What Socialists Should Know.

Dave Gardner

Socialists need to understand what the state is and how it can help or hinder progress towards socialism. Societies can exist without a state but the reality is that, when a society becomes complex or is threatened by neighbouring societies it will develop a state. A state is an organisation that enjoys a monopoly of force against both internal and external enemies within a more or less well-defined territory. To a greater or lesser extent it relies on the implicit allegiance of most of those subject to its rule to ensure its stability. On this communists, socialists, liberals and conservatives agree, but on little else.

By far the most influential thinking about the state in the West is liberal. According to liberalism the state arises out of a contract between individual persons and a central power (‘the sovereign’). In exchange for individuals giving up some or all of their rights, the state undertakes to protect them against internal and external enemies. In liberal thinking the state’s obligations do not extend far beyond that, although some liberals have maintained that the state also has a duty to enforce a limited degree of distribution of opportunities and wealth. But all liberals see the legitimacy of the state based on some kind of contract between the monopoly power that is the state and individual citizens.

The functions of the state.

There are two major problems with this approach. The first is that the modern state has a much more extensive role than policing and defence, even in the most liberal societies. States have been obliged to attend to health, pensions, education, the unemployed and economically inactive, housing, money and economic development. Nationalist economists like Friedrich List maintained that modern states have to develop economically in order to be viable and to do this they need to direct economic development through regulation of external trade, the provision of a currency, education and public works to provide the necessary infrastructure.  In practice all modern states do this, but liberal theory does not seem able to account for it.

The second major problem is that the relationships between the state and citizens should not be seen as the relationship between a monolithic entity and individuals. In any society, with or without a state, people congregate in groups such as families, clans, churches/mosques/temples, businesses, political parties and trade unions. Their relationship with the state is mediated through these groupings to which most people also owe an allegiance. Their relationship with these institutions is usually much closer and day-to-day than it is to the state which seems abstract and remote. Therefore the society which the state governs is usually complex and composed of different interests, the most important two of which are the competing interests of labour and capital discussed in the previous article on class struggle. But there are also very often different religious, linguistic and national affiliations which can give rise to competition or even tension. Liberal theory has difficulty in recognising these fundamental facts.

The institutions of the state.

With a few exceptions liberals have not looked closely at the internal complexity of the state. Locke, a seventeenth century liberal, recognised that the state had legislative, executive and judicial powers, corresponding to a parliament, a sovereign and judiciary. But states also have civil servants, police forces and armies to carry out their various functions. We should bear in mind that the individuals who staff these state institutions are also people with their own interests and allegiances to other bodies as well as to the state. This is a fundamental point that Marx recognised. To gain control of the state is to control all its parts, not just the legislative and executive functions.

The state and social classes: Marx’s insight.

Marx understood that the state was a complex institution ruling over a class-divided society, invariably in the interests of the dominant class. He was not the first to recognise this; the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle understood this as well. Aristotle maintained that a well-governed state, be it a monarchy, oligarchy or democracy, pursued the public interest, that is what is best for all members of the society so that no one group can enjoy security at the expense of the others. He recognised though that many, if not most, societies are misgoverned and the public interest is neglected in favour of the interests of the dominant class or even of a dictator and his entourage.

Marx was more sceptical about the possibility of rule in the public interest than was Aristotle although he recognised that wise rulers will try to maintain the impression that they rule without fear or favour on behalf of the whole society. His main point though is that the state is primarily the instrument of the economically dominant class, in our case, the capitalist class and although concessions may be won by other classes and groups through pressure on the state and class struggle in the workplace and communities, the fundamental relationship does not change unless for some reason an economically subordinate group becomes politically dominant. Class struggle is in part a struggle for control of the state.

Marx’s views are generally met with outrage and scorn on the part of contemporary liberals. But they have very little in the way of arguments against Marx’s insight and ignore the uncomfortable reality of the deeply divided nature of modern societies. Conservatives sometimes fall back on the Aristotelian position, acknowledging the stratified nature of society but insisting that the ruling group is benevolent and governs in the public interest. Marx and Engels considered the capitalist state to be the executive committee of the capitalists and their close allies, but did not go into a great amount of detail into the workings of this executive committee. However, some historians have, notably Lewis Namier who, in his discussion of the politics of eighteenth-century England, showed in detail how a small élite arranged affairs in their interest through the manipulation of electoral politics and the handing out of perks and bribes to influential people within localities where elections needed to be won. Namier presents the workings of the Georgian state in a matter-of-fact way, without passing judgement, but his account fits very well with Marx’s and Engels’s descriptions of the way in which a state operates. Namier was a conservative.

It could be said that the modern state is different because every adult has the vote and can ensure that governments act in the public interest. This view ignores the manipulation of public opinion by powerful media organisations in order to secure allegiance. No-one can have an informed opinion about a matter if they do not have accurate and complete information about it. Those who control the distribution of information in society can ensure that this is not the case, but rather that what is presented is designed to align with their own interests. They thus have direct control over state media but also of media organisations closely aligned with the state. Most mainstream media are owned by wealthy individuals and groups who make it their business to maintain the political status quo. Sometimes they acquire newspapers and television channels for this very purpose. State control of information is a very powerful instrument of political control in modern societies. It is one of the main challenges facing socialists. The rise of the internet has posed a limited challenge to the information monopoly of ruling élites and is sufficiently influential to be regarded with alarm and calls for censorship (or ‘moderating content’ as they prefer to call it). Given the way in which capitalists have accumulated wealth and power since the heyday of trade unionism in the 1970s through legislation, coercion, informational manipulation and the distribution of offices and perks, it is difficult to see how Marx’s diagnosis was wrong. It is also important to gaining the allegiance of the working class that there is at least the semblance of prosperity and attention to their needs. Economic growth is an important means of gaining this. But faltering growth and living standards since 2008 has placed this method of obtaining allegiance to the capitalist state in jeopardy. Even the perception of economic decline can lead to anger and apathy rather than to purposive action if there is no political leadership. But to recognise this is also to recognise that the tasks of anyone, who like socialists. wish to bring about a redistribution of wealth and power is a formidable one indeed. Better though to recognise the reality than to live in illusion

The Problem of Political Power.

