On 2012-01-24, at 9:56 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: " you're also underestimating how "easily solved" is the problem
> of democratic control at the "micro-institutional" level."
>
> [WS:] I meant "easy solved' in comparison to some utopian notions of
> absolute absence of any formal organization that I am currently
> reading about in Graeber's book "Direct Action." I do recognize that
> it is far more difficult in practice, even in nominally socialist
> states. However, I take exception to your blanket assumption that the
> state always sides with managers against workers, although I also
> recognize that anti-statism is well entrenched on this side of the
> pond and arguing against it is an uphill battle.
>
> I think a more accurate view of the state is that of multiple centers
> of bureaucratic power connected to various social interest groups and
> shifting alliances among them. This means that the "state" is not a
> monolith - some elements of it are more likely to side with the bosses
> while other - with workers and for various reasons that constantly
> change. This is true even in the supposedly monolithic socialist
> states - there were different alignments between different parts of
> the technostructure and different factions of the political structure
> and the opposition ...The main point here is that you cannot
> automatically assume that the state is always anti-worker for it
> really depends on historical circumstances.
You're not understanding the theory, associated with Marxism, of the class nature of the state, and therefore offer us only a caricature of it.
It may sometimes appear, as in the case of the New Deal and social democratic governments, that the state is on the side of the working class against capital. It will pass reforms and make other concessions that workers, through their unions and various sectoral movements, have been demanding for some time. But such reforms can only made with the consent of the liberal faction of the ruling class which concludes that they will, on balance and suitably regulated, contribute to economic growth and social peace. This is why reforms are often implemented in response to crises and mass protests which shake the system. Neither the liberal nor the conservative bourgeoisie will, however, consent to fundamental changes which would strip them of their power and property.
So it's in this sense that we can say that the function of the state - despite its relative autonomy to make tactical concessions to the working class at certain junctures - is always and without exception to preserve the capitalist system in the interest of the large private propertyholders. There is no historical example of a state peacefully transferring their power and property to the working class.
To describe the state as either pro- or anti-worker, as you put it, is not very useful. The state has no morality, and neither the liberal nor conservative bourgeoisie for whom it acts as agent would concede that that their policies are biased towards one class at the expense of another, class interests being regarded as harmonious rather than antagonistic. Their differences are largely tactical ones, generally turning on whether stimulus and concessions or austerity and restraint are the best means of restoring balance and growth to a system which is said to benefit everyone, even if unequally. This is, of course, ideology pure and simple which masks class power and how it is exercised through the state, which you, alas, share in common with many social democratic theorists and politicians.