DS view on Leninist view of the state as an instrument of the capitalist class

[Asoka89]

This is mainly directed to Leninists, but can apply to anyone who understands Lenin's though. I have read What is To Be Done? / Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism in to completion. I think that Lenin's success in conquering state machinery for the purpose of empowering the working-class. The revolution happened a lot faster than Lenin expected and did not spread, since the revolutions did not follow in Germany and across Western Europe Lenin was right to respond to the failures of war-communism and continue the NEP. Bakurhin in my opinion was right when he opposed Stalin with the “Right-Opposition”, I admire Trotsky and read many of his works, but forced collectivization and industrialization opposed to the NEP was his idea too (Stalin just adopted it and carried it out brutally).

Anyway most of that was irrelevant here is my question, I'm a member of the DSA, and even though I'm on a left-wing fringe of that group (even though the DSA wants worker control over means of production, as opposed to Social Democratic-types we are often compared to)

Lenin said that the state under capitalism was nothing more than a tool of the capitalist class. I have often subscribed to this view and I think that it is partially correct, I think the capitalist class disproportionally influences policy of these states, especially in the neo-liberal era (which is hopefully coming to an end, a softer more “progressive” capitalism should reemerge in decades to come)

In the view of Democratic Socialists, the “instrumentalist” view of the state cannot explain is why numerous reforms have been implemented under democratic capitalism against the fierce resistance of capitalists. Nor can it explain why some capitalist societies have stronger welfare states and greater democratic controls over capital than do others. Certainly structural dependence upon corporate investment to reproduce conditions of prosperity constrains democratic governments. The flight of capital has hindered liberal and social democratic reforms. But in times of depression, war, or mass political mobilization (e.g., the 1930s, World War II, the 1960s), the state has implemented reforms that have curtailed the rights of capital and increased popular power. To preserve the legitimacy of democratic government (and, in the long run, democratic capitalism itself), the state must respond to popular mobilization. In part, this is possible because the capitalist class does not directly rule under capitalism. While the demands of corporate and defense industry lobbyists heavily influence politicians and state bureaucrats, the major goal of politicians is to guarantee reelection through steady economic growth. Capitalist interests are often divided among themselves (importers versus exporters, finance versus manufacturing, etc.), thus providing state officials with a certain degree of autonomy. In
times of economic crisis and/or popular mobilization, state managers and political elites will sometimes advocate programs for economic recovery which are initially opposed by most capitalists. Politicians need to win elections and capitalists simply do not have enough votes to guarantee victory.

In the long run, however, if popular mobilization does not persist, reforms will often be restructured to shift the balance of power back towards capital (e.g., the reintroduction of regressive taxation; cutting of benefits; deregulation; weaker
enforcement of labor laws, and so on). State officials are always constrained by the need for business confidence and continued private investment. State policy results from class and political conflict, but the asymmetry of the capital-labor relationship stacks the deck against popular movements. Only by building strong trade unions, community organizations, and socialist parties can the left redress this imbalance of forces.

In other words the STATE can take different forms, Capital will flee/ Capitalists will try to undermine in any way a progressive state, but not all Capitalist states are equal.

What is the response of the Leninist? Can you agree with any of this? Am I simplifying the view of Lenin, was his view merely the product of his times?

[bezdomni]

Bakurhin in my opinion was right when he opposed Stalin with the “Right-Opposition”, I admire Trotsky and read many of his works, but forced collectivization and industrialization opposed to the NEP was his idea too (Stalin just adopted it and carried it out brutally).

How do you admire Trotsky when you think Bukharin was right? Also, you do realize that the NEP was designed to be temporary, and that the Soviet Union was already on its way to collectivized agriculture and massive industrialization. Do you oppose collectivized agriculture and industrialization or something? You're using the "forced collectivization" rhetoric that is such a loved phrase by anti-communists.


Lenin said that the state under capitalism was nothing more than a tool of the capitalist class. I have often subscribed to this view and I think that it is partially correct, I think the capitalist class disproportionally influences policy of these states, especially in the neo-liberal era (which is hopefully coming to an end, a softer more “progressive” capitalism should reemerge in decades to come)

Lenin's argument (made in State and Revolution) comes directly from Marx. It is not just that the state is a "tool" of the ruling class...but that the sole purpose for the existence of a state is for one class to use it to suppress the interests of another class. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie use the state to suppress the interests of the proletariat and the broad masses. In socialism, the proletariat uses the state to suppress the bourgeois influences, for the development of socialism, and for the transition to classless, stateless society.

