Re: two concepts of dictatorship of the proletariat

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Mr. Schwartz,



        My point is that one must concretely define the mechanism of
capitalist hegemony.  It is not enough to assume that the laws "reflect" some
chimerical "social relation".  I believe that the social relations that
predominated when socialism was constructed by Marx have changed
dramatically.



        You wrote:

" the economy is in part constituted by the system of
property and contract law created by the government. But at the same
time, underlying these legal forms are raw relations of class power."



        I am disagreeing with that statement by way of arguing that the
property and contract laws ARE the raw relations of class power.  The raw
relations of class power are not the Pinkertons of old.  Look at the junk
bond.  Here is a mechanism of capitalist power undreamed of only decades
ago. Yet, the device was there all the time.  Why did it come to fruition
now?  the reason is that capitalists finally accepted the idea of a true
commoditized capital.  They threw off the notion of direct control and put
their confidence in the impalpable market.  Junk bonds are a leap of faith
that the house of cards will not tumble, that good times are here to stay
and that any debt load can be "written off."  Old time capitalists
demanded cash up front, in case there was trouble.  New capitalists rely
absolutely on absentee speculation.  If the market grows cold for their
speculative device, they have NOTHING.  The only real weapon they have
against community sovereignty is the threat of globalization - pitting one
community against another.  This new "Pinkerton" is even now being
threatened by Pat Buchanan, which is one of the reasons he panics the
Republican leadership.


        Certainly capitalists have influence and use it whenever they
can.  I am simply arguing that a fundamental shift in the mechanism of
capitalist power has taken place.  Where "company town" capitalists once
relied on the gun to protect their property from the workers - AND the
government that attempted to protect those workers - now they rely on the
government to protect their assets from local unions, environmentalists,
etc..


        The power of local force always underlies state legitimacy.
Although protests, strikes, and riots can be stopped by federal troops,
they can make it impossible to do business.  And, as you said, laws have
a way of coming to reflect social reality.



        Besides, it need not come to that.  If you look at the reaction
of *conservatives* to the protectionist Buchananisms and worker ownership
of business - the POSITIVE reaction - you will see that economic populism
runs deep in American thinking.






        peace,


                boddhisatva




p.s. - Capitalists who say they want less government are, of course,
lying.  What they want is less federal government and more state
government - since they find state government easier to turn to their
use.  It seems to me that the opposite is true in England, where
conservatives are in favor of federal power over local.







     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------