> I can only speak for myself. I don't know any "Somalia"
> references except from you, so move on to the other one.
This was self-criticism - this analogy was a hyperbole.
> No-one asked me about my "theory of the state," but it does
> not involve the idea that the "bourgeoisie speak in one
> voice." After all, they have all sorts of competing
> interests. They also don't agree on a course of action or
> communicate it to the government. Instead, there are a whole
> bunch of different organizations (think tanks, the GOP, the
> Democratic Party, the National Association of Manufacturers,
> the Council on Foreign Relations, etc., etc.) They present
> programs and visions, they point to problems and propose
> solutions. Some of these programs are backed by more money
> than others (campaign contributions, bribes, etc.) and so
> have much more influence than others. Their influence biases
> the entire electoral system so that it's extremely hard for
> people without sufficient money to oppose them.
It seems like your relationship between state and bourgeoisie is a tautology. First you deny that bourgeoisie speaks in one voice, which is a necessary pre-condition for that class to define their "common interests" and then force the state government to pursue them. Instead you claim that it is the state that defines those interests from which it follows that whatever the state does it must be in the interests of the bourgeoisie. This, in your argument seems to be true by definition and cannot be empirically refuted.
One certainly may get such an impression by watching the US state for the past twenty years, but that is a rather limited empirical range. State government in various countries were controlled by various social classes, sometimes by the bourgeoisie, sometime by the alliance of bourgeoisie and land owners (who are not bourgeoisie!), and sometimes by the working class or some sort of alliance of working and professional classes. The latter was and still is true of the Scandinavian countries, where the government is controlled by labor since 1930 and it is implementing the labor agenda including to nationalization of industry, which was at some point considered but then abandoned. And it does so against the wishes of the bourgeoisie that has no other choice but go along, screaming and kicking. Then, of course you have labor parties in virtually every European state that at various time controlled state governments and pursued pro-labor agendas, against capitalist opposition.
These are empirical facts well documented in literature - so there is no point reiterating this here. The question remains how do we treat that empirical evidence? If we accept Marxist view that state is nothing but executive committee of bourgeoisie as given, then the only thing we can do is to develop some sort of problemshift (to use the Lakatos' phrase) to neutralize evidence that states not always implement the bourgeois agenda. Hence the propositions that this evidence is some kind of exception from the norm, that in those particular circumstances the state had to act against bourgeoisie to save it from its own excesses, or that exceptional circumstances, such as economic crisis or social unrest demanded it.
It is precisely what I find objectionable in Marxism - it became faith true by definition, and ceased to be empirical science. If a hypothesis cannot be disproved by evidence, it becomes a religious dogma. That is fine if someone is looking for religion, but I personally have little interest in it.
> (2) the civil rights movement is easier: it was a large
> popular movement from outside the normal political channels
> that reacted specifically to Jim Crow but shook the whole
> political establishment.
> Something had to be done before the movement got out of hand!
> J. Edgar did his repressive and illegal part, but that wasn't
> enough. Reforms were needed, especially since some
> capitalists saw the Jim Crow South as an obsolete way to do
> things, in fact blocking the movement of capital.
I disagree with this interpretation. Civil Rights movement would run out of steam before leading to any significant changes if it were not for the support of the federal government. And the federal government supported the civil rights movement mainly because of the cold war and the challenge posed by the USSR - in other words did it for the reasons of national security rather than to promote the collective interest of the bourgeoisie. Again, we can a priori declare that the two are synonymous, in which case we again enter the domain of tautology and ultimately religion, or we can pose it as an empirical problem i.e. examine under what circumstances they coincide and under what they do not. The latter, however, logically implies that state not always pursues interests of the bourgeoisie - or for that matter any other social class - but acts to in its own right.
>
> (3) the war on poverty was largely a reaction to the civil
> rights movement. Its size was much much smaller than that of
Again, I disagree, War on poverty was largely a result of Vietnam war that was fought with a conscript army. If you ask poor people to fight, you have to give something in return. That is why conscript army is a strong democratizing force - something that the peace activists forgot. The reason why Bush administration can fight a war and cut the social agenda at the same time is mainly because US Army is no longer conscript but professional mercenaries. The government simply hires mercenaries and sends them for a mission - it does not ask the general population for a sacrifice anymore, which would necessitate concessions. In fact, the administration can claim that by using mercenary force it actually gives something to the population ("security") and demand concessions from the public. That is why he thought he could roll back social security.
Marvin:
> There are instances when social crises are so deep that both
> the liberal and conservative bourgeoisie unite to curtail or
> eliminate the right to social protest, often violently.
> Fascism is the most conspicuous instance of this situation.
> Effectively, the bourgeoisie agrees to transfer "emergency
> powers" to a strong state and to limit its independence and
> market perogatives in order to protect itself against
> revolutionary movements from below. Fascism is the strongest
> expression of the "relative autonomy" of the state under capitalism.
>
> Honestly, did you not know all this already? What evidence do
> you have contradict this?
As I said in my response to Jim D above, it is not about knowing the facts - but how they relate to the theory. I strongly suspect that both Jim and you are unwilling to let facts interfere with the Marxist theory of state, and thus tend to neutralize any empirical evidence of state not pursuing the bourgeois agenda as some sort of exception. If one a priori assumes that whatever state does it must be in the interest of the bourgeoisie, the of course that claim cannot be possible refuted by any evidence - and any instances of state not acting for the collective interests of the bourgeoisie are interpreted as extraordinary circumstances, external forces, crises, etc. rather than a proof that state may be independent of bourgeoisie. Again, this is how I interpreted what you posted on the subject - I do not mean to impute thoughts to you.
I understand that looking at this problem exclusively from the US perspective, especially last 20 or so years, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the fed is anything but an errand boy of the corporate elites. But keep it in mind that there are many countries in which the power of bourgeoisie is much more limited and government either balances it with other class interest or (as in Scandinavia) pretty much disregards it. The US is a creation of big business, so labor and other anti-business forces have always been weak here comparing to Europe - so no wonder that big business calls most of the shots here, but this an exception rather than a rule. In most other countries, business and bourgeoisie face much stronger opposition and state governments reflect that.
Wojtek