I was reading an old copy of Capital & Class today – journal of the Conference of Socialist Economists – from Summer 1979. In particular, I was reading an article defending the Alternative Economic Strategy by the London SCE group. The argument centred around using the strategy as a means by which to mobilise class struggle. Part of that argument referred to a concept familiar at the time known as “In and Against The State”. The reference struck a chord with me, because it also keys into a discussion I have had over recent weeks with Charlie McMenamin about health and social care that began with him raising a question about that in relation to his elderly mum. It also keys into many of the arguments I have been making over the last few years about socialist strategy and the State. This short blog is to set down as succinctly as I can what I think this issue comes down to.
The concept of “In and Against The State” essentially means that we have to accept that the Capitalist State exists, and that having recognised that, we have to see it not as some monolithic construct, but as an arena of class struggle. We should not attempt to ignore its existence, and simply make propagandistic calls for its abolition, but work within it, and attempt via class struggle to win reforms of it. As far as that goes I have no immediate problem. No one would suggest that every socialist working as a teacher, healthcare worker, or civil servant for instance simply packed their bags and looked for alternative employment! Consequently, for so long as they are “In” the state they have to deal with it, and carry out class struggle from the inside, both in terms of the kind of “Economistic” struggle that every worker has to undertake against any employer, and in terms of a more general political struggle alongside the working class in general to try to win reforms that limit the ability of that state to act against workers interests, and where possible to secure some democratic control over it, where it is supposed to work in the interests of society (including workers) overall – for example, the NHS.
But, here is where the problem and the danger arises. Let me reduce the question to its most basic. If we think about the State as what it is – the Executive Committee of the Capitalist Class then in dealings with it, we should treat it as such, as being just some other Capitalist employer. So let us think about how socialists respond to any other Capitalist employer. Let me make a short digression here to speak about something I was considering the other day that makes the point I think graphically. I was thinking about the Left’s opposition to PFI. What is PFI? PFI is a means of the Capitalist State financing investment – in hospitals, schools etc. It does this by leasing these building from private companies who are commissioned to build them for that purpose. Why does the left oppose PFI? To be honest as a Marxist I have absolutely no idea!!!! Such decisions are made by individual Capitalist enterprises everyday! Capitalist firms raise money for investment, by borrowing money from the Bank, by issuing Debentures or Bonds, by Public Share Offerings and so on. No Marxist would dream of advising the Capitalists who make such decisions on which of these options is the most effective, so why on Earth should they feel it necessary to advise the State Capitalist about what is the most effective means of running the Capitalist economy???
In looking at relations with the Capitalist State this is precisely the attitude as Marxists we should take. Every worker in a Capitalist enterprise is as much “IN” that enterprise, as are the workers “In” the State. Every worker in trying to defend their working conditions, their pay etc. is as much “Against” that organisation as are workers in the State itself. Where workers are strong within any workplace at some point in time they might even seek to exercise some control over their work process, they might as the Lucas workers did, even draw up their own plans of how production should be organised, and so on.
But, it is unreconstructed reformism to believe that workers can simply continue to negotiate better wages and conditions, or will be allowed for any, but the shortest, period of time to exert control over the work process whilst remaining within the confines of the Capital-Labour relationship! At some point, sooner rather than later, Capital will re-assert its dominance, and roll-back whatever workplace “reforms” the workers have secured. Yes, there are some exceptions that prove the rule. The Scott-Bader Partnership that I referred to in my series on Co-operatives, is an example, of a Capitalist enterprise that effectively liquidated itself by allowing the workers to take over the enterprise as a Co-operative. But, generally Capitalists are in business to make profits for themselves not to share them with their workers. To believe otherwise is to believe that there is no fundamental contradiction between the interests of the contending classes.
It is precisely, this belief that leads to Trade Union consciousness being essentially bourgeois, leads precisely to the idea that although workers should be “In” and “Against” their particular Capitalist firm, there are limits to the “Against”, it is an “Against” that continues to recognise the need for the firm to exist. It is precisely this concept which makes the concept of “IN” and “Against” the State equally reformist, because nowhere in the concept is their any strategy for making the “Against” into a strategy for replacing the existing State with something else.
