On the State
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier
if it is called 'the People's Stick.'" - Mikhail Bakunin
Due to the way they are structured, all states are a mechanism by which a
minority imposes its will on a majority. They are not neutral bodies
that can be used by any group for whatever purpose they desire. So-called
"democratic" states are a mechanism by which a minority imposes its will
on the majority; they just attempt to fool the majority into thinking that
they are in charge when they aren't. Representative democracy is a
form of minority rule that pretends not to be. States are not neutral
tools that anyone can use for any purpose; they are autonomous organizations
that develop their own dynamics & interests.
The state is a top down organization of armed bodies of people that maintains
control over the population in the area(s) it rules. It is a centralized
organization that forces all those under its rule to obey its orders.
In modern states these orders often come in the form of laws. It maintains
armed bodies of people (such as the police and military) and coercive institutions
(such as prisons and courts) with which to coerce those under its rule to
obey its orders. These coercive institutions and armed bodies of people
are organized hierarchically with a top down chain of command. A few
people give orders, the rest obey. These hierarchical armed bodies
of people maintain control over the area(s) the state rules and forces the
people in those area(s) to obey the orders of those on top of the hierarchy.
The degree of centralization and the form of this hierarchy varies greatly
from state to state, but all states are based on some kind of hierarchy backed
up with armed bodies of people.
States generally maintain a monopoly (or near monopoly) on the legitimate
use of violence. Legitimate violence is violence that is viewed by
the majority of the population as being acceptable. For the most part,
the majority of the population usually sees the state as the only legitimate
source of violence, with occasional exceptions, and all other sources as
illegitimate. Police use force all the time but ordinary citizens are
barred from using force except for a few cases specifically exempted by law.
A society with a state is a society with specialized social roles for the
use and authorization of violence (police, soldiers, politicians, generals,
judges, etc.). The state attempts to monopolize violence so that it
is the only source of violence, all others are suppressed. The state
attempts to create a situation where, in the view of the majority, the state
can use violence while others cannot. The state means some people can
whack others with impunity.
This monopoly of force can be delegated. For example, a state can make
an exception for self-defense, legalize private security companies, or authorize
the military forces of an allied state to operate on its territory.
However, in all of these cases the state is the final authority for what
violence may or may not be used, only violence it authorizes may be used.
In practice the state rarely achieves a total monopoly, there is usually
at least a fringe that does not regard state violence as legitimate.
In some cases the state's monopoly of force may face major challenges from
armed groups within society or even lose that monopoly all together (due
to massive revolts, etc.). However, all states at least purport to
hold a monopoly of force (even if this is a myth) and, to the extent possible,
attempt to suppress all groups that challenge this monopoly, even if they
are unsuccessful at it.
The state's monopoly (or near-monopoly) on legitimate violence and its centralized,
hierarchical characteristics tend to reinforce each other. The state
attempts to monopolize all violence, and to portray its own violence (and
violence it has authorized) as the sole legitimate form of violence, so as
to strengthen its power and insure those on the top of the hierarchy maintain
control over the rest of the population. Organizations that monopolize
the legitimate use of violence tend towards hierarchy and centralization,
easily coming to dominate the rest of the population. If some people
can whack others with impunity then that ability means they can easily gain
power over others. As a result of this, they can use force against
anyone who disobeys them with little likelihood of retaliation or resistance.
This is a recipe for hierarchy and centralization of power into a small elite.
A common fallacy is the confusion of the state with society and/or organization.
The state is not synonymous with order or large-scale organization but is
rather a specific kind of organization with a monopoly of violence, centralization,
etc. This fallacy confuses two very different things - the state and
society. There have been many stateless societies. A related
fallacy is the idea that the state doesn't have to be violent. The
state is an inherently violent organization. You can hardly have an
organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence and its own
armed bodies of people that coerce the population into obeying it without
violence. Usually this fallacy is based on the confusion of society
and/or large-scale organization with the state. A purely non-violent
organization would not be a state. Rather than the state, voluntary
non-hierarchical associations such as confederations of popular assemblies
could organize society.
The state is a particular kind of social relation, a set of ways in which
humans behave and interact with each other. The state is a hierarchical
social relationship, in which some people obey other people. The state
organizes society in a pyramidal manner, with individuals trained to obey
orders and/or give orders. In order to abolish the state it is necessary
to change this behavior, for people on the bottom to stop obeying the orders
of those on the top and to destroy the capacity of those on the top to force
those below to obey. If the state were to suddenly disappear without
any corresponding change in behavior there would be a social breakdown followed
by the recreation of the state. If most people are used to obeying
orders (as they are under a state) and continue to behave in the same way
in the absence of people giving orders, then society will breakdown (because
there is no longer anyone giving orders and people are not organizing themselves
in a manner that they don't need to be given orders) and the state will soon
be rebuilt. If, however, members of that society choose to change their
behavior and stop depending on others giving them orders, to organize society
in a non-hierarchical manner as free and equal individuals, then such results
will not occur.
In order for a society to go from having a state to not having a state it
is necessary for most members of that society to choose not to obey orders
and to instead form alternative ways of running society that do not require
some giving orders and others obeying them. They must change their
behavior to a non-hierarchical form instead of a hierarchical form.
The state cannot be destroyed by a few pounds of explosives; it can only
be abolished through a popular rebellion from the bottom up. The most
direct way to do this is through a large anarchist movement. Examples
of this include the Ukrainian, Manchurian and Spanish revolutions, all of
which prove that anarchy works and that it is possible to go from a state
society to a stateless society. The reason these three were defeated
was not because of any intrinsic defect with anarchism, but because they
were vastly outgunned by statist enemies, who drowned the revolutions in
blood, and because they made the mistake of allying with authoritarian leftists,
who shot the anarchists in the back. There are also examples of similar
changes of behavior beginning in situations where there was no anarchist
movement or the anarchist movement was small, such as parts of the French,
Russian, and Iranian revolutions. However, these are less likely to
result in a stateless society because the lack of mass anarchist consciousness
makes it easy for authoritarian groups to channel rebellion in a direction
that benefits them and does not lead to a stateless society.
Sometimes countries in civil war are cited as examples of societies without
states; the Somali civil war is a common example of this. Such examples
are used to argue that without a state society will inevitably degenerate
into chaos under all circumstances. This is incorrect, such examples
of civil war are really cases of a state breaking into multiple smaller states
and warring with one another, not the abolition of the state. In the
Somali civil war different factions maintained their own armed forces with
a chain of command that controlled part of the country and, to the extent
possible, attempted to maintain a monopoly of force in the areas they ruled.
These were just micro-states, each ruling its own part of the country and
battling other micro-states for territory. In the west, the heads of
these micro-states are called warlords. There was not attempt to abolish
the state or bring about an anarchist revolution. There have been numerous
stateless societies throughout history, such as every hunter-gatherer ever
observed and some other primitive societies as well as more modern examples
like the Spanish
revolution. These conclusively disprove all arguments that all
societies must have a state or that any society without a state always turns
to chaos no matter the circumstances.
Elite Rule and the State
The state is an instrument by which a small elite dominates and exploits
the rest of the population. All states are instruments of minority
rule because of the way they are structured. A small group of people
on top of the state hierarchy (kings, parliaments, military juntas, bureaucrats,
etc.) makes decisions and forces the rest of the population to obey those
decisions. Because a minority of the population makes these decisions
this is a form of minority rule, since decision making power stays with a
small elite. The state usually acts as an enforcer to protect the rule
of a (minority) ruling class, and to insure its ability to exploit the rest
of the population. The ruling class is parasitical, living off the
labor of the laboring class(es). It extracts a surplus from the laboring
population, from which it lives and usually accumulates great wealth.
The form this ruling class and the accompanying exploitation takes of course
varies greatly. Under European feudalism this took the form of nobles
exploiting serfs. Under capitalism this takes the form of capitalists
exploiting workers. In addition to different kinds of exploitation
there are also different kinds of states. Some are monarchical and
absolutist, some are multi-party republics, some are military dictatorships
and others take over forms. Some allow a high degree of civil liberties
and others a low degree. Although some states are better than others,
the primary function of all states is to defend the rule of a small elite
over the population.
