On 2012-01-24, at 5:20 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "You're not understanding the theory, associated with Marxism,
> of the class nature of the state"
>
> [WS:] I think you are not understanding my position - I reject the
> theory associated with Marxism of the class nature of the state not
> caricaturing it. Or to be more precise, I think that Marxist concept
> of class based on the relations to the means of production is not
> worth much, it does not describe social dynamics very accurately
> except in very general and thus not very useful terms, so it follows
> that a class nature of anything including state is not very useful
> either. This I believe is the main point in our disagreement. In
> your view state cannot be pro working class by definition.
Correct. The bourgeois state cannot be pro working class by definition. At best, it can only create the appearance of being so, befuddling many.
> Another point - where did I say that "class interest" or collective
> interest as I would put it are harmonious?
You didn't. I attributed that view to both the liberal and conservative bourgeoisie.
> To be sure, I think they
> are anything but harmonious, they are essentially a power struggle not
> harmony of any sort, but unlike Marxists, I think that tactical
> alliances are all that there is to them. There are no struggles based
> on preordained 'class interests" - only tactical alliances of interest
> groups against other interest groups. Based on that view I do believe
> that a tactical alliance between organized labor is not only possible
> but also desirable, because it results in tangible material benefits
> for workers.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. I never alluded to "tactical alliances" within or between classes. My point was that the bourgeoisie will make tactical concessions to the working class when it adjudges these to be in its economic and political interest, but that it will never accept changes to prevailing power and property relations. This represents a fundamental rather than a tactical difference between the classes, a line in the sand, which is why changing the existing system of property and power relations which we call capitalism could only be settled by force of arms rather than negotiation.
> Will that tactical alliance bring the revolution that
> will abolish wage labor, drudgery and all that jazz? Maybe in heaven,
> but I do not believe in heaven.
Nor do I, but I still don't understand what "alliances" you're harping on about.
> As I see it, this struggle will never
> end even if socialism replaces capitalism all over the world. There
> will be new divisions, new collective interests and new struggles as
> somebody will inevitably get the short end of the stick.
The present conflict between the classes, varying in intensity in different periods, would end if the large propertyholders were expropriated and their control of the political system and means of communication wrested from them. But I agree new divisions, new interests, and new struggles would very likely emerge, though I can't say how deep and enduring they would be or whether these would be between classes or within a classless society, as Marxists suggest.
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
> http://wsokol.blogspot.com/
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk