Home : The United States : Marxist Theory : Editorials and Commentary
By Peter Johnson
January 2000
In modern society, we are accustomed to living under the "protection" andlaws of the State. But have these laws and institutions always existed? Theanswer is of course no. Human society, in its development into modern capitalistsociety has passed through various stages, each based on different economic modes ofproduction. For most of humanity's existence, we lived in a classless society,often referred to as "primitive communism". However, with the increasingdevelopment of human productive potential, there was soon a surplus above and beyond thatwhich was required for the immediate needs of the producers. This allowed a section ofsociety to rise above the necessity of producing their livelihood, and instead dedicate themselvesto 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 ofarmed 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 Stateexists solely because the interests of the two main sections of society - the exploitersand the exploited - are diametrically opposed to one another. Those who control the stateapparatus can therefore control the society. They can make the laws which are mostbeneficial to them, they can control the mass media, they can imprison those they disagreewith, etc. The modern State is controlled by the bourgeois-capitalist and landlordclasses, and they use the State power to exploit and oppress the producing classes. Theclass struggle is really just a struggle over the surplus wealth created by the producingclasses. The bourgeoisie uses all sorts of excuses, intrigues, maneuvers, violence, andoutright 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 ofneutral and beneficent power which stands independently of class society - as a sort ofmediator between the contending classes. But the fact of the matter is this - thecapitalist class uses all its power, influence and wealth to make sure that the people whoget 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 isthe supposed antagonism between the allegedly more "left wing" Democratic andthe more openly "right wing" Republican parties. In reality they are two sidesof the same coin. Both of them have at heart only the interests of this or that group ofcapitalists. It is basically like two barnyard pigs fighting to see which one gets to putits snout into the trough of wealth created by the working class. They may differ onrelatively minor issues, but at the end of the day, they are both tools of the capitalistclass.
Recently there has been some controversy over some letters written by one of the mostnoxious candidates for the Republican nomination for president, Senator John McCain ofArizona. In his capacity as chairman of the influential Senate Commerce Committee, gaveopen support in the interests of some major corporations - which just happen to be some ofhis largest campaign donors. One of the most amusing and at the same time revolting thingsabout McCain in particular, is that he has gained a lot of support and risen in the pollsdue to his promises of campaign finance reform. He says he wants to rid the politicalsystem of the "pernicious" influence of money. I think that a few quotes fromthe recent news stories will shed a little light on this topic, and explain more fully inwhose 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 onbehalf of the Baby Bells was consistent with his support for telecommunicationscompetition that would result in lower prices for customers."
It just so happens that BellSouth and its employees contributed $30,000 to McCain'scampaign through September of last year - his third largest contributor.
Here's what the BellSouth spokesman had to say about these contributions and McCain'sefforts 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 presidentialcampaign! You can be sure that if an average working class citizen of the US needed hishelp, he would be nowhere near as forthcoming or speedy. But this incident is just the tipof the iceberg. According to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), they receivebetween 7,000 and 8,000 pieces of correspondence a year from legislators "weighingin" on behalf of this or that "constituent".
In matters of international affairs things are not much different. Here is White Houseguest 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 surpriseanyone who analyzes class society from a Marxist perspective. I use the example of SenatorMcCain simply because this is one of the more recent instances of the incrediblyhypocritical and frankly disgusting behavior of our "elected" officials. Make nomistake - the Democrats are just as corrupt and dishonest - if not more so. TheRepublicans are at least more open about their allegiance to the business owners, whilethe "progressive" Democrats deceitfully parade as friends of the average workerand minorities. There is no solution to this problem until all elected officials aresubject to immediate recall, make no more than the average skilled worker, the standingarmy and police are replaced by the armed people, and when everyone gets involved in theprocess of running society instead of leaving that task to professional, careeristpoliticians. And this of course will never come about under capitalism - only democraticsocialism can provide the means by which the State will cease to be a coercive andoppressive instrument in the hands of the minority, and become a tool for the planning ofsocialist society, eventually withering away itself.
The working class does not have a political party which represents its interests - andthis is something which needs to be done and will have to be done in the near future. Thetrade unions need to break with the Democrats, and put forth a political party with aclass independent program of their own. The non-unionized workers need to begin theprocess of unionization, with aggressive help from existing unions, and must get involvedin the political struggle for their economic and social rights. It is not enough to merelydemand economic reform or simply a greater say in the running of things. Until the mass ofthe working class enters the stage of history and seizes political power, the State willcontinue to act in the interests of the minority of exploiters. Only workers' democracycan 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