On The State As Control Of Class Antagonisms

[black magick hustla]

It is basic marxist theory that the state is the manifestation of the dictatorship of a certain class. in capitalist countries, the state is the manifestation of the dictatorshop of the bourgeosie and such state protects the property of the bourgeosie and tries to prevent that full fledged class warfare takes place.

however, what exactly makes that statesmen "punch papers" for the bourgeosie? certainly, many politicians aren't really that wealthy, and much of them aren't "bourgeosie".

Then, why do they serve the capitalist class?

Many of those politicians sincerely think that by helping the bourgeosie they are indeed helping their country, mainstream economics argue that helping the buisness sector ultimately helps the working class, because the capitalists have the capital to invest, create new mediums of production, and ulitmately, create employment. in capitalism, the politician cannot afford to scare away those who hold capital, because if they scare them away, they would eventually foster unemployment and poverty.


while it is true that there are many politicians that are "bought" by the capitalists, i think that ultimately what makes the state the dictatorship of the bourgeosie is the adaptation of mainstream economics by professional politicians.

what do you think?

[loveme4whoiam]

I think that those politicians who genuinly (bad sp) do think that they are serving the people (an extremely rare creature) think that, like so many people must do, that they can change the system from within better than they can from without. Whereas we, all smart sane people :D, know that reformism gets you precisely nowhere, they don't know this, or they are scared by the alternative.

Of course, this does just apply to the 0.001% of politicians in some form of office who care about the effect their job has on other people. The rest are there only to expand their own personal power.

[Sentinel]

Well I think it's quite clear why the reformist politicians in a bourgeois democracy must do as the bourgeoisie tells them to: They have no other option than either that or a revolution and they know it.

Reformist 'leftist' governments are held hostage by the ruling class. The companies threaten to outsource their production from the country, should the gov. try to enforce workers rights.

The bourgeois media would then blame the resulting unemployment on the government, which would lose all it's popularity. The only way for the government to efficiently tackle this move would be an open conflict with the bourgeoisie.

Which they would never dare to do, as they aren't revolutionary leftists but either cowards or ..yeah, sell-outs. Revolution is the only option, capitalism will never evolve peacefully into communism.

Now many of you perhaps think about Chavez in Venezuela.. Although he admittedly seems promising at times, I'm afraid that if he is serious about socialism, a civil war against the US-backed bourgeoisie is written in the stars.

It remains to see if he'll go the revolutionary way, all the way..

[STI]

A lot of the time, politicians owe their carreers to wealthy backers - it's getting more and more expensive to win an election for Governor, Primier, Senator, whatever. Forget about President.

So, in order to "repay" their once-helpful "friends" in the ruling class, but more importantly to ensure a "repeat performence", those in positions of political power will make it their job to act in the interest of said wealthy "friends".

And quite often, I'm sure a lot of politicians actually buy the crap they talk... they've bought into bourgeois ideology (just like they're supposed to, being members of an advanced capitalist society), so it just follows that they'll act upon that.

[Janus]

Then, why do they serve the capitalist class?
Like STI says, it is that class that helps them gain power.

Just look at the major campaign contributions that wealthy backers bring to their pockets. A politician may say that he is a people's man but in reality he is chained to the interests of the capitalist class.

[KC]

Politicians sell their labour-power to the bourgeoisie in the form of campaign funding.

[LoneRed]

I dont necessarily know about that KC. Yes the companies give them money, in exchange for certain services, bills passed, positions taken, i dont know if we can talk about labor value. I would definitely go so far as to say, thats it kind of a hand and leash relationship, the politician, a despicable human being, is being carried around on the leash by the bourgeoisie, has lost all his own reason, but instead does what the capitalist does.


Rick

[Intelligitimate]

The best book I can recommend on the subject is Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. While not a Marxist, I can think of no better substantiation of the Marxist idea of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie than this work.

[Morpheus]

If the government does something that hurts capitalists' profits, capitalists will withdraw their investments because they are no longer as pofitable. This will cause the economy to crash, and the politicians who moved against the capitalists to lose the election. Even if the state doesn't have free elections, a crashed economy will cut the state's tax base and make it harder for it to mobilize the economy for whatever ends it wants (war, enriching the dictator, etc.). Usually the mere threat of capital flight is sufficient to keep politicians in line. This is one reasons why socialists start acting like capitalists when they win elections.

[La Comédie Noire]

know that reformism gets you precisely nowhere,

Agreed reformism is like building sand castles eventually it just falls apart reverting back to a simple lump of sand. The politician even the small statesmen with romantic ideals is like any other part of a well oiled capitalist machine, interchangable. It is not the man that makes the office but what the office entails he doe's and whom tells the goverment what to do?