In modern society, we are accustomed to living under the "protection" and laws of the State. But have these laws and institutions always existed? The answer is of course no. Human society, in its development into modern capitalist society has passed through various stages, each based on different economic modes of production. For most of humanity's existence, we lived in a classless society, often referred to as "primitive communism". However, with the increasing development of human productive potential, there was soon a surplus above and beyond that which was required for the immediate needs of the producers. This allowed a section of society to rise above the necessity of producing their livelihood, and instead dedicate themselves to other things like science, arts, etc. This inevitably gives rise to a situation where the minority of society which has attained a position of superiority protects its interests by any means necessary. The tools they use to protect their interests include the police, the judicial and legal system, the army, etc. Taken as a whole, this repressive apparatus is known as the State. The State is a machine used by one section of society to oppress another section - the interests of these two groups (the producers and the expropriators) are opposed to each other, and the very existence of the State is an expression of that contradiction.
In Marxist terms, the State is considered in the final analysis to be "bodies of armed men". The function of these institutions (the police, the military, the laws, the prison system, etc.) is to aid in the oppression of one class by another. The State exists solely because the interests of the two main sections of society - the exploiters and the exploited - are diametrically opposed to one another. Those who control the state apparatus can therefore control the society. They can make the laws which are most beneficial to them, they can control the mass media, they can imprison those they disagree with, etc. The modern State is controlled by the bourgeois-capitalist and landlord classes, and they use the State power to exploit and oppress the producing classes. The class struggle is really just a struggle over the surplus wealth created by the producing classes. The bourgeoisie uses all sorts of excuses, intrigues, maneuvers, violence, and outright lies to conceal the fact that the State is controlled by their representatives. Yet many people refuse to believe this is so. They think that the State is some sort of neutral and beneficent power which stands independently of class society - as a sort of mediator between the contending classes. But the fact of the matter is this - the capitalist class uses all its power, influence and wealth to make sure that the people who get into "public" office are going to make laws which benefit them.
In the United States there is a huge farce being played out on a daily basis. This is the supposed antagonism between the allegedly more "left wing" Democratic and the more openly "right wing" Republican parties. In reality they are two sides of the same coin. Both of them have at heart only the interests of this or that group of capitalists. It is basically like two barnyard pigs fighting to see which one gets to put its snout into the trough of wealth created by the working class. They may differ on relatively minor issues, but at the end of the day, they are both tools of the capitalist class.
Recently there has been some controversy over some letters written by one of the most noxious candidates for the Republican nomination for president, Senator John McCain of Arizona. In his capacity as chairman of the influential Senate Commerce Committee, gave open support in the interests of some major corporations - which just happen to be some of his largest campaign donors. One of the most amusing and at the same time revolting things about McCain in particular, is that he has gained a lot of support and risen in the polls due to his promises of campaign finance reform. He says he wants to rid the political system of the "pernicious" influence of money. I think that a few quotes from the recent news stories will shed a little light on this topic, and explain more fully in whose interests our "elected" officials act.
From the Associated Press:
"Twice in 1998, McCain urged Kennard to consider wireless services, such as Sprint PCS, as competitors to BellSouth, which wants to provide long-distance service. Such a ruling would remove a regulatory barrier the regional Bell companies faced in their bids to enter the long-distance market. 'I encourage you to give serious consideration to whether PCS is providing competition to the local exchange market,' McCain wrote.
Senate Commerce Committee Republican staff director Mark Buse said McCain's advocacy on behalf of the Baby Bells was consistent with his support for telecommunications competition that would result in lower prices for customers."
It just so happens that BellSouth and its employees contributed $30,000 to McCain's campaign through September of last year - his third largest contributor.
Here's what the BellSouth spokesman had to say about these contributions and McCain's efforts on their behalf:
"'We tend to give to people who ask us,' McCloskey said. 'People who have influence over our industry are more likely to ask us because they know us, and they know us before we appear before their committee. We help our friends, and John McCain is our friend.'"
And another quote from McCain:
"I will continue to do that job, and when a constituent, a person of mine who has trouble - or a citizen of this country who can't get a reaction or an answer from a bureaucracy that's paid for with their tax dollars - I believe that people like me should weigh in."
Of course the average constituent doesn't contribute over $30,000 to his presidential campaign! You can be sure that if an average working class citizen of the US needed his help, he would be nowhere near as forthcoming or speedy. But this incident is just the tip of the iceberg. According to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), they receive between 7,000 and 8,000 pieces of correspondence a year from legislators "weighing in" on behalf of this or that "constituent".
In matters of international affairs things are not much different. Here is White House guest list, state dinner for President Jiang Zemin of China, October 29, 1997:
* American International Group (insurance)
* Apple Computers
* Asea Brown-Boveri (power technology)
* AT&T, Atlantic Richfield
* Bell Atlantic, Boeing. Dreamwork Films
* Eastman Kodak, General Electric
* General Motors, IBM
* International Corporation of America (real estate)
* Lucent Technologies, Miramax Film
* Mobil, Motorola, Oracle, PepsiCo
* Proctor & Gamble, U.S. China Business Council
* United Technologies, Viacom
* Westinghouse, Xerox
It's pretty obvious that all the concerns about human rights and "Communism" go out the window when there is a potential profit to be made. You don't see any workers' or human rights organizations in that list!
This sort of thing goes on behind the scenes all the time, and should not surprise anyone who analyzes class society from a Marxist perspective. I use the example of Senator McCain simply because this is one of the more recent instances of the incredibly hypocritical and frankly disgusting behavior of our "elected" officials. Make no mistake - the Democrats are just as corrupt and dishonest - if not more so. The Republicans are at least more open about their allegiance to the business owners, while the "progressive" Democrats deceitfully parade as friends of the average worker and minorities. There is no solution to this problem until all elected officials are subject to immediate recall, make no more than the average skilled worker, the standing army and police are replaced by the armed people, and when everyone gets involved in the process of running society instead of leaving that task to professional, careerist politicians. And this of course will never come about under capitalism - only democratic socialism can provide the means by which the State will cease to be a coercive and oppressive instrument in the hands of the minority, and become a tool for the planning of socialist society, eventually withering away itself.
The working class does not have a political party which represents its interests - and this is something which needs to be done and will have to be done in the near future. The trade unions need to break with the Democrats, and put forth a political party with a class independent program of their own. The non-unionized workers need to begin the process of unionization, with aggressive help from existing unions, and must get involved in the political struggle for their economic and social rights. It is not enough to merely demand economic reform or simply a greater say in the running of things. Until the mass of the working class enters the stage of history and seizes political power, the State will continue to act in the interests of the minority of exploiters. Only workers' democracy can solve the problems facing humanity.
For further reading check out:
The State - V.I. Lenin
The State and Revolution - V.I. Lenin
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State - F. Engels
Peter Johnson
Editor, New Youth
January, 2000
Home | Back to the USA | Back to Editorials and Commentary