Browsing the archive at csf.colorado.edu, I noticed that my posting on this
subject was blank. I then posted it again, when pen-l was down, so it
didn't show up at all. So here it is again. I'm sorry if this is a
repetition. It's in response to Max Sawicki.
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:36:34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
Since I'm very busy today, just a quick note on Max's comment on the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. (I'll postpone commenting on Postone.)
Scholars such as Hal Draper have shown pretty convincingly that for Marx,
if not for Max, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is synonymous
with "proletarian democracy." (The word "dictatorship" has changed its
meaning since the 19th century, while most of Marx's followers and
opponents have changed the meaning of the D of P.) In line with this, the
view that the US and other capitalist countries have a "dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie" -- i.e., that the state is the executive committee of the
capitalist class -- is equivalent to saying that the US has _bourgeois
democracy_. It doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie is in any way monolithic
and automatically comes to agreements that are totally beneficial to their
class. The only automatic agreements are those concerning the basics of the
protection of capitalist property. Things get very fuzzy when they discuss
the future, what to do, etc. There they often split between different
factions and ideologies (Democrats vs. Republicans, etc.)
That democracy is aimed mostly at allowing the capitalists to come to
agreements amongst themselves, though outside-the-beltway pressure from the
proletariat can win reforms that don't quite fit with what the capitalists
want. (It's been awhile since that's happened in the US.)
Also, we should remember C. Wright Mills' distinction between the ruling
class (the economic class that dominates society as a whole) and the power
elite (the small group of people who make the political decisions). Even
though the logic of profit-seeking and accumulation dominate US society,
the very rich (the elite group of capitalists) may only be a minority of
the power elite. Military types, professional politicians, and bureaucrats
play a role. In some cases, e.g., Nazi Germany, the very rich end up being
shunted from the power elite even though they still dominate the economy
and have a massive influence on the operations of the government.
The Nazi dictatorship (now using the word "dictatorship" in the 20th
century way), BTW, shows that even a _total despotism_ isn't monolithic.
Hitler had to compromise with a bunch of different political forces (the
SS, the Wehrmacht, capitalists, etc.) It wasn't monolithic.
Max writes >we ... have to consider the possibility that Democratic members
of Congress, with no manifest popular agitation, can still do the right
thing sometimes, because they represent their constituents' interests to
some extent, so there is some scope for parliamentary politics.<
They represent their constituents to some extent -- constrained by the
nature of capitalist politics, the rule by campaign contributions, PACs,
etc., along with the entire way that the state is structured (including the
exclusion of many key issues, like monetary policy, from democratic
purview). As I said, further, some of these constituents are protectionist
small and medium-size businesses. Non-business plays a role, as no-one has
denied, since labor and other excluded groups have been able to win some
democratic rights.
BTW, I am not one to get into moralistic dismissal of the Congressional
Representatives. The point is simply this: Ron Dellums (e.g.) isn't a
relatively good Congressman because he's Ron Dellums. He's relatively good
because of his district, a very active and politically-conscious left-wing
district (or at least it was last time I checked). It's the long-term
agitation in that district that created a "good" district.
>To say that sometimes the ruling class is divided (something of a
contradiction in terms, what?) and sometimes it isn't looks like another
out. <
It's not an "out." You are asking people to adhere to a political theory
that they don't accept. You want people to see that they're _really_
adhering to a conspiracy theory, so that once we see that, we'll accept
_your_ (superior) theory. But most Marxism is very skeptical of conspiracy
theories. (Not that conspiracies never happen: it's just that we can't
explain the broad sweep of history with them, especially since conspiracies
aren't omnipotent and compete with each other.)
>But then it isn't really a dictatorship, and politics need not be confined
to extra- parliamentary venues.<
Under capitalism, intra-parliamentary venues are dominated by money. I'm
not against the kind of polite lobbying and education work that EPI does.
Not at all (if I had some money, maybe I'd give some to EPI). But the
influence that EPI has exists not because its accurate statistics but
because of what remains of the power of labor unions. That is, it arises
from extra-parliamentary venues.
Lobbyists, politicians, and other denizens of the parliamentary deeps can
help build the extraparliamentary forces that can win them some elbow room
so that they can break from the constraints of capitalist politics.
Unfortunately, the careerism of the vast majority of politicians (with the
notable case of Clinton burning our retinas) prevents them from doing so.
They go the path of least resistance, seeking campaign bucks and the powers
of incumbency.
See you folks on Saturday or Sunday. I'm leaving town...
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
