I have some difficulty following your argument. On the one hand, you seem to recognize the crucial importance of political institutions, esp. th estate in shaping class relations, but on th eother hand you seem to fall into the old leftist fallacy of the state being the key factor, if not the source of the class society.
I think that this anti-statism of a large segment of the left is the main source of its political marginalization and irrelevance. They just do not get it how important the state is for their cause. Much has been written about the central importance of the state for shaping class relations (cf. Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer & Theda Skocpol, eds., 1985, *Bringing the State Back In*, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press for a starter and also Robert Brenner, 1982, Agrarian class structure and economic development in pre-industrial Europe, *Past & Present,* 97:16-113 for a historical perspective).
In a nutshell, far from being the "source" of class relations, the state is a moderator of those relations that makes it possible, under certain conditions, for the subordinate class to have some power vis a vis the upper class. Or putting it differently, the stronger the state, the more power the subordinate class has (or perhaps can have) vis a vis the upper class, the weaker the state the more power the upper class has and the greater opportunity to directly exploit the subordinate class.
Of course, there has been exceptions, such as the fascist state of Germany - but it is also worth pointing out that fascism-like rule was more prevalent in countries where state was relatively weak vis a vis the upper classes, especially landowners, cf. Spain, Italy, Chile or Argentina. Otoh, Sweden, the paragon of social democracy and arguably the closest thing to real socialism that we ever had, had a strong monarchy and thereafter the state and a weak upper class.
To reiterate - a strong state is the only hope of achieving social democracy (if not socialism), whereas a weak state means more power to bourgeoisie and more opportunity to directly exploit the working class.
Wojtek
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
> "Face it. The US political system is plutocracy, not democracy.
> Always has been."
> ========================
> It's both. We've lived in a world of capitalist states for centuries. All
> have been "plutocratic" instruments of class rule, although not all have
> been parliamentary democracies based on the universal franchise. The
> suggestion seems to be that the fact capitalist states are all plutocracies
> renders their political character as parliamentary democracies superfluous;
> the only democracy worth defending, by implication, being socialist
> democracy. But it's only necessary to point to fascism, the extreme
> expression of the antidemocratic capitalist state, to illustrate the
> crucial
> distinction between the two forms of capitalist rule. And to recall that
> the
> old labour and socialist movement shed much blood to win and defend
> so-called bourgeois democratic rights - particularly those pertaining to
> the
> right to vote and organize and to form political parties and unions -
> primarily for the purpose of acquiring power and changing social relations
> and not solely as ends in themselves. That struggle continues, though in a
> more muted way.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>