Most modern states claim to be "democratic" states, in which the "the people"
rules, rather than a small elite. This belief is used to mask the oligarchic
character of all states, to fool people into thinking they are in charge
when a tiny elite is actually in charge. This makes it easier for that
elite to rule since it decreases the probability that those under its rule
will rebel. In actual practice election of representatives to state
office does not result in popular control of the state. Real power
in capitalist "democracies" lies with the corporations and state bureaucracies,
not with ordinary people.
Once elected politicians are free to take any position they want, regardless
of what the electorate wants or their platform during the election campaign.
Representatives are not tied in any substantial way to any particular policy.
After being elected the politician is isolated from the public but subjected
to powerful pressures from corporations and state bureaucracies. As
such they end up acting in their interests, not obeying the "will of the
people." Everyone has heard of politicians who, once in office, chose
not to do what they said they would do during the election campaign or even
done things entirely opposite of it. This isn't just because politicians
are lying scum; it's a natural outcome of the system of representative democracy.
Representative government is just another form of elite rule, just as all
other states are.
The term "government" is used in two ways. One is as a synonym for
the state. The other refers to the various politicians who (officially)
make up the top levels of the pyramid. The state is a permanent collection
of hierarchical institutions with their own vested interests whereas, in
a representative state, governments (politicians) come and go. Because
the hierarchical institutions that make up the state are permanent (as are
many of the people in the higher offices) while the representatives come
and go they tend to accrue more power than elected politicians.
The corporate elite subverts elections through several means. One is
through using their extreme wealth to manipulate elections and politicians.
Politicians are dependant on money in order to finance their election campaigns.
Those with more money are more likely to win since it allows them to buy
more ads, make more campaign stops, etc. This makes politicians dependant
on those who fund their campaigns. Since the capitalist class is extremely
wealthy this means they will have extreme influence over who is elected.
Sometimes this is little different from bribery; wealthy donors give money
in exchange for enacting policies they desire. Other times it is not
so direct - the capitalist class simply funds whichever candidates have platforms
they like and do not fund those with platforms they do not like. Those
with platforms they like are likely to win, since they will have far more
money (and thus more ads, etc.) then those with platforms opposed by the
capitalists. Even if capitalists could not donate money directly to
election campaigns they can simply use their money to propagate their ideas
by directly buying ads, etc. to support whichever candidates or issues they
desire. Because of the extreme inequalities inherent in capitalism
they will inevitably drown out any attempt by an ordinary person to do the
same. These wealth inequalities also give individual capitalists a
major advantage when attempting to win office. A millionaire can afford
to run with little outside funding, but a non-millionaire must win the favor
of the wealthy in order to fund his/her campaign. The proportion of
millionaires and billionaires in elected offices is much higher than in the general public.
Control over the private (corporate) bureaucracies is another mechanism through
which they influence the state. Corporate control over the media influences
elections by portraying candidates hostile to corporate power in an unfavorable
light (or ignoring them entirely) while portraying candidates favorable to
corporate power in a more favorable light. A media that is owned and
funded by the rich will tend to portray issues and candidates in a manner
favorable to their interests. Capital flight is also a powerful means
of forcing the state to obey the capitalist class. If policies are
implemented that hurt the corporate elite's interests then their profits
will decrease and they will disinvest, sending their investments elsewhere
and depriving the economy of new investments. This results in the economy
crashing and in the politicians who angered the corporate elite being forced
out of office (through losing the election or other means) if they do not
change policy in a direction more favorable to the corporate elite.
Because they control the economy there can be no investment or any kind of
production unless their will is obeyed. Merely the threat of capital
flight is often enough to insure that the government will not defy them.
Threatened with economic collapse, more than one government has been disciplined
by the corporate elite in this way (the British labor government in the mid-70s
is one of many examples).
All states develop hierarchical organizations to help those on the top of
a state hierarchy (politicians, etc.) make and implement decisions.