It is the fact that whilst trapped within the Capital-Labour relationship, workers are limited in the advance they can make that leads to the need for Marxists to demonstrate to workers the need to go beyond it. It is what leads directly to the demand that workers take back into their ownership the means of production through the establishment of worker co-operatives. But, it is exactly the same with workers relationship with the State Capitalist employer. For so long as they lack the power to change their relationship to it, workers have to continue to operate within those existing State structures whilst, carrying out class struggle within them. But, such class struggle can never have as its end the REFORM of those structures, for exactly the same reason that workers cannot simply reform the Capital-Labour relationship in general. The workers strategy, the whole emphasis of Marxists’ propaganda and programme has to be to drive beyond the existing structures.
It does not matter whether that structure is the State’s Military organisation as discussed in my blog on “Proletarian Military Policy”, or the Police, or the NHS, or any other structure, our strategy must be, not to simply look to a reform of these forms of the State, but their abolition, and replacement with new forms directly under the ownership and control of workers. That can be done in one of two ways. It can be done by calling on workers to undertake some political revolution such as that in 1917 in Russia – which means for now, and until the cows come home or workers are convinced of the need for that, reducing the strategy to nothing more than maximalist propaganda – or else it can be done in the way I have proposed of supporting and encouraging workers to create such new forms here, and now, thereby creating the framework and social power of the working class, which makes the political revolution possible, and more readily assures its success.
I part company with you here Boffy.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is an accurate representation of the 'In and Against the State' argument (though it's been many years since I read a copy of Capital and Class). The State is certainly a lot more than simply a instrument of bourgeois oppression - it is that as well, at least in Marxist terminology, but it can and has offered real benefits to the mass of ordinary people for at least three or four generations.This benefits can change in their efficacy and generosity according to the results of particular episodes of class struggle. Think welfare benefits, state schooling and, yes, the NHS. That's why, a generation ago, there was such a flurry of Marxist theorising about the nature of the capitalist state. Personally, I winch at the crudity of Althusser when he talks of 'Ideological State Apparatus' but he opened a debate which, to be frank, is not yet settled and can't be fitted into your reform v revolution schema - well, the reform v revolution schema you sometimes use, when you're not advocating a incremental strategy of 'co-operatisation' of the economy.
Not only that, I think you have yet to demonstrate that worker's - as opposed to consumer, or some hybrid form of co-op- co-ops will necessarily deliver wider social benefits. I know you have posted on the opportunity provided for efficiency gains in strictly productive terms that co-ops open up. But I'm not so sure you have dealt with the right-wing argument about 'provider capture': the alleged tendency of 'providers' (a category which would encompass worker controlled enterprise) to offer goods and services at terms which would favour them rather than consumers. It is precisely in the welfare and educational sectors where this argument operates most effectively at the level of theory. I agree it is shown to be nonsense, in empirical terms, by the commitment of most teachers, NHS workers and so on. But theoretically you need to show why this is so, rather than just being an accident of history.
Why should worker co-ops in areas where the consumers don't have real purchasing power - areas such as health and education - provide good services, as opposed to good places to work?
"Why should worker co-ops in areas where the consumers don't have real purchasing power - areas such as health and education - provide good services, as opposed to good places to work?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a bourgeois worldview!
The reason is they use the system and so do their families, they can't afford to provide a second class service to the 'general public' while using private health provision for themselves.
The EMPIRICAL evidence clearly shows that co-operative enterprises work in a more socially responsible way than the classic capitalist enterprise.
It never ceases to amaze me that large sections of the left utterly disregard co-ops, over at Louis Proyect's site there has been a similar debate about their value and it makes pretty depressing reading.
