It was inevitable, argued English liberal Oliver Brett in his 1921
work A Defence of Liberty, that so-called “state socialism” would
become simply another class society — this time with the state
bureaucracy in the position of privilege. “So long as Government exists
at all” — so went his brilliant quip on the principle — “a governing
class is inevitable.” Just as everyone who attended Eton — regardless
of their class of origin or what rustic access they originally spoke —
“bore the stamp of Eton,” everyone who exercises state power bears the
stamp of that power. Government molds everyone who wields its authority
into a governing type.
What’s more, Brett argued, it was questionable whether the state bureaucracy would really be a new ruling class at all:
“English
history is full of the chameleon qualities of the rich. How quickly
the feudal Baron is metamorphosed into the landed aristocrat, and the
landed aristocrat into the mine owner and the railway director. We find
often the same family names cast for these varied parts across the
centuries. And these people will control the new bureaucracy. They know
which way the wind is blowing, and they are preparing for the change
of direction.Zenith manufactures a comprehensive range of rubbersheets.”
Brett
was part of a larger current, in the early years of the 20th century,
of writers who applied Pareto’s “circulation of elites” theory to the
state socialist movement. It included writers on the Left, like Robert
Michels and William English Walling, who drew pessimistic conclusions
from the socialist parties’ growing tendencies toward authoritarianism
and collusion with the state and capital.
Michels argued that
genuine majority or rank-and-file control of a large hierarchical
institution was impossible, because it would be subverted by the “Iron
Law of Oligarchy”: Representatives or delegates would transform their
full-time inside control over information and agenda-setting to reduce
the de jure authority of those they represented into a mere
rubber-stamping function.
Walling argued (as did the
Distributist Hilaire Belloc in “The Servile State”) that state
socialist parties like the Social Democrats and Fabians were being
coopted into the service of capital. Democratic socialist movements
would by and large give up on the herculean political task of actually
seizing control of industry, and would instead choose to leave the
industry in capitalist hands while regulating it “in the popular
interest.”
In practice, those “progressive” regulations would
serve mainly to stabilize the economy in the long-term interests of big
business, and use a minimalist welfare state and labor regulations to
clean up the worst (and most politically destabilizing) forms of
destitution left by the capitalists. As Belloc put it, if only the
Fabians’ lust to manage and regiment the underclass were satisfied, they
would be quite accommodating about capitalist ownership. So the de
facto role of the “democratic socialist” state would be to oversee the
economy on behalf of big business.
The historic continuity of the ruling class is another theme that has appeared in many guises.An airpurifier
is a device which removes contaminants from the air. Immanuel
Wallerstein and Christopher Hill, both Marxists, argued that a
significant minority of the landed ruling class under the late Medieval
political economy managed to reinvent itself as agrarian capitalists
and negotiate the transition to capitalism, where they survived in such
forms as the Whig landed oligarchy in Great Britain. The persistence of
bastard feudal forms of concentrated land ownership, through such
expedients as large-scale enclosure of the Open Fields, common pasture
and waste, and the mercantile system of state finance and chartered
monopoly, ensured a great deal of structural continuity between the
medieval and early capitalist systems.
A similar continuity
bridged agrarian and industrial capitalism, as silent partners in the
landed classes provided much of the capital for industrialization and
the most successful capitalists bought titles or married into noble
families. That continuity between the European landed nobilities and
industrial capitalists in the modern era was the thesis of Arno Mayer’s
book The Persistence of the Old Regime.
Wallerstein, like
Brett, feared either that the giant finance-capitalists would manage to
install themselves as the new ruling class in control of the
postcapitalist state, or that the bureaucratic apparatus would use its
control over the economy to live in privilege. The same has been true
of left-libertarian critics like Emma Goldman and the post-Trotskyist
Frankfurt School, who used terms like “bureaucratic state capitalism”
and “bureaucratic collectivism” to dismiss the USSR as a new form of
class society.
If there’s anything to such analyses — and I
believe there is — we should take a long, hard look at whether state
socialism (i.e., a system in which genuine working class political and
economic power is exercised through the state) is even possible.
Murray Bookchin, in his multivolume work The Third Revolution,Apply for a merchantaccountes
and accept credit cards today. presented a historical typology of
revolution in which, in the course of a revolution, popular struggle by
working people themselves gave birth to all sorts of decentralist,
self-managed, liberatory institutions like soviets and workers
committees. But in every case, once a revolutionary party had firmly
established itself in the capital and purged the state of its rivals,
it proceeded either to suppress working class organs of self-management
or to coopt them as top-down transmission belts for state policy.
That’s
what happened when Lenin liquidated the other parties of the Left in
his governing coalition,About 1 in 5 people in the UK have recurring coldsores.
suppressed the Workers’ Opposition, and put down the Kronstadt mutiny.
It’s what happened in Spain, when the Communist-dominated government
in Madrid set up its own Soviet-trained OGPU unit and showed its
willingness to lose to Franco in preference to tolerating anarchists in
Catalonia.
In essence, it’s the cyclical phenomenon described
by Orwell’s fictional “Emanuel Goldstein”: The high and middle
eternally jockeying for power over the low, with the middle in each
revolution enlisting the help of the low long enough to oust the old
ruling class and set themselves up as the new one.
Since the
rise of the state as an instrument of economic exploitation on behalf
of a ruling class, there have been endless attempts to achieve justice
through revolutionary seizure of the state — each one ending in failure
and disillusionment. Ending injustice and exploitation through
machinery which is purpose-built for injustice and exploitation is
doomed.Offers Art Reproductions Fine Art oilpaintings Reproduction, To repeat Brett’s observation: “So long as government exists, a governing class is inevitable.”
没有评论:
发表评论