In the modern state they take the form of state bureaucracies. These
hierarchical organizations develop interests of their own and soon become
more powerful than elected representatives. Elected representatives
are placed in an environment where they are isolated from the general public,
surrounded by bureaucrats, and dependant on bureaucrats for information,
advice and implementation of their policies. This give the state bureaucracy
a great deal of influence over elected representatives, far more than ordinary
people, and more then once has allowed them to pressure elected politicians
into changing their positions. For example, US President Woodrow Wilson
was originally opposed to intervening in the Russian revolution but his advisers
persuaded him to launch a secret invasion of Russia in order to defeat the
Bolsheviks.
Should the interests of the state bureaucracy clash with elected politicians
bureaucrats have many tools at their disposal through which they can ensure
that elected representatives do not implement policies they disagree with.
They are the ones who actually run the functions of the state, from organizing
elections to commanding the armed bodies of people used to enforce the orders
of the state. This can easily be used to subvert the decisions of elected
politicians. The bureaucrats are the ones who implement the policies,
and if they don't like them they can refuse to implement them. Black
ops, disinformation, bureaucratic slowdowns and media manipulation have all
been used to force politicians not to implement policies that conflict with
the state bureaucracy. The armed bodies of people used by the state
to enforce its policies can also be used to suppress groups that oppose the
interests of the bureaucrats. An extreme example of this is the coup
d'etat - politicians are forced out of power by the state bureaucracy (specifically,
the military) at gunpoint. In addition, they can make it virtually
impossible for any group they do not like to win elections by persecuting
them, arresting their leaders, rigging elections, etc.
There are many examples of state bureaucracies subverting
the will of elected politicians and preventing groups they don't like from
coming to power through democratic elections. In the US, there is the
famous military-industrial complex that insures the US has a perpetually
large military budget because it serves the interests of the state bureaucracy
(and corporate elite), and which pressures all governments into following
this policy. In late 19th century America many states passed eight
hour working day laws, but they frequently went un-enforced until working
class unrest forced the government to enforce them. In 1976 British
Prime Minister Harold Wilson was forced to resign as the result of a campaign
against him by parts of the state bureaucracy which included burglaries,
smears in the media and other means. In 1960 the US state
bureaucracy sabotaged a peace conference between the US and USSR by
flying a U2 spy plane over the USSR which ran out of fuel and crash
landed in Soviet territory. President Eisenhower had ordered
all such spy missions stopped in preparation for his historic summit
with the USSR, but this summit conflicted with the interests of the defense
establishment, which defied his orders (Mark Zepeaur, The CIA's Greatest
Hits, p. 18-19). There have been many coups that deposed
elected governments - Chile, Portugal, Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan, Spain
and numerous other countries have all experienced them. The state
bureaucracy has acted many times to suppress groups that might influence
policy though electoral channels or otherwise when it conflicted with
their interests. The FBI's infamous Cointelpro program, starting in the 50s, suppressed many
domestic groups seeking change. During World War One and
afterwards the state bureaucracy suppressed the Socialist Party USA,
ending any chance it had to come to power electorally. The
CIA has manipulated many foreign governments and launched numerous
coups without congressional knowledge or approval (sometimes even
without Presidential approval); it could easily do the same domestically
if the elected government came into conflict with the state bureaucracy.
The CIA also employs several hundred academics to write books
and other materials used as propaganda to manipulate public opinion,
both foreign and domestic.
"Democratic" states are therefore instruments of elite rule, just like all
other states. Real power lies with the corporate elite and the upper
levels of the state bureaucracy, not "the people." Government policies
that benefit non-elite groups and appear altruistic, such as welfare or national
healthcare, actually serve elite interests by decreasing unrest and preventing
the spread of revolutionary ideologies. Unrest can threaten elite interests
by interfering with their ability to control the populace, disrupting their
ability to make profit and opening the possibility that unrest could grow
to the point where it results in revolution. The spread of revolutionary
ideologies can threaten elite interests because it can increase unrest and
because it makes the overthrow of the elite more likely. To a lesser
extent, non-revolutionary ideologies critical of the status quo can also
have a similar effect but not to the same degree because they don't call
for the overthrow of the elite.
Certain phenomenon, like poverty or ecological destruction, can encourage
unrest & the spread of revolutionary ideologies. Appropriate government
policies can counter-act this, or at least decrease it. For example,
widespread poverty can lead to large scale resistance by the poor (civil
disobedience, riots, squatting, or other forms of direction action) and the
growth of a large revolutionary movement seeking to abolish capitalism.
