap flats, free education, free healthcare, etc.) and its government s a new form of oligarchy similar to oligarchies in Russia and China. In such countries the bourgeoisie don't rule but social relations are very capitalist.

[giordanobr]

Want to reform capitalism is always a mistake. History has shown that not to move the capitalist underpinnings, and is therefore antirevolucionário, does not allow a transition - the bourgeoisie reacts violently to it.