Mahmut Boyuneğmez
Summary
In
this article, we will leave out the initial formation of the state and its
development up to the age of capitalism and focus on the capitalist state and
the fate of the state in the future society. We will argue that the state,
similar to the condition of the family, the division of labor and property,
will not disappear in the world society of the future, but will retain some of
its features, metamorphose and transform, in a word, transcend.
The
capitalist state can be defined as follows: "State power is capitalist
insofar as it creates, maintains and renews the conditions for capital
accumulation in a given situation."[2]
The
capitalist state represents the immediate and long-term interests of all fractions
of the capitalist class (non-monopoly small and medium-sized capital, monopoly
big capital, finance capital, etc.). Although the capitalist state constitutes
a separate structure/organization from the members of the capitalist class, it
is an organization of power of this class. The capitalist state is a dimension
and structure of the power relations between the capitalist class and other
classes of society. The power/dominance of the capitalist class is established
over the working masses inside and outside the state through the state, for
example through the organs of repression, the judicial system and the education
system, and through the policies implemented by political
administrators/bureaucrats in various institutional structures through their
ideological affiliations.
The
capitalist state is not a mediator reconciling the antagonism between the
capitalist class and the working class. This state exerts pressure on the
masses on behalf of the capitalist class, ideologically directs and regulates
social relations. The result of the struggles of the masses is the
re-establishment of power relations in a new equilibrium of forces, with
concessions made to them in the policies implemented.
The
capitalist state is an open system that ensures the rule of the capitalist
class and always exists as a nation state.
The
capitalist state is essentially an organization/structure of political power.
Power relations between the capitalist class and the working class are limited
by law in ordinary forms of capitalist state. Under fascism and military
dictatorships, the extraordinary capitalist state is freed from the constraints
of law.
The
makers, guardians and enforcers of the laws within the state, the creator of
capitalist law, have power over the working people. The legal organizations of
the state are structures of hegemony with their repressive and ideological
functions. Capitalist law, as a dimension of power relations, reflects and
regulates the relations between labor and capital. In the capitalist social
system, oppression/violence is organized and applied through law. Capitalist
law monopolizes the capitalist state as the only legitimate practitioner of
violence/repression.[3]
As
abstract, general, formal rules, capitalist law has ideological functions by
concealing class differences and preaching that everyone is equal before the
law. Agents within capitalist social relations enter into legal relations as
isolated individuals or groups, rendering the class/antagonistic relations
between them invisible. Not all actions of the capitalist state fit within the
legal framework; there are aspects of the organization and actions of the
capitalist state that go beyond or against the law. In other words, the
understanding of "raison d'etat" is inherent to the capitalist state.
The capitalist state resorts to open violence in cases where the working
class/people's movements threaten the order, and in these historical episodes
it becomes visible that it is the political power of the capitalist class that
has the function of protecting the system. Since the power relations between
the classes are reflected in the law, the rights won as a result of the
struggles of the working class are enshrined in the law as concessions made by
the capitalist class. The law does not only function by applying coercion; it
also forces and directs people into actions and discourses that are compatible
with the power of the capitalist class.
The
capitalist state responds to the collective interests of the capitalist class.
The capitalist state is a fundamental element in the social reproduction of
capital. The capitalist state, whether in the form of absolutist monarchy,
liberal state, monopoly state, neoliberal state, always has a central and
fundamental role for capital accumulation. The state establishes the legal and
financial systems that facilitate the production and exchange of commodities
and the accumulation of capital, which are necessary for capitalism to exist.
The capitalist state influences the functioning of market forces and the
organization of production in the private sector through these two main
mediations. The capitalist state also has functions for the reproduction of the
labor force, such as the enactment of labor laws, the supervision of trade
union activities, the provision of education, health and social welfare. The
production of use-values that are not profitable to produce in the private
sector but are essential for capital accumulation is secured by the capitalist
state through expropriation or subsidies. The capitalist state also supplies
use-values whose production is a "natural monopoly" to the market.