Implementing welfare programs can decrease this by decreasing poverty, which
was fueling rebellion & a revolutionary movement, and by making the government
seem benevolent. The same is true of many other seemingly benevolent
government programs; they are a way of containing rebellion. Of course,
these programs are generally only implemented when unrest and/or revolutionary
movements grow to the point when they outweigh the cost to elite interests
(both direct and indirect) of implementing those programs. For example,
in the mid-twentieth century powerful revolutionary socialist movements arose
to challenge the established order in many parts of the world. Many
countries developed extensive welfare states as a way of warding off the
threat of revolution and containing working class rebellion. In the
last several decades those movements have declined, and as a result the welfare
state has been progressively dismantled since its reason for existence has
largely disappeared.
Representative democracy is self-refuting. Democratic government presupposes
that ordinary people are capable of analyzing and understanding the politics
and issues that need to be decided. If ordinary people are capable
of determining whether the platform and decisions of their representatives
are good or bad (and thus determining who to vote for) then they are capable
of making those decisions themselves. We can simply dispense with representatives
and the state entirely in favor of direct self-rule.
Although elections are not an effective way for the general public to control
the state, elections are an effective means for the state to control the
general public. Elections create the (false) impression that the state
is controlled by "the people," instead of the elite, and thus causes more
people to see the state as a legitimate institution. Rebellion against
that state is therefore less likely since more people see it as legitimate.
That is why virtually every state in the world today has elections, even
states like North Korea where elections are thoroughly rigged. A vote
in elections isn't just a vote for a particular politician; it's also a vote
for the current system. Elections can also control the population by
getting opposition movements to devote time and resources into elections,
instead of other actions that might actually undermine the status quo.
If that opposition movement manages to get its party elected that party will
end up doing mostly the same thing as the opposition parties, for reasons
explained above (the social democratic movements of the early 20th century
are a classic example of this). This can cause supporters of that party
to become disillusioned and drop out from activism & politics, effectively
neutralizing (or at least weakening) that opposition movement.
Today some states use referendums, in which citizens directly vote on particular
laws or policies, in addition to elections for representatives. Referendums,
even if used on a large scale, still do not secure popular control of the
state. The pressures of wealth described earlier still apply.
The wealthy & large corporations can and will use their far greater wealth
to buy more advertisements and other propaganda in favor of their position,
drowning out opposing views. Corporate control of the media means coverage
will tend to favor the views of their corporate owners (and the advertisers
who fund them, also corporations) over the views of other groups. If
a refendum(s) votes for something that hurts the interests of the corporate
elite, their profits will decline and they will withdraw their investments,
causing the economy to crash until citizens vote in laws more favorable to
big business (and usually less favorable to workers & the environment).
In effect, the wealthy hold the economy hostage to force citizens to vote
the way they want.
Politicians and the state bureaucracy frequently manipulate referendums.
Perhaps the most common method is simply through restricting what issues
are on the ballot. Fundamental issues about how society is organized,
like whether capitalism, hierarchy or the state should exist, are never on
the ballot. Even major reforms are generally excluded when they conflict
with the elite. Referendums are generally binary, e.g. you can vote
to raise property taxes to pay for new schools or you can vote not to do
that but you cannot vote to close tax loopholes for big business in order
to pay for those schools (or to decrease agribusiness subsidies in order
to pay for those schools or a thousand other excluded options). Excluded
options generally correlate with things the elite strongly oppose, since
the elite control the referendum process. More often then not referendum
issues are restricted to options which do not conflict with elite interests,
which the elite are divided on or in which the result is reasonably certain.
In most cases putting a referendum on a ballot requires the approval of the
government (typically the legislative body and/or executive), and so referendums
are naturally limited to issues upon which the government does not object.
This means that issues on the ballot are restricted to issues upon which
the elite, especially the state bureaucracy, does not object because the
elite controls the government. In some cases it is possible to get
a referendum on the ballot by collecting a certain number of signatures on
a petition, thereby circumventing politicians/bureaucrats. This just
shifts power away from the state bureaucracy and towards the corporate elite.