This is an idea common to all Marxist-Leninists.


cannot explain is why numerous reforms have been implemented under democratic capitalism against the fierce resistance of capitalists.

Yes we can. The bourgeoisie make "reforms" for two reasons:
1) External pressures force them to make a concession, often benefits the masses (but doesn't necessarily). An example would be the 40-hour work week.
2) Internal contradictions within the bourgeois class, generally not ultimately helpful to the masses (but again, not necessarily). An example would be "right to work" laws, or constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.


Nor can it explain why some capitalist societies have stronger welfare states and greater democratic controls over capital than do others.
Yes, it can. Some capitalist societies (i.e. most western european countries) have a strong welfare state because they lack any widely-exploited sector of society in relation to the amount of finance capital that their national economy sucks in. Other capitalist countries (i.e. the United States) have very poor welfare states because there are large exploited (in the marxist sense of the word) sectors of society.


In the long run, however, if popular mobilization does not persist, reforms will often be restructured to shift the balance of power back towards capital

where do you think the power is right now?!


Only by building strong trade unions, community organizations, and socialist parties can the left redress this imbalance of forces.

You're a bit short sighted there. Only by making a communist revolution can the proletariat abolish private property and lead humanity to liberation.




In other words the STATE can take different forms, Capital will flee/ Capitalists will try to undermine in any way a progressive state, but not all Capitalist states are equal.

True, but all capitalist states are the same in that they based entirely on exploitation and no general change for the better can come about until the entire capitalist mode of production is abolished.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Do we have the board's second "right-communist"/"Bukharinite," or the board's first neo-Kautskyist? [Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, since you raise some good points]

Seriously:

We realize that PRIVATE capital will flee, and that is why revolution must be global.


State policy results from class and political conflict, but the asymmetry of the capital-labor relationship stacks the deck against popular movements. Only by building strong trade unions, community organizations, and socialist parties can the left redress this imbalance of forces.

You should read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm) by Karl Kautsky. Your implied separation of "socialism" from the labour movement is spot on (albeit a tragic one, since that means more work for us).

In the meantime, you should read up on the more recent "globalization of unions" (Google it up), because that will limit the places to where PRIVATE capital can flee.




You're a bit short sighted there. Only by making a communist revolution can the proletariat abolish private property and lead humanity to liberation.

He said "can the left redress this imbalance of forces," not "can the left proceed with the destruction of capital." :glare:

I think he has a better grasp of minimum versus maximum demands than you do.

[Asoka89]

How do you admire Trotsky when you think Bukharin was right? Also, you do realize that the NEP was designed to be temporary, and that the Soviet Union was already on its way to collectivized agriculture and massive industrialization. Do you oppose collectivized agriculture and industrialization or something? You're using the "forced collectivization" rhetoric that is such a loved phrase by anti-communists.Well I'm glad that the Soviet Union collectivized, I think it was important, I think Stalin's war against the Kulaks is not what many of our comrades on the Left want it protrayed as, many, many innocents perished and development could have come in a different framework, productive forces in the Soviet Union in the 20s are different than productive forces in America in the 21st. Industrialization could have occured alongside the NEP, look how other Social Democratic/Capitalist states used the Soviet model 5 year plans without fully state-capitalist economics. Perhaps under someone like Trotsky the human toll of the economic advances wouldn't have been there, in that case of course I would support the industrialization.

I wouldn't call myself a right-communist, I am an advocate of a balanced and fair view of the USSR and the Eastern Blocs as states that attempted to build socialism and had victories and defeats, I also defend Cuba as a workers' state, something many people well to the left of me refuse to do.


Yes we can. The bourgeoisie make "reforms" for two reasons:
1) External pressures force them to make a concession, often benefits the masses (but doesn't necessarily). An example would be the 40-hour work week.
2) Internal contradictions within the bourgeois class, generally not ultimately helpful to the masses (but again, not necessarily). An example would be "right to work" laws, or constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.By and large I agree with you, but my main point is that I think the Capitalist class does not directly control the state in the 21st century, I think they indirectly control much of the state, especially lets say in America today. I think that labor and other progressive forces within Capitalist society, or people of conscious and solidarity within Capitalism do battle with the bourgeoisie state and use in the best of climates whatever political democracy we have and win battles against the bourgeois.