Why oppose PFIs? The answer is simply that you get less school/ hospital/ railway for more money than by the state borrowing and building them, so that PFIs are just the state taking the difference in tax (which comes from the petty-bourgeoisie and working class as well as from the bourgeoisie) and handing it out to a small group of construction companies as a non-transparent subsidy.
ReplyDeleteMike Macnair
Mike,
ReplyDeleteActually, I agree with Marx that ultimately taxes are a deduction from Surplus Value, and so if the Capitalist State makes a bad decision on how to raise funds for investment, it actually means it has to raise taxes on Capital in general, in order to subsidise Capital in particular!
If you do not hold to Marx's view then by the same token you can argue that private Capital can reduce workers real wages by raising prices. In that case you arrive at the same position. By that token if a firm decides to raise funds for investment by borrowing from a Bank, when it would have been cheaper to simply issue shares then this higher cost would mean it produces less widgets for any given amount of Capital, hence less for workres to consume at any given price!
But, Marxists do not seek to advise individual Capitalists on the best way to make profits, by advising them to issue shares rather than take out bank loans, because choosing one method would result in more commodities at lower prices being produced!
Nor is it our role to advise the collective state Capitalist on how to raise investment funds so as to maximise ITS returns.
Addendum,
ReplyDeleteThe reluctance of many construction companies over recent years to enter into PFI's, also suggests that in reality there is not a great deal of subsidy hidden or otherwise, as was first envisaged either.
Further addendum. Mike, If it was then shown that actually using PFI WAS, a far more efficient means of providing schools, hospitals etc. or that privately run schools and hospitals were more efficient, and consequently that taxes could be reduced significantly, would you then using the basis of your argument here, be arguing fervently that the State SHOULD adopt such methods of funding its activities????
ReplyDeleteCharlie,
ReplyDeleteRather than mess about with multiple comments I've posted a reply as a new post here.
To quote Unison, one reason they oppose PFI is as follows,
ReplyDelete“PFI schemes cost much more than conventionally funded projects. The private sector borrows at higher rates than the public sector since governments can borrow at much lower rates. Audit Scotland have calculated these costs as adding £0.2 - £0.3 million each year for every £10 million invested. They have high set up costs, due to lengthy negotiations involving expensive city lawyers and consultants employed by both sides. The first 15 NHS trust hospitals spent £45 million on advisers an average of 4% of the capital value. The private sector demands high returns and despite very low risks, profits from PFI are extremely high.
There is a growing body of evidence that PFI projects escalate both in scale and cost. These are not simple cases of costs going up for a project but reflect the very nature of PFI itself. The higher costs inevitably lead to an affordability gap for the procuring authority that is often met by reductions in services and capacity, subsidies from other parts of public authority budgets and pressures on labour costs. A recent article in the British Medical Journal found that there were 20% cuts in staffing levels in PFI hospitals.”
Other reasons can be found here,
http://www.unison.org.uk/pfi/caseagainst.asp
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe accountancy details you give over the efficacy of PFI investment may or may not be correct. If they are correct then it reflects a mistaken view by the Capitalist State, of what is the best means of financing its activities.
My point is that it is not the job of Marxists to take the responsibility of advising the Capitalist State on what is and what is not the most efficient means of conducting its activities, any more than it is our task to advise private Capitalists in that regard. If the Capitalist State has chosen an inefficient means of financing hospital provision, more fool them, because it simply means that Capital is paying over the odds for providing the necessary healthcare for the working class.
Workers will pay more in taxes, which they will either recoup by demanding higher wages, thereby reducing the Surplus Value appropriated by their employers, or else will have less income to spend on other goods, and services, again thereby reducing the revenues, and surplus value of Capital in general!
Capital has an incentive in trying to provide healthcare at the lowest cost to the level it requires to sustain a useful labour force. That is why Big Capital in the US is seeking to follow the example of its European counterpart in introducing socialised healthcare.
We should not get involved in these questions of how Capital finances its operations, but concentrate instead on simply protecting workers interests in respect of what is provided, and that means arguing for a workers alternative to both State Capitalist and private Capitalist provision.