The corporate elite, by virtue of being extremely wealthy, can afford to
hire lots of people to collect lots of signatures, giving them a major advantage
over poorer groups and effectively allowing them to dominate the referendum
process.
Another common method of manipulation is to repeatedly put a measure on the
ballot over and over until the vote goes the way the elite wants it.
For example, when the Irish government wanted to ratify the Nice treaty,
which assisted corporate interests and increased militarism, it was forced
to let the general public vote in a referendum on it due to a clause in their
constitution. Irish citizens voted it down in 2001. The bureaucrats,
politicians & capitalists didn't like the results of that referendum,
so they held another referendum in 2002, which passed. No further referendums
were held on the issue or are planned on it. When the referendum doesn't
go the way the elite wants they keep putting it back on the ballot until
the vote goes the way they want. If the vote goes the way they want
even once, they cease holding further referendums on the issue no matter
how many previous times it was rejected. Local governments in the United
States also commonly use this technique in the occasional case when citizens
won't vote the 'right' way.
In addition to this, the state bureaucracy can use many of the same means
to pressure and mislead the electorate that it can use against elected representatives.
They have a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on violence, with an effective system
capable of coercing anyone into obeying them. This gives them more
power than the general populace. They can "interpret" referendum in
a manner consistent with their own interests (which extensive legalese makes
easy) or selectively enforce them. Judges in California, for example,
have repeatedly interfered with referendums. If the upper levels of
the state bureaucracy universally and strongly reject a referendum some excuse
can be found to reject it and little can be done (legally) to prevent them
from doing so, since they have a monopoly on force. Disinformation,
bureaucratic slowdowns and media manipulation can also be used to advance
the goals of the state bureaucracy should they conflict with the public.
The ability of the military and intelligence services (and often police)
to act in secret makes it very easily for them to keep 'inconvenient' facts
from the public, covertly fund unpopular projects and carry out actions that
the public would not otherwise approve. Groups campaigning for something
the state bureaucracy doesn't like can be attacked, harassed and even suppressed
by the police or other parts of the government. Coups can be used to
undo the results of referendums just as they can be used to undo the results
of elections. All of this gives the upper levels of the state bureaucracy
greater power than the ordinary citizen, which means they rule rather than
"the people."
Referendums increase the legitimacy of the state, and thereby increase its
power, even more than elections. The illusion that ordinary citizens
control the state is even greater when citizens can directly vote on particular
policies, in addition to electing representatives. Laws approved in
a referendum are less likely to be questioned because they are perceived
to be made by the "the sovereign people," instead of by politicians.
In addition to legitimizing the state in general, getting a particular policy
approved in referendum is a useful way of shoring up support for enforcement
of that policy, especially important for policies that will prove controversial
or provoke significant resistance.
Beyond all this, the modern state has grown so big and extensive that citizens
cannot effectively keep track of every bureaucrat and every budget; there
simply is not enough time in the day. Thus the state can act on its
own with its own autonomy and cannot be effectively controlled by the general
public through any means, be it election, referendum or something else.
The state's centralization of power and monopoly of force insure that an
elite (those in the top levels of the hierarchy) will always emerge in any
state and that all attempts to subject it to democratic controls will ultimately
fail, because centralization of power means those in the upper levels have
real power and because their monopoly of force makes it impossible to (legally)
stop them.
State Autonomy
In radical leftist circles it is often claimed that the state is totally
controlled by the corporate elite (or other ruling class), that it is the
"executive committee" of the corporate elite. This is closer to the
truth than the myth that the state is controlled by "the people," but is
not entirely correct. It often appears to be the case because the interests
of the upper levels of the state bureaucracy (the state elite) and the interests
of the corporate elite usually coincide, and in many cases the two groups
overlap and intermingle. The state acts first and foremost to maintain
its authority, to insure that it can maintain its domination of the general
population. If it cannot do this, then the state is soon overthrown.
It therefore shares a broad interest with the corporate elite in keeping
the working class subordinated and at work in the existing economy.