The capitalist state cooperates with other capitalist states for the continuity
of capital accumulation. In the current phase, the capitalist state is
implementing political interventions that will ensure the restructuring of
capital and the reorganization of labor processes, which are counter-tendencies
to the trend of falling profit rates. The economic functions of the capitalist
state today are changing depending on the neo-liberal form of capital
accumulation and the state of class struggles.
Basic
state forms in the emergence and development of capitalism
The
spread of commodity production in Europe took place in the 15th and 16th
centuries under the rule of absolutist states. The first formation of the
capitalist state was parallel to the spread of commodity relations. "(...)
the absolutist state constitutes a state with purely capitalist features, a
true transitional state to capitalism."[4] The features of the
mercantilist state, the primordial form of the capitalist state, are the
following:
"The
mercantilist state is structured around commercial privileges, regulations and
monopolies. This state facilitates the commercialization of agriculture and the
consequent detachment of labourers from the land. One of its main features is
the direct management of the 'surplus-population' and the creation of this
surplus-population as a labor-power, either directly or through systems of
forced labor (vagrancy laws, reformatories, deportation of people to colonies,
etc.). All the forms, policies and ideology of such a state reveal the
astonishing contradictions of a state power that claims to be the state of the
whole of society, but which constantly operates in favor of commercial
privileges and the accumulation of property. The mercantilist state is
therefore characterized not by equal exchange, but by unequal property
relations supported by those in authority and power."[5]
In
the period when capitalism sprouted within feudal social relations, the
primitive accumulation of capital took place. Marx makes the following
assessment about primitive accumulation:
"The
discovery of gold and silver mines in America, the extermination and
enslavement of the indigenous population and the turning of the mines into
their graves, the beginning of the conquest and plunder of the East Indies, the
conversion of Africa into a commercial hunting ground for black skins, were all
signs of the dawn of the era of capitalist production. These fairytale-like
processes constitute the main stages of the primitive accumulation. This was
followed by the trade wars of the European nations, with the whole earth as the
stage. They began with the secession of the Netherlands from Spain, reached enormous
proportions in England with the war against the Jacobins, continued with the
Opium War against China, and so on. The different phases of the primitive
accumulation are now scattered, more or less in a time sequence, especially in
Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and England. In England at the end of the 17th
century, they form a systematic whole which includes the colonial system, the
system of public debt, the modern system of taxation and protectionism. These
methods, like the colonial system, are partly based on the crudest coercion.
But they all made use of state force in order to accelerate the process of
transformation from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of
production by creating a favorable environment and shortening the transition
period.
Coercion
is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. Force is an
economic force in itself."[6]
The
primitive capitalist accumulation processes were accompanied by the policies
and practices of repression pursued by absolutist monarchical states.
The
bourgeoisie destroyed the last vestiges of the feudal mode of production in
Europe, broke the social influence of the church/religion, made a tremendous
breakthrough in the productive forces, legally and ethically secured capitalist
private property, commerce and industrial entrepreneurship, and ensured the
spread and development of science and rationality. In the Manifesto of the
Communist Party, Marx and Engels praise this bourgeoisie and its deeds. The
revolution in which the bourgeoisie demonstrated its progressiveness as a class
was the Great French Revolution. The Great French Revolution of 1789 was the
most progressive revolution among the bourgeois revolutions. With this
revolution, advanced steps were taken in many areas such as the adoption of
enlightenment values, the implementation of a secular state, the formation of
the nation and citizenship. However, it is known that with the revolutions of
1848, the bourgeoisie became politically reactionary, revived monarchist views,
was not as eager as before to involve the masses in the revolutionary process,
on the contrary, it became fearful of the mobilizations of the working class,
the petty bourgeoisie and the peasants and tried to prevent these
mobilizations, and when this failed, it suppressed them. The development of
capitalist relations of production in Europe began in the presence of absolute
monarchies and the political revolutions of the late 18th and 19th centuries
changed the type of state and the superstructural dimension of the old regime.
In
the late capitalist Prussia, it is again observed that the state paved the way
for the development of capitalist social relations:
"For
a long time the Prussian state remained a state dominated by feudal structures.
In the time of Bismarck, it was this state itself that handed over political
power to the bourgeoisie: "Revolution from above". The German
bourgeoisie could not decide to liquidate the aristocracy. Its political rule
was established by the state, which retained its feudal form and features. This
form of organization had two important consequences: Feudal structures and
forms survived for a long time, and the state played an important, even
dominant role in the processes of capitalization and industrialization."[7]
Capitalist
relations of production, which had just sprouted during the decline of the
Ottoman Empire, began to develop rapidly after the formation of the capitalist
state with the process of bourgeois revolution. The bourgeois revolution in
Turkey must be analyzed as a single historical episode, with the developments
of "social revolution" and "political revolution"
intertwined. The political revolutions of 1908 and 1919-23 can be interpreted
as leaps in the continuity of the processes of social revolution between 1839
and 1940.[8] The bourgeois revolution in Turkey took place over a long period
of time, progressing through gradual reforms and including the war of liberation
(the participation of the people in the war of liberation).
To
summarize, in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the most appropriate
form of state was the absolutist monarchies implementing mercantilist policies,
which transformed into bourgeois parliamentary democracy in the phase of
liberal capitalism. In this way, a form of state was created that was suitable
for the political representation of the different fractions of the ruling class
and that subordinated the entire capitalist class to laws controlled by the
state bureaucracy. In the early stages of its development, parliaments were a
forum for identifying the common needs of the capitalist class fractions,
reconciling them and formulating common strategies, with bourgeois parties
partly taking into account the demands of the working classes in order to win
electoral approval. In the stage of monopoly capitalism, the capitalist state
changed its form, increasing the scope and power of its instruments of
intervention in economic processes in order to establish direct relations with
individual capitals and to mobilize tendencies against the downward trend of
profit rates. Thus, parliaments were weakened, bureaucracies were strengthened,
and the participation of individual capitals and social-democratic trade unions
in capitalist state mechanisms was ensured.[9] The crisis that began in the
1970s and extends to the present day has provided a historical ground for the
renewal of the state form. We will discuss the neoliberal capitalist state that
emerged in this historical episode later.
Nation-state
First,
we can look at what a nation is:
"A
community of people who have lived together in the past, who now have the
belief, desire and decision to live together; who claim the same homeland and
the material and spiritual values of that homeland; who have unity of religion,
language, culture, history and emotion."[10]
There
are problematic aspects in this definition of the nation. Peoples consisting of
productive laborers other than the exploiting classes have intertwined and
fused throughout history. Parameters such as language, religion, ethnicity,
history and tradition, which are used to define and distinguish nations, are
insufficient to describe nations. For example, while Americans, Australians and
New Zealanders speak English as their first language, they do not consider
themselves members of the "British nation". In Swiss society, French,
German and Italian are spoken. In Northern Ireland, people who speak the same language
are segregated into religious lines (Protestant and Catholic).[11] In Turkey,
although there are many peoples/ethnicities, it is claimed that they all form
one and the same "nation", etc....
What
is important here is to see that "national identity" is constructed
in minds through elements such as religious beliefs and "racial"[12]
unity, a common understanding of history in which exaggeration and fabrication
are functional. The determination of certain special days and the organization
of ceremonies on these days, reminding of past victories, liberation days,
military achievements of "national" leaders, the educational process
in schools, the encouragement to read literary works loaded with patriotic
sentiments also participate in the formation of "national identity".
So
are nations not a historical-social reality but "imaginary
communities"[13]?... The importance of national consciousness in the
formation and reproduction of nations is undeniable. In other words, for a
community of people in a country to form a nation, a "national
identity" and "national consciousness" is necessary, which must
be reproduced every day. But this does not mean that this community of people
does not exist as a social reality.
In
our view, nations cannot be analyzed separately from nation-states. In essence,
a nation is a group of people bound to political power on the scale of a
country. On the scale of countries, people's loyalty and attachment to
political power is ensured through their possession of cultural values, ideas
and emotions called "national" within the scope of the dominant
ideology[14]. The function of "national" values, emotions, behavior
patterns and ideas is to participate in the reproduction of the social power of
the capitalist class and to ensure the maintenance of this power.
Nations
are human communities with specific forms of consciousness and identities. For
their formation and daily reproduction, certain ideological patterns of
thought, feeling and behavior are needed. The main ideological cluster that
ensures attachment to the political power in a country is the national
consciousness. Today, a nation is a group of people living under the political
sovereignty of a capitalist state. In the future, it refers to the society that
will be made up of producers bound to the socialist state.
"The
essential constituent elements of the nation are geography (the country),
economy (the market) and political organization (the state)."[15]
Political unions (nation-states) were established on the basis of geographical
boundaries as a result of the development of production for exchange (the
formation of the market). The determining factor here is the state. The
capitalist state has created the nation and is the most important factor in its
continuity, it has a decisive function. "Nations do not create states and
nationalisms, the opposite is true."[16]
The
capitalist state is active in the processes of internal market formation in
countries: "(...) the capitalist state is characterized by being a
nation-state (...) This state (...) actively works for the establishment of
national unity (...) The state (...) is itself at work by coherentizing the
space of circulation of goods and capital; this is the essence of its action in
the establishment of national unity."[17]
The
construction of the nation by the capitalist state also means the formation of
itself. The capitalist state is shaped by class struggles between the
bourgeoisie and the working people on a national scale. In building the nation,
the capitalist state also recreates a national language.[18]
In
short, nation-states are newly formed capitalist states. Having undergone many
changes until today, nation-states continue to exist as capitalist state powers
within societies coded as nations.
Capitalist state and economy
We
have already mentioned the fundamental role of the state in the primitive
accumulation of capital and the decisive function of the state in the
development of capitalist social relations in countries with late
capitalization and a weak capitalist class. But what are the current economic
functions of the capitalist state? We can look at that now.
The
capitalist state is the organization of power that guarantees and perpetuates
the exploitation of workers. It achieves this through its potential to exert
pressure against behaviors and actions that would disrupt the social and
working order, by establishing legal rules and regulating work life and social
relations, by taking part in the formation of hegemony over the consciousness
of the working class through the education system and the culture industry, and
by directing these structures. Again, although workers' exercise of their
rights to unionize, collective bargaining and strike limits exploitation, the relations
of exploitation are secured by the corporative union relations established
between the state-bosses-workers' unions. Exploitation is not a one-off event,
but a phenomenon/process. It must exist and be maintained continuously. The
production of social material life is ensured and sustained not only through
economic practices but also through various practices in different dimensions
of social relations. The capitalist state has a coexistence with the economic,
political, ideological, cultural and legal dimensions of capitalist social
relations. The capitalist state is an element of a system of social relations
in which these dimensions are not separate and isolated from each other, but
intertwined and interacting.
"In
capitalist societies there is no need for the state to intervene directly in
economic exploitation because of the appearance of a neutral constitutional
state, but the state will be indirectly implicated in the process of
exploitation by creating the conditions for the domination of capital and the
market forces to feel secure."[19]
Although
the capitalist state is essentially an organization of political power, it is
present in economic processes in varying proportions in the historical course.
For example, during the Fordism phase of capitalist development in Europe,
which lasted from the mid-20th century to the end of the 1970s, the state was
directly involved with its organizations in areas such as social security,
health and education in relation to the reproduction of labor forces. In
Turkey, in the historical period from the foundation of the republic until the
1980s, the state carried out economic activities by establishing state economic
enterprises. With the crisis that began in the 1970s, there was a period of
transformation from a welfare state to a neoliberal capitalist state, changes
in the intervention of the capitalist state in economic processes, and the
state withdrew from these areas while opening up new areas for capital
accumulation through privatization.
In
the past, the capitalist state's economic function of organizing the
reproduction of the labor force has been embodied in the public education and
health system, social security, social benefits, daycare support, unemployment
insurance, employment agencies, public transportation, housing construction,
and the regulation of recreation and sports. These obligations of the
capitalist state provided the necessary conditions for capital accumulation.
The capitalist state has assumed the demands of the working class in its struggles
on these issues in line with the accumulation strategy of capital, limiting the
gains of the class and preventing social explosions. The roles assumed by the
capitalist state in the reproduction of labor power and the material mechanisms
it has created have provided political-ideological control over the working
people and established hegemony. In terms of the reproduction of the whole of
social capital, in other words, the sustainability of capital accumulation
processes, scientific research, the energy sector, the communication system,
etc. have been monopolized by the capitalist state.[20] In the historical
period of crisis in the capitalist system since the 1970s, the regulation of
labor processes in order to implement counter-tendencies against the downward
trend in profit rates and to increase relative surplus-value has been a form of
neoliberal capitalist state intervention in the economy. Many elements involved
in the reproduction of labor power have been marketized, and privatizations
have taken place in sectors such as energy and telecommunications, which were
monopolized by the capitalist state.
The
capitalist state makes the legal and monetary arrangements necessary for
capital accumulation processes. It can be a constitutive element of production
and capital accumulation processes (tenders, privatizations), but it is always
intrinsically related to these processes. In addition, the capitalist state
creates a necessary condition for capital accumulation by investing in
infrastructure, by implementing taxation policies, by creating projects that
companies can profit from through tenders, by transferring resources to capital
through privatizations, by establishing monetary and fiscal policies through
the Central Bank and supreme boards, It regulates and intervenes in economic
processes by determining basic expenditure and investment items through the
budget, by organizing the sphere of circulation through the law of debts and
commercial law, by supporting the capitalist class of the country to export
capital between countries and to find markets, by directing the economic
policies of dependent countries through imperialist organizations.
State power, state apparatus and government
Power
is class-based. Power is power relations between classes.[21] The social
relations between the capitalist class and the working class have economic,
political, ideological, cultural, legal and governmental dimensions. The social
relations and practices between these two main classes are conditioned by
structures of hegemony. Hegemony structures work in some cases predominantly
through coercion and the use of force, in other cases predominantly through
ideological approval and consent, and sometimes through a combination of these.
Hegemony is realized through coercion, enforcement, fear, intimidation,
ideological approval, consent and attachment, distraction and creating preoccupation. The
hegemony of the capitalist class over the working class and other segments of
society ensures the social power of the capitalist class. Although the
capitalist state is essentially the political structure of the power
relations[22] between the capitalist class and the working class, the state
dimension of social relations also has economic, political, ideological,
cultural and legal aspects. Therefore, state power is not only political power.
What
are the economic, political, ideological, cultural, legal and state practices
that ensure the social power of the capitalist class? The relations between
workers and boss(es) in the workplace are relations of power. Without the power
of the bosses, who own the means of production, over the workers and without
the daily reproduction of this power, the relations of exploitation cannot be
sustained. Relations of production, which are relations of exploitation, are
also relations of power. Religious ideologies, nationalism, philanthropy,
mystical and metaphysical micro-ideologies, etc., while being produced in daily
practices, create hegemony for the social power of the capitalist class.
Activities oriented towards products of the culture industry, industrialized
sporting events reproduce social power. Legal rules and legal structure provide
hegemony for the power of the capitalist class through repressive and
ideological functions.
In
the classical approach, the state apparatus includes state institutions,
bureaucracy, ministries, legislature, judiciary and organs of repression.
Moreover, with Althusser, the "Ideological Apparatuses of the State"
(ISA) were added to these. In our view, the state is one of the
superstructures, since it is an organization of the capitalist class in its
relations with the working class. The capitalist state is a structure with a
specific arrangement/organization and functioning, with specific aspects in
each country, but in general terms, in the form of what is called capitalist
democracy.
The
government is a component of political power as the executive power that
operates state power. The executive power is a committee that directs economic
and other social practices and intervenes in different dimensions of social
relations in line with the current, near and far term interests of the
capitalist class. Instead of having representatives of different fractions of
the capitalist class in parliaments, as in the past, there are now MPs
belonging to the parties, all of whom are ideologically committed to the
capitalist class. While the parties have nuances in their ideological/political
visions, these ideological perspectives are united under the umbrella of the
bourgeois worldview/liberalism.
ISAs and the 'state apparatus'
Althusser
describes the "Ideological Apparatuses of the State" (ISA) and states
that they must be distinguished from the "Repressive Apparatuses of the
State" (RSA).[23] According to Althusser, the state is "present and
at hand" in families with its family ISA, in every school, whether private
or public, with its educational ISA, in the press-radio-television channels and
even the internet with its communication ISA, in literature, fine arts and
sports with its cultural ISA, in legal field with its legal ISA, and in other
fields of social life with other ISAs. In short, for him, the state is almost everywhere
or almost everything (family, literature, etc.) is the state.
Poulantzas,
who is in the line of Althusser, expresses this distinction as follows:
"The
dominant ideology materializes in the bosom of society in a series of
apparatuses and institutions, including churches (the religious apparatus),
political parties (the political apparatus), trade unions (the trade union
apparatus), schools and universities (the teaching apparatus), the 'means of
information' (newspapers, radio, cinema, TV, in short, the information
apparatus), the 'cultural' (broadcasting), the family under a certain
appearence, etc. These are the ideological apparatuses of the state.
"These
apparatuses are relatively distinct from the 'repressive' apparatus of the
state, the apparatus whose main appearance is organized physical repression and
which performs its role under this appearance, under the legal monopoly of the
state, is the state apparatus in the narrow sense."[24]
Let
us quote Poulantzas again from another article of his:
"The
state system is made up of various apparatuses or institutions, some of which
essentially assume the role of repression in its strictest sense and others the
role of ideology. The former constitute the repressive apparatus of the state,
that is, the state in the classical Marxist sense (government, army, police,
courts and administration). The latter constitute the ideological apparatus of
the state, such as the church, political parties, associations (excluding, of
course, revolutionary parties and trade unions), schools, mass media
(newspapers, radio, television) and, to some extent, the family.
"(...)
the ideological apparatuses of the state enjoy a greater and more important
autonomy by virtue of their main functions - indoctrination and transmission:
Their relations with each other and with the apparatus of state repression are
seen to have greater autonomy than the mutual relations of the branches of the
apparatus of state repression."[25]
Within
the Turkish socialist left and among Marxist intellectuals, the influence of
this school, known as "structuralist Marxism", is strong. It is impossible that left-liberal intellectuals are going to be rehabilitated in this regard.
But even experienced socialist political figures such as Haluk Yurtsever, for
example, adopt the distinction between the ISAs and the state apparatus.
Yurtsever states that to consider the ISAs "outside the state system would
be another mistake that could be made."[26]
Ralph
Miliband's critique of this conception is cautionary:
"(...)
It is necessary to show that the institutions in question are part of a system
of power and (...) that they are increasingly connected to the state and
supported by it (...) But to say that the institutions in question are in fact
part of the state system does not correspond to reality (...)"[27]
In
our view, the power of the capitalist class in capitalist society is formed and
reproduced on a social scale. The social power of the capitalist class is not
achieved through the organization of the state alone.[28] In addition, social
sovereignty/power also has economic, ideological (educational, communicative),
cultural (literary, artistic, sportive), civil society organizational (unions,
associations, foundations, etc.) dimensions. In the relationship established
between workers and bosses on the scale of enterprises, there is not only an
economic and legal relationship, but also a sovereignty-subordination
relationship.[29] The education system and the media contain practices and
interpersonal relations that participate in the formation of the hegemony
necessary for the social power of the capitalist class. Trade unions, as
corporatist organizations that reconcile the interests of the working class
with the state and the bosses, ensure the attachment of workers to the
capitalist system, and so on... We call the organizations that participate in
the formation of the social power of the capitalist class in all these
dimensions and reproduce this power every day, the hegemony structures of social power. The social power of the
capitalist class is ensured and reproduced through the hegemony that is formed.
Through various social processes, organizations and productions, the social
power of the capitalist class is perpetuated.
On
the other hand, the state is a social structure with a certain arrangement/organization
and functioning. We believe that it is healthier to use conceptualizations such
as organization and structure instead of "apparatus".
Is the capitalist state "relatively
autonomous"?
On
"relative autonomy", Poulantzas wrote the following:
"The
distinction between the economic level and the political level provides the
general framework for analyzing the relative autonomy of the capitalist state,
depending on the different stages and phases of capitalism (this distinction is
itself open to transformation) (...) The 'relative' in the phrase 'relative
autonomy' of the state (relative in relation to what and to whom?) refers here
to the relation between the state and the ruling classes (i.e., relatively
autonomous in its relation to the ruling classes)."[30]
Poulantzas
argues for the "relative separation of economics and politics" and
the "relative autonomy of the state vis-à-vis the ruling classes and fractions"
as "distinctive features of the capitalist type of state."[31]
The
idea of the separation of the political from the economic in the age of
capitalism is deceptive and misleading. This is because capitalist society is
an interactive system of social relations and structures. The conception of
production as a technical process plays a major role in the formation of this
false view. Understood in this way, one can think that capitalist relations of production continously reproduce/perpetuate themselves and the result is the idea that relations of exploitation is eternal. The relations of exploitation, which are capitalist
relations of production, are not purely economic relations, and their continued
existence depends on the interactive unity/system of all relations encompassed
by society.[32] Although the capitalist state is a structure outside the
processes of capital accumulation, it is a constitutive component of these
processes. The processes of capital accumulation are not purely economic
phenomena; the form of the capital accumulation process is shaped by class
struggles.[33] To summarize, "(...) the capitalist state is not something
separate from and above the capitalist relations of production, but is a direct
part of these relations."[34] Poulantzas also made this determination:
"(...) the political-state (but the same applies to ideology), although in
different forms, has always been constitutively present within the relations of
production and thus in their reproduction."[35]
Jessop's
point that the capitalist state is institutionally decoupled from the capital
accumulation process is also apt:
"The
most important general feature of the capitalist state form is its
particularization (its institutional separation from the capital
cycle)."[36]
This
means that the capitalist state is an organization that is decoupled from the
capitalist class and the processes of capital accumulation. Otherwise
"(...) the essential characteristic of the state is not its autonomy, but
its class character."[37]
At
this point, we should point out that the idea that the state is not necessary
for capitalist production, that none of the concepts developed in Capital presupposes the state,[38] is
incorrect. In our view, production presupposes social relations and the state,
and it also leads to the reproduction of social relations. The fact that Marx
did not live to realize his plan to include the capitalist state later in his
analysis, due to his layered treatment of the subject, feeds the
misunderstanding of capitalist production as an isolated economic process in
his work. While it is correct to see the state as a historical necessity by stating
that it results from the development of class struggle, one should not fall
into the mistake of separating the political from the economic,[39] because
capitalist relations of production are relations between classes. The
capitalist state is necessary for the reproduction of capitalist social
relations and relations of production.
At
no time in history has the state been a power above society, separate from it.
The state is a dimension of social relations.[40] In our view, the state is not
a supra-class arbiter or power, because it is not above social relations.
