Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 13:14:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Balancing between capitalists and workers in Capitalist Democracies



Hugh writes:
> 
> Adam interprets what I wrote, to mean what he wants it to mean:
> 

Well I usually find it quite hard to understand what you mean.
So I wrote down what I thought you meant, to give you a chance
to clarify if necessary.

Hugh:
> 
> Trouble is here, you lose some of the dialectical aspect of bourgeois
> democracy in times of "peace" by emphasizing its tendency to move towards
> fascist dictatorship when under threat. 

No, you misread my example.

I didn't give an example which talked showed the capitalists abolishing
the right to strike in general. I showed the use of the state machine to
bus in scabs : the imposition of the right to make profits and the
breaking of the right to strike, in one particular case.

The primary function of the state in the everyday functioning of a 
capitalist democracy is the use of armed force to enforce capitalist
"rights" and therefore to deprive us of ours. It has a monopoly of
armed force. From this all the secondary features : law, control of
education, weights and measures, economic intervention, etc, flow. 

> It's main task in "normal" times is
> to balance the contradictory tendencies of labour and capital while
> ensuring the permanent predominance of capital and the reproduction of
> profit. More a question of making sure the rights of labour aren't taken
> too far, than of depriving labour of these rights.
> 

This is just wrong.

The task of the state is NOT to "balance the contradictory tendencies of labour
and capital". It is to act in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole,
in opposition to the interests of Labour. This may at times require acting
against the interest of some section of capitalists, and/or giving concessions
to workers, in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole.

What struck me about all your posts so far re:capitalist democracy is that you
do not mention the role of that social layer whose role is precisely to
"balance the contradictory tendencies of labour and capital while
ensuring the permanent predominance of capital and the reproduction of
profit" - namely, the trade union bureaucracy. You are aware that this happens,
and quite wrongly assign this function to the state, whereas it is
the trade union bureaucracy which actually performs this essential, 
defining task, in a capitalist democracy. 

You are right to argue that what distinguishes capitalist democracy from other forms
of capitalist rule is that in this type of capitalist state, there is a great deal
of "balanc[ing of] the contradictory tendencies of labour and capital while
ensuring the permanent predominance of capital and the reproduction of
profit" going on. But it is not the state which does this, it is primarily
the trade union bureaucracy. [ Indeed, your sentence could almost be read as 
a bureaucrat's job description ].

Concretely, the defeat of the miners strike of 1984-5 was far more to do with this
layer and its politics than any changes in the way the state operates.

Hugh:
>
> Was this clearer?
> 
No.


Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---