The corporate elite's interests are clearly to keep the working class subordinate
and at work, where it can extract a surplus from them. By keeping the
workers down and maintaining the economic system (through enforcing property
rights and other means) the state maintains its authority and privileges
over the general population. The state leeches off the surplus extracted
by the corporate elite to give the state elite privileges over the population
and serve the goals of the state. Taxation is one of the most obvious
ways this is done, but there are others. Politicians and members of
the state elite can often gain lucrative positions in the private economy
after leaving their government positions. A productive economy capable
of extracting large surpluses from the subordinate class(es) can be used
to achieve the goals of the state by funding its programs, building things
to be used by the state, producing war materials, etc. The corporate
elite does exert an extreme influence on the state through the threat of
capital flight and other means, but does not directly control it. This
ability to influence the state is dependant upon the corporate elite's control
of economic resources that exists solely because the state enforces private
property. The state protects their interests by enforcing private property
(and other means) because by doing so it protects its own interests, not
because the corporate elite directly controls the state. The state
sets up a separate economic elite that can more effectively exploit the laboring
class(es) than the state doing so directly and then leeches off the surplus
that economic elite extracts. In normal circumstances, preserving the
existing economic and class structure is the smoothest way to maintain the
state's authority over the population.
The interests of the state elite and the private capitalists/corporate elite
do not always coincide, though they often do. There are many examples
of conflicts between the state and the private capitalist class. The
Bonapartist state in France from the 1850s until the 1870s frequently acted
against the interests of the private bourgeoisie. In 1968 a military
coup in Peru deposed the civilian government and installed a military dictatorship.
Unlike most Latin American military dictatorships, the new "Revolutionary
Government of the Armed Forces" moved against big business and the domestic
oligarchy. It implemented many statist reforms that harmed the oligarchy
including nationalizing several industries and resources, agrarian reform,
and a law allowing limited worker participation in the management of businesses.
US imperialism sabotaged the reforms and insured that the Peruvian state
was not in a better situation as a result of these actions, causing it to
abandon these policies in favor of neocolonialism by the early '80s.
In 1937 the Mexican state nationalized oil as a result of conflict between
the state elite & (foreign) corporate elite. The oil companies
openly and publicly refused to obey Mexican law, thus threatening the state's
authority. So they nationalized the oil. There are many other
examples of conflict between the state elite and corporate elite, but most
of the time their interests coincide. The same applies to the state
and pre-capitalist ruling classes.
Under capitalism a minority of the population, the capitalist class, monopolizes
the means of production and the rest must sell their labor (from which an
economic surplus is extracted) to the capitalist class in order to survive.
One of the main functions of the capitalist state is to protect this monopoly
and to suppress any rebellions against it. The protection of this monopoly
is called "enforcing property rights." Two bureaucracies run the economy
in most capitalist societies: a private (corporate) one and a public (state)
one. In extreme cases one of these bureaucracies runs all or nearly
all of the economy. Under laissez-faire capitalism private (corporate)
bureaucracies dominate the economy; under state monopoly capitalism public
(state) bureaucracies dominate the economy. Late 19th century USA was
an example of the former and the USSR of the later.
The state will intervene in the economy beyond enforcing private property
in order to keep the economy running and protect the interests of the state
elite. If the corporate elite finds it has difficulty keeping the economy
running and properly exploiting the workers the state will often intervene
to insure that exploitation and the smooth running economy continue.
Capitalist states have implemented regulations to prevent financial collapse,
subsidized industries to prevent them from going under, provided infrastructure
which private companies could not provide on their own (roads, railways,
etc.), created government programs to stimulate consumer spending and avoid
underconsumptionist crisis & stagnation, tariffs to protect weak or developing
industries and many other actions which help the corporate elite and thereby
help the state elite. Imperialist states pursue neocolonialist policies
that protect the investments and interests of the corporate elite abroad,
as well as reinforcing state power at home by using the fear of a foreign
enemy to scare the populace into submission and justify otherwise unpopular
policies. Client states often find it in their own interests to protect
the interests of foreign capitalists rather than domestic capitalists (and
if they do not they will soon find themselves overthrown by the imperialist
state). "Third World" nationalist states that become independent of
foreign powers often pursue a state-capitalist economic policy in which the
state bureaucracy plays a major role because domestic private capitalists
are too small & weak to develop the economy as effectively as a statist
route and also because capital flight is not an effective means of influencing
the government when there is little capital. Nationalization of key
resources and industries can also help solidify the power of the state by
giving it control over important areas of the economy; this can be used to
prevent foreign domination by "first world" corporations. In situations
where large unrest threatens the interests of the state bureaucracy it may
implement concessions to the laboring class(es) (welfare states, etc) in
order to maintain it's authority. In many cases these concessions may
also be supported by big business (unrest can also threaten their interests),
but the state may sometimes implement these concessions even when a large
portion of the corporate elite opposes them.