In British politics majority party control over the House of Commons is necessary for legislative change. Even without control, powerful parties in parliament and the country can ‘change the political weather’ by forcing other parties to take account of the public opinion represented by them. To a limited extent this was true of Jeremy Corbyn’s 4 year leadership of the Labour Party. The Tories under Theresa May were obliged to pay attention to the needs of sections of the working class (the ‘just about managing’). With Corbyn gone, neither Labour or the Tories see the need for paying such attention. Although the Workers’ Party seriously alarms the liberal and capitalist establishment it is not yet in a position to change the political weather to any significant extent. But you can be sure that a Worker’s Party with significant parliamentary representation would change the political climate in Britain to a considerable degree, forcing working class interests and socialist proposals back onto the political agenda after many years’ absence. 

Gaining political power and wielding it effectively is however a different and more difficult proposition. To do so, a majority in the House of Commons is necessary but not sufficient. A party in power with a socialist mandate would meet the most ferocious and ruthless opposition up to and including violence. A socialist majority in the House of Commons would mean that a socialist bloc had gained a foothold in the state. It could not, though, be confident that its wishes, expressed through legislation, could be enforced. Obstruction from the civil service and the armed forces and quite possibly the judiciary could be taken for granted. It is worth reminding ourselves why the Labour Government of 1945-51 was effective. As well as securing a large  majority in the House of Commons the Labour Party had a mass membership as did the trade union movement. The trade unions, under the leadership of Ernest Bevin, were accustomed to wielding political power in wartime conditions. Much of the adult population had served in the armed forces and knew how to handle themselves in conditions of armed conflict. Last but not least, soldiers, sailors and airmen in the armed forces had thought and debated about the kind of society that they wished to see when peace returned and they expected the government that they elected to do something about it.

Generally speaking, the upper reaches of the various components of the state are staffed by individuals from the capitalist class and associated élites. They are not sympathetic either to working class interests or to socialism more generally. They cannot be expected to show enthusiastic or indeed any allegiance to a majority socialist party unless they feel that they have no choice. This is why the working class attempt to control the state cannot rely on parliamentary activity alone. It needs to be supported within civil society through the agencies of the class struggle, most notably trade unions but also, where possible, media organisations that are not subject to oligarchic control. Working class parties and organisations can also exert pressure on the BBC to provide less biased reporting and to act in accordance with its own statutes. They can ensure that censorship of news organisations that attempt to present impartial or alternative points of view are not suppressed. Trade unionism’s work in localities can also strengthen civil society’s ability to stand up to the state and to protect local, including municipal, attempts to better the conditions of workers and their families. Trade unions can organise within the state, including within the civil service and try to ensure that working class interests are properly attended to there. Trade union representation on the Court (governing body) of the Bank of England is an important working class demand which an incoming socialist government should immediately enact.

The State and the Economy.

Mainstream capitalist ideology maintains that the state has no role to play in economic life apart from maintaining the currency, enforcing contracts and doing the minimum necessary to enable capitalism to flourish. When private enterprise fails to provide essential services such as banking, health, education or housing they allow that the state should be allowed to step in to provide them on a limited basis. In reality the state often provides these services because no one else will, or because of working class pressure to provide them. In socialist societies such as the People’s Republic of China by contrast, the state has a significant role in economic development, providing infrastructure, finance and an entrepreneurial role in itself, as well as setting the framework for the development of capitalist enterprises within a socialist framework. The state also owns the land and leases it to farmers. No one can say that this has not been a hugely successful model, but it is one that capitalism in the west prefers to talk about as if the Chinese state is an obstacle rather than an enabler of economic development. Even in the west, the state’s investments in infrastructure (think of the development of the internet for military purposes initially) leads to capitalist economic development. 

There is also a variety of nationalist capitalist economics that does recognise the critical role of the state in economic development. List, a nineteenth century German economist, was at pains to show how the ‘productive powers’ (i.e. economic potential) of a market society could be developed through tariffs against foreign goods and through infrastructure development within the state’s territories. Many capitalist societies, including the United States, have followed List’s model in their own economic development.

Working class power can be exercised on the state through the pressures of class struggle including trade union activism and party-political action. But unless working class parties gain at least some control of the state they will find it difficult to see legislation in their favour passed and will still need to provide external pressure to see that it is enforced. Any longer-term influence over the state will depend on the strength of working-class instruments of class struggle in political parties, trade unions, local authorities and in enterprises, particularly when the working class gains a degree of power within these as was argued in the article on class struggle last month. 

Control over the state is a long-term objective of working-class politics. But it can never be secure without a strong presence in working class institutions within civil society. Influence over the means of communication and dissemination of opinion are very important for the maintenance of this influence and oligopolist control over these means needs to be challenged and if possible eliminated. One important piece of legislation in the working-class interest would be to set strict limits on ownership of mass media by foreign and domestic oligarchs. In the shorter term influence over the state can be developed even without control over the legislature by changing the expectations and terms of debate that set the political weather and the development of institutions that limit the power for the state to act exclusively in the interests of capitalism. The most important of these are the trade unions, whose current weakness needs to be reversed in order that serious progress in limiting the capitalist interest can be made.