On 2012-01-25, at 4:32 PM, Eric Beck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Holy crap, I agree with Marv about something!
Let's hope it's the beginning of a trend. :)
>> To describe the state as either pro- or anti-worker, as you put it, is not very useful. The state has no morality,
>
> Well maybe not so much. This sounds like you are saying the state is
> empty and can be filled with any sort of content.
No, I'm arguing against that proposition. The bourgeoisie supplies the state's content. In a capitalist system, the state is necessarily a bourgeois state. It is the wealthy bourgeoisie, not the working class, which constitutes it, sits in its legislature, and passes laws designed to advance and protect capitalist interests above those of all other classes.
> Over the the long
> term, like centuries, yes, in the sense that states can only attach to
> social formations. For now and the foreseeable future, though, the
> state is always a *national* state. So any politics that uses the
> state will have to reckon with the limits of the national form of the
> state, ranging, I guess, from Keynesianism/socialism (pro-worker) on
> end end to fascism/totalitarianism (antiworker) on the other.
Yes, politics is still predominantly national, although corporate interests are increasingly transnational, and as events in Europe demonstrate, class conflict is also beginning to spill over national borders.
It's misleading to describe Keynesianism as "pro-worker". It is preeminently the pro-capitalist ideology of the liberal bourgeoisie from which working people have benefited indirectly insofar as Keynesian demand management involves improving or restoring their living standards in order to stimulate consumer spending and reduce social conflict. Keynes and most of his followers would have no difficulty choosing sides if the workers fulfilled the hopes of Marxists and sought to strip the capitalists of their political power and property, although Keynesians accept some forms of public ownership as a temporary expedient in extraordinary circumstances.