I believe that Socialism in some forms have evolved within Capitalism (regulations, public sectors etc) against the wishes of the bourgeois. The ruling class wants to get rid of Social Security in America and put it in the hands of the market fully, elements of the legislative/labor/progressive forces have prevented that, in short, gains that have been won and protected weren't concessions given to us by the Capitalist class in modern liberal democracies, but rather WON by non-Capitalist interests.



where do you think the power is right now?! In the hands of an ultra-reactionary elite that pursue policies that benefit a select few... but it can be won back to an extent.



True, but all capitalist states are the same in that they based entirely on exploitation and no general change for the better can come about until the entire capitalist mode of production is abolished.Agreed. But it is also my belief that so far in terms of human welfare and respect for human rights and life, the greatest states were probably based upon the Social Democratic values, but Social Democracy is a system in crisis that one that does not fundamentally address the fact that Capitalism is a system based upon exploitation and inequality, a system that claims millions and need to be replaced. Social Democracy, or attempting to simulate the effects of Socialism within the Capitalist framework does not go far enough. Totalitarianism is not appealing to me either, neither do I think much about Communism and the whithering away of the state, I don't see that happening within centuries of a Socialist state arising and who knows whether it will be necessary if Socialism is enacted in the right way and people have control over their own lives and the chance to reach their creative potential within Socialism.

Mao thought that the third world would start the revolution not the first world, we arent going to have a revolution tomorrow in the heart of the Empire. The dichotomy between reform and revolution doesn't make much sense for us in the United States. Redressing the political situation and limiting the power of capital, by boosting union and labor power, encouraging civil action... that kind of society will be one that would be more adapt to at least attempting to move to sometype of Socialism and that change would be revolutionary for such a conservative, reactionary country like the United States.

As for the 3rd World, I support revolutionary movements that aren't nihilistic/fatalistic and actually have a chance at success and improving the standing of the working-class. The fatalism of the Shining Path etc, is something I don't support, the Maoist in Nepal I did. That's why I consider myself different than normal Democratic Socialist / pure reformist, because if one of you hardliners started a revolution here today, I would be by your side.

[RNK]

my main point is that I think the Capitalist class does not directly control the state in the 21st century, I think they indirectly control much of the state, especially lets say in America today.

I can not agree with this, although I think I understand, generally, the reasoning behind it.

Bourgeois democracy does indeed contain many avenues that progressives can use to try and make minor changes in the system. Labour laws, welfare systems, healthcare, etc, have all come into existence through capitalist reforms, often as SP said under external pressure or through internal progressive forces.

However, these small progressive steps do not indicate any sort of lack of control. They amount to little more than concessions.


I think that labor and other progressive forces within Capitalist society, or people of conscious and solidarity within Capitalism do battle with the bourgeoisie state and use in the best of climates whatever political democracy we have and win battles against the bourgeois.

I would personally refrain from calling them "battles". Most progressive laws that have been enacted, yes, have come after popular demand, but none of the progressive laws that have been born out of the past 100 years has done anything to threaten the monopoly of capitalist politics. Minimum wage, universal healthcare, laws protecting unionization, and other progressive tendencies do not threaten the bourgeoisie. They still sit on their "pedestals", raking in the enormous profit of the working masses, and have to do little more than throw down "bread crumbs" to satisfy most mass upheavels. Even if the modern bourgeois state was to become radically progressive to the point of social democracy, class antagonisms and class contradiction would still exist, as would exploitation and its myriad of effects. Social and economic inequality will continue to exist until the basic factors for its existence are first identified and then rectified. Even in your social democratic utopia, the working masses would not in any way be free -- they would simply be made more comfortable with their exploitation, and less willing to rise against it.

[Asoka89]

Well keep in mind I will never be happy with any state unless it has worker control over the means of production, I just reject certain parts of Leninism.

I also reject some of the hard-core Marxist-Leninist groups that think that imperialism/economic interests are the SOLE motivation behind every action by imperialist powers. I think that some wars, IE Kosovo were genuinely misguided attempts at "Liberal Interventionalism" .. I'll write about this in another thread.

I just wanted to get at I think the state is more nuanced today then it was back then/ some Leninist think it is today. Just like Negri/Hardt updated some of Lenin with Empire I think the view of the state is a bit different in political democracies, and I think democracy is needed on the road to and during socialism (though I still hold Cuba as a workers' state for example)