>>Max writes: >If you think the state is the executive committee of the
>>bourgeoisie, than you are a public choice theorist too.<
Brad sighs:
>Marx did not write in the _Manifesto_ that the state is the executive
>committee of the bourgeoisie.
>
>He wrote that the executive of the modern state is a committee for
>managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie--suggesting that the
>democratically-elected legislature of the modern state is something else.
It is clear that the democratically-elected legislature in most countries
is more representative of the people than is the executive branch, which is
more likely to be beholden to the bourgeoisie. However, this depends on how
well non-bourgeois forces are organized and class-conscious. If the working
class is atomized and considers itself as "middle class" (only a slightly
exaggerated picture of the US), then the legislature by-and-large
represents capital, given the latter''s massive monetary resources for
influencing politics. Politics is basically about debates within the
bourgeoisie (Boy George Bush vs. McCain vs. Gore/Bradley). On the other
hand, if the working class is well organized and class conscious (as in
Chile in 1970), not only may the legislature but the executive may be
subordinated to non-bourgeois forces.
The problem, of course, is that in the Chilean case, the repressive
component of the state (the armed forces) stepped in to suppressed the
democratic component -- aided and abetted by the US and US-based
multinational corporations -- so that capitalism and the international
relationships of domination could be restored to their "normal" status. In
the situation of Chile in 1973, either capitalism was going to be preserved
by military force or there had to be a socialist break from capitalism.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui
il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people
talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
