Re: [OPE] One party state?

From: Ian Wright <wrighti@acm.org>
Date: Sun Jun 07 2009 - 12:22:44 EDT

> Yes Paul B., a bourgeoisie society might hold down the economic priorities
> of the opposing class, but strictly speaking we canít talk of a dictatorship
> in this case, because what defines a dictatorship is formal entry barriers
> to leave out other political competitors.

One of the more important scientific advances of Marxism is the class
analysis of the capitalist state. Democracy can ultimately be only
formal in a society based on the exploitation of one class by another.
Both main parties in the US, for example, are almost entirely corrupt
and slavishly follow the dictates of big money. Given recent economic
events -- and the political reaction to the economic crisis in the
West -- I wonder how it could be made any clearer to those with eyes
to see it that the state will ultimately act to maintain the power and
privilege of the financial elite. The enormous transfers of wealth
from taxpayers to the financial aristocracy is a powerful example of
why the term "dictatoriship of the bourgeoisie" is accurate and
predictive. The USA *is* a *formal* democracy; but in practice it is a
*dictatorship* of the *capitalist class*.

Like many deep insights this can initially be counter-intuitive,
especially to those who have been socialized into believing that their
society is ultimately democratic and fair.

Social scientists must go beyond how a society describes itself, and
analyse how it actually functions. In my view, capitalist societies
are dictatorships in this sense, both at the level of the state, and
at the level of the firm.

-Ian.
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sun Jun 7 12:24:40 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 30 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT