> 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 subscribe to the historical materialist view that the state arises out of class society and that it's character has evolved in conjuction with changes in the underlying system of class relations rather than the other way round. This doesn't preclude the state from necessarily exercising some autonomy from the ruling class in order to maintain the cohesion and authority of the latter. In periods of rapid change and great social turbulence, it can be called upon to exercise a high degree of autonomy, the fascist and Stalinist states being outstanding contemporary examples. But ultimately the state acts as the instrument, the executive committee, of the ruling class.
> 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.
The anarchists are proudly anti-statist and some leftist intellectuals and activists don't appreciate how much in common they have with that tradition.
> ...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.
This turns things on their head. Strong states are, by definition, those where democratic rights don't exist and social movements and dissenting individuals are surpressed and forced underground, where they are required to struggle for the establishment or restoration of those rights. The logic of the position you express is that the left in the advanced capitalist countries should fight for the abolition of democratic rights and institutions on grounds that "the stronger the state, the more power the subordinate class has (or perhaps can have) vis a vis the upper class." You surely don't beleive that.
> Of course, there has been exceptions, such as the fascist state of
> Germany...
The rule, not the exception. See above.
> 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.
The fascist state was created by the Spanish, Italian, Chilean, and Argentinian landowners and capitalists, who correctly perceived that the parliamentary democratic form was too weak to protect their interests against rapidly developing mass movements from below.
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.
"Socialism" means different things to different people - an advanced welfare capitalist state to some, the replacement of the capitalist state to others - which has influenced how much historical significance each has attached to Sweden and social democratic parties as agents of change.
> 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.
Sorry, Woj. I insist you've got it ass backwards.