When private capitalists find it difficult to exploit the workers in an industry
the state will sometimes nationalize that industry, in order to better exploit
them itself. The corporate elite does not always oppose this, since
they can recoup loses by selling unprofitable industries to the government.
When the situation is reversed, and private capitalists can exploit the workers
better than the state, resources are often privatized. Should the interests
of the state elite and the corporate elite clash nationalization is also
a mechanism that can neutralize the threat of capital flight. When
the USSR fell their state elite decided that it would be better off setting
up a separate economic elite to exploit the workers under a market capitalist
system rather than the state monopoly capitalist system that previously prevailed.
In many cases that economic elite is made up of people who were formerly
part of the state elite; in other cases foreign capitalists have bought sections
of the economy. The same elite that ran things under the old system
is by and large still running things today. Putin, Yeltsin and most
of the rest of the elite are all former party members and bureaucrats.
The wave of privatizations that swept Russia & its former satellites
after the fall of the USSR succeeded in enriching the elite, while simultaneously
impoverishing the majority of workers.
In the case of a representative government, all of this is driven by the
needs of the state bureaucracy, not which particular people are elected to
office. If the state bureaucracy seeks to nationalize or not nationalize
something then it will pressure elected representatives into going along
with their will, or remove them from office if necessary, using the mechanisms
discussed earlier.
Under free market capitalism (and a few other systems)
the state enforces the ability of a separate economic elite to
dominate and exploit the subordinate class(es) (by making sure they
stay subordinate) and leeches off the surplus extracted.
It is not necessary for the state to set up a separate economic elite
to exploit the subordinate class(es), it can exploit them directly
itself. Egypt under the Pharaohs, the Aztec state, ancient Persia,
Titoist Yugoslavia, the USSR, and Maoist China were all examples of
this. In these cases, the state is the ruling class.
Under state monopoly capitalism (which was practiced in the USSR, Red
China, and elsewhere) the state directly manages production and acts
like a giant capitalist corporation with a monopoly over everything, exploiting
the working class via wage-labor. The state bureaucracy (or sections
of it) is a bureaucrat-capitalist class, living off the labor of the
workers. It is also possible for the state to directly exploit
the subordinate class(es) without either managing production itself or
setting up a separate economic elite. In Titoist Yugoslavia officially
workers had control over their own workplaces (through a distorted form
of workers' control), the bureaucracy exploited them through taxes (and
other means). Of course, this control was limited to the point where
it did not interfere with the interests of the bureaucracy, the state
would interfere with the control of the workers when necessary - including
controlling investment and manipulating the decisions of workers.
In much of Feudal Europe production was organized by peasant communes and
had to give a portion of their crops and unpaid labor to the state/nobility
(which were often the same) who exploited the peasantry. It is only
in these cases where the state is the ruling class that the state
can be said to be the "executive committee" of the economic elite because
the state and the economic elite are one and the same.
The primary function of all states is to maintain the power and privilege
of the state elite over the rest of the population. If it does not
do this by setting up an economic elite separate from the state (such as
a private capitalist class) then it does it by directly exploiting the population
itself. Because the state is a hierarchical organization, based on
centralization of power, it is always an organ of minority rule. It
is the minority in the upper levels of the state hierarchy (the state elite)
that makes the decisions, and it is thus this minority that rules.
Giving an elite coercive power over the rest of the population (which is
what the state does) is a recipe for a parasitical (minority) ruling class
that dominates and exploits the majority. The state, because of its
structure, has its own dynamics and vested interests and is not a neutral
tool that can be used by anyone. The state, by its very nature, tends
to take on a life of its own.