Re: the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

["Max B. Sawicky" <maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Subject:       the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

> Scholars such as Hal Draper have shown pretty convincingly that for Marx,
> if not for Max, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is synonymous
> with "proletarian democracy."  .  .  .

This was edifying, but I would say that for Lenin and much of
today's left, including really-existing socialist governments,
dictatorship of the proletariat means a highly concentrated party
leadership doing whatever it damn pleases for the sake of whatever it
decides is right, and often making a bloody mess of things in the
process.

> That democracy is aimed mostly at allowing the capitalists to come to
> agreements amongst themselves, though outside-the-beltway pressure from the
> proletariat can win reforms that don't quite fit with what the capitalists
> want. (It's been awhile since that's happened in the US.)
>
> Also, we should remember C. Wright Mills' distinction between the ruling
> class (the  economic class that dominates society as a whole) and the power
> elite (the small group of people who make the political decisions). Even
> though the logic of profit-seeking and accumulation dominate US society,
> the very rich (the elite group of capitalists) may only be a minority of
> the power elite. Military types, professional politicians, and bureaucrats
> play a role. In some cases, e.g., Nazi Germany, the very rich end up being
> shunted from the power elite even though they still dominate the economy
> and have a massive influence on the operations of the government.

Either way, the Fast Track vote suggests more flexibility
and scope for politics than seems to be reflected in the
remarks of many people, not necessarily including
yourself all the time.

> The Nazi dictatorship (now using the word "dictatorship" in the 20th
> century way), BTW, shows that even a _total despotism_ isn't monolithic.
> Hitler had to compromise with a bunch of different political forces (the
> SS, the Wehrmacht, capitalists, etc.) It wasn't monolithic.

Sure.

> Max writes >we ... have to consider the possibility that Democratic members
> of Congress, with no manifest popular agitation, can still do the right
> thing sometimes, because they represent their constituents' interests to
> some extent, so there is some scope for parliamentary politics.<
>
> They represent their constituents to some extent -- constrained by the
> nature of capitalist politics, the rule by campaign contributions, PACs,
> etc., along with the entire way that the state is structured (including the
> exclusion of many key issues, like monetary policy, from democratic
> purview). As I said, further, some of these constituents are protectionist
> small and medium-size businesses. Non-business plays a role, as no-one has
> denied, since labor and other excluded groups have been able to win some
> democratic rights.
>
> BTW, I am not one to get into moralistic dismissal of the Congressional
> Representatives. The point is simply this: Ron Dellums (e.g.) isn't a
> relatively good Congressman because he's Ron Dellums. He's relatively good
> because of his district, a very active and politically-conscious left-wing
> district (or at least it was last time I checked). It's the long-term
> agitation in that district that created a "good" district.

Good, but the feasibility of a 'good' district with 'good'
reps hinges on the state of democracy at both ends,
so to speak -- where the good reps are elected, and
where they get a chance to do some good things.

> >To say that sometimes the ruling class is divided (something of a
> contradiction in terms, what?) and sometimes it isn't looks like another
> out. <
>
> It's not an "out." You are asking people to adhere to a political theory
> that they don't accept. You want people to see that they're _really_
> adhering to a conspiracy theory, so that once we see that, we'll accept
> _your_ (superior) theory. But most Marxism is very skeptical of  conspiracy
> theories. (Not that conspiracies never happen: it's just that we can't
> explain the broad sweep of history with them, especially since conspiracies
> aren't omnipotent and compete with each other.)

When did I ever use or impute 'conspiracy theory'?  My
accusation was of a theory of monolithic, utterly inflexible
rule.  In other words, no scope for democratic opposition.

> >But then it isn't really a dictatorship, and politics need not be confined
> to extra- parliamentary venues.<
>
> Under capitalism, intra-parliamentary venues are dominated by money. I'm
> not against the kind of polite lobbying and education work that EPI does.

FYI we hardly ever lobby, and much of our education is
aimed at the masses, albeit through the medium of mass organizations.

> Not at all (if I had some money, maybe I'd give some to EPI). But the
> influence that EPI has exists not because its accurate statistics but
> because of what remains of the power of labor unions. That is, it arises
> from extra-parliamentary venues.

Well, I would say that the parliamentary and labor sectors have a
dialectical relationship, if you'll excuse the expression.

> Lobbyists, politicians, and other denizens of the parliamentary deeps can
> help build the extraparliamentary forces that can win them some elbow room
> so that they can break from the constraints of capitalist politics.
> Unfortunately, the careerism of the vast majority of politicians (with the
> notable case of Clinton burning our retinas) prevents them from doing so.
> They go the path of least resistance, seeking campaign bucks and the powers
> of incumbency.

I'd say we have substantial areas of agreement.

MBS



===================================================
Max B. Sawicky            Economic Policy Institute
maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx          1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice)      Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax)        Washington, DC  20036
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky

Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================