Back to Labour Values index
Back to Dock Strike index
Back to article index
Previous
THE STATE AND THE RULING CLASS
It will be noted that the above analysis distinguishes between the ruling class and the Government. It may be asked why this should be when the state is capitalist, surely the Government must be the ruling class. The answer is that while the state is an instrument or vehicle of the ruling class, its relation to that class is not that of (l) the sum total of that class' political organisation and force (2) nor is it in a position to simply register and carry out political and economic orders from the ruling class based on their needs as the owners of the means of production - i.e. it cannot impose a lowering of the subsistence level of the working class on its authority alone. Under capitalism the state has one function - common to all variants of bourgeois democracy and dictatorship: of organising and regulating the social and economic relations to prevent the anarchy inherent in capitalist production from breaking out and hindering the continuance of that production. (The state is not the only organisation in bourgeois society to perform this function; in Britain voluntary organisations have long played an important part.) In order to perform this role, the state requires the consent of all classes in the society - not just the ruling class. As said above, the ruling class cannot impose its will by coercion for long. Therefore, it is necessary that the authority of the state be derived and be seen by all classes to be derived by a process of consent by all classes. In Britain this process is embodied in Parliament - whereby neither the Executive nor the Judicial arms of the state are free to act except by Parliamentary decision (in the case of the Judiciary, Lord Denning made this very clear this week.)
But it will be argued, we all know that Parliament is a bourgeois trick - look at the two political parties - Tweedledum and Tweedledee. If this is so, then why has the state and Parliament made any concessions to the working class? Why does it not simply impose the bourgeois will despite the force of working class opposition? A parliamentary decision, a law, is a reflection of the balance of class forces in the society.
If Parliament's Acts did not reflect the balance of class forces then the business of regulating society would take place in other institutions. Parliament is not an agent of the two classes in the way that trade union leaders are, but it is representative. To do its job correctly, Parliament must know what each class's position on an issue is and how far they are willing to move from that position to compromise for the good of the nation, and then register that compromise in its business. Parliament does not represent one class alone, rather it represents the bargain struck between the two. And it is crucial to remember that the bargaining process goes on mainly outside Parliament: it is in fact the culmination, the final form of the process. Within a capitalist mode of production, the state registers the state of play in the class struggle. If it does more than that, or is seen to do more than that, there is a loss of confidence in the state by the class which believes itself wronged and a political crisis ensues where the state's existence is in question. The state stands for capitalist society, but within that society the bourgeoisie and the working class co-exist. And until the working class withdraws its consent from the state and overthrows it, it will continue to govern by registering the bargaining between the two classes.
Now, this means that though the bourgeoisie are represented in the state, they have an independent political economic existence without it. They use the state as does the working class but their demands cannot always be met in full by it. They use it as skilfully and adeptly as they can, but they cannot order its decisions. In the case of the rail dispute, the bourgeoisie considered that the Government had been over-zealous. Interestingly, D.Watt traces the source of this to [the fact that] "The Department of Employment, as an institution, inclines to the full rigours of the ... apocalyptic version (constitutional crisis)."
Since the mid-60s the bourgeoisie have had as their main political objective the increased exploitation of the working class. They have put this objective ahead of maintaining industrial peace at whatever cost. But they are unwilling to sacrifice civil order for it. They realise that the outcome would not help them achieve the desired change in relations of production. What is required of the bourgeoisie in this situation? To gain their objective, they must be willing to concede something to the working class in return. The working class has shown clearly that it will not accept unilateral concession. And when the working class has seen a unilateral concession becoming legislation (Incomes Policy and the Labour Party's Industrial Relations Bill), it has refused to let that law be operable. The bourgeoisie must find something to concede in return for the working class' co-operation re wages and modernisation.
And indeed they are aware of this: "In a significant, speech, Mr. Adamson (Director-General of the CBI, NS) said that the CBI recognised that the TUC was not in a position to match direct restraint on prices with direct restraint on wages. 'But a response in the form of a serious effort to discuss and hammer out some of the problems of inflation, of differentials, of low pay, of frequent interruptions of work, would certainly be taken very seriously by members of the CBI when they are determining their future policy on prices', he said ... 'A myth has grown up that the public sector has borne the brunt of the wages battle, and that Government has in some way protected the public interest by lower settlements here than in the private sector. The facts do not bear this out,' he said. Although the Government had a prime duty to look after the public interest, in general it should do this by its economic, monetary and industrial policies, and not by direct intervention in voluntary collective bargaining ... Mr. Adamson maintained that the Government also had a key role to play in controlling inflation by taking swift action to deal with the problems caused by soaring land and house prices. He said that he had some sympathy with trade union leaders who felt that by constantly stressing the need to reduce wage settlements their members were being asked to bear the brunt of the battle against inflation while others seemed to remain immune. It was difficult to convince a man earning wages in the lower brackets that those who gained from the phenomenal rise in house prices - very often purely by chance - should not also be required to join in the fight, he said. It was difficult, too, for him to understand why large profits should be made on the sale of land: 'It is hardly surprising that the response is pressure for higher and higher money wages, and that the psychological effect of rising land and house prices is probably even greater than the effect of the increases themselves', Mr. Adamson said. 'It is clearly time for the Government to take the most urgent action, or series of actions, in this field, or else this running sore will poison our whole efforts to combat inflation.'" (FT, 9.6.72)
Here is one of the most powerful members of the ruling class telling the state (1) not to intervene, too early in the class struggle lest it become identified by the working class with the bourgeoisie - to let an episode in tho class struggle develop until it has been worked out enough to be registered by the state and not before. (2) that the interests of property-owners could well be jettisoned for the sake of working class co-operation. The President of the CBI had the following to say:
'Mr. Clapham said that he was certain that CBI members would approach these questions (price restraint) with a sense of deep responsibility - "a responsibility which I hope and believe will in the end be matched by those who work with us in industry." The CBI's President said that he could not believe Britain would allow inflation to get out of control to the point where people's wages had to be collected in wheelbarrows and people's savings had gone up in smoke, but that was where the road the country was on could lead. In the face of this risk, industry had to ask itself what action it could take to find a better road. "Let us remind ourselves that people once welcomed a dictator who made the trains run on time, and that they paid a heavy price for not tackling such problems themselves," Mr. Clapham said. "When faced with a really dangerous situation, responsible citizens in a democracy don't sit on their backsides howling for the Government to get them out of trouble. They first sweat their guts out to do everything they can do, in partnership with Government or alone, to put things right." Mr. Clapham said he was confident that this was the spirit in which CBI members would approach their decision in July. Nevertheless, the CBI's president made no attempt to play down the difficulties which voluntary prices restraint have caused, and would cause, for many companies." (FT, 16.6.72)
Recognising that government action is limited by the material reality in the society which it regulates, the bourgeoisie have dug in their heels for a long, uphill struggle. Not bureaucratic Trotskyists, they realise that they must offer the working class something real in return for increased exploitation. Exactly what will be determined by the class struggle: what the working class demands and how determined it is in making the demand.
Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie is asking of its members to tread as carefully as possible and to do nothing that will unnecessarily provoke the working class. Unnecessarily from the point of view of this economic objective and 'civil order'. Being too zealous in the rule of law is certainly unnecessary. This was the Government's error in the rail dispute.