The
capitalist state is an organization of domination/power of the capitalist
class. The capitalist class does not directly dominate the capitalist state, it
does not penetrate it except in exceptional individual cases. The capitalist
state is an organization of power relations that enable the capitalist class to
dominate society.
There
is no theoretical benefit in characterizing the separation of politicians and
the bureaucracy within the state structure from the capitalist class as
"relative autonomy". These categories, with their ideologies, have
perspectives that fall within the scope of the capitalist worldview and work in
harmony with the interests of the capitalist class.
We
can now look at some of the types of states that can be called
"extraordinary" states.
Bonapartism
Napoleon
III (the son of Napoleon Bonaparte's brother), President of France between 1848
and 1852, overthrew the republic in a coup d'état and declared himself emperor.
The bourgeoisie gave passive approval to Bonaparte's seizure of power by coup
d'état. Bonapartism is a dictatorship observed during the immaturity of the
political rule of the bourgeoisie. It developed as a result of the
proletariat's failure to take power and the bourgeoisie's inability to retain
it. The Bonapartist state is the product of a state of equilibrium between two
basic classes in conflict.
"This
administration was also supported by a large section of smallholder
conservative peasants, isolated from each other as a result of their mode of
production, who, lacking the ability to form a coherent and conscious class to
defend their interests, felt 'the need for representation' (Marx) and, in the
French provinces, embraced the person whom historical tradition valorized
because of the vividness of Napoleon's memory. Another support came from the
bourgeoisie, which 'had to lose its crown to save its purse' (Marx) and
entrusted power to the adventurer of December 2, whom it believed would protect
its material interests."[41]
In
Bonapartism, state organization and executive power have an
independent/autonomous appearance from the capitalist class. Bonapartist state
organization is a structure that strengthens and consolidates over time.
Bonapartist dictatorship ensured the development of capitalist social
relations.
Fascist state and military dictatorship
The
extraordinary capitalist forms of the state in the form of fascism and military
dictatorships have come into being in crises of hegemony in the capitalist
system of social relations.
Crises
were experienced in Germany between 1921-33 and in Italy between 1919-27. The
classical fascist states in these two countries were the product of crisis
conditions. The way out of the crises in Italy and Germany was to increase the
productivity of labor and to access raw material resources and new markets.
Since these two late capitalist countries did not have enough colonies, they
conditioned a new war of division.[42]
The
fascist dictatorships in Germany and Italy were established with the support of
the capitalist class to the protest/fascist movements that sprouted in the
economic crisis environment and became massive over time, as a way out of the
crisis. The imperialist policies of the capitalist classes coincided with the
fascists' occupying/expansionist perspective and armament policy.[43]
Fascism
is the result of a historical episode in which the opposition between labor and
capital took the form of a contradiction and became the chief contradiction
(the contradiction in the foreground and the contradiction on which the
solution of other contradictions depends).[44] "(...) it can be said that
although the revolution took place in the weakest link of the chain (in
Russia), fascism was established in the other two links that came after it,
which were the weakest according to the Europe of the time."[45] During
the crisis period in Germany and Italy, the working class movement
strengthened. The fascist movement fulfilled its function of liquidating the
organized working class movements and communists who posed a threat to the
capitalist class.[46]
To
this must be added that the militarist expansionism of fascism, aimed at the
destruction of the Soviet Union, is in the interest of the
imperialist-capitalist system.
Fascism
is an open dictatorship in which the executive is centralized and strengthened
in the "leader" of the fascist party. Fascism is totalitarianism.
"Totalitarianism
means, of course, first and foremost the abolition of political pluralism and
all forms of opposition, the end of the parliamentary form of government and
the separation of powers, a hierarchical state structure centered around a single
leader and a single party (the "Führer principle"), centralized
economic management, in short, total control of society by the state. To this
must be added the abolition of fundamental rights and freedoms, with the state
monopoly on official ideology and the media, and the use of terror as the
dominant technique of governance."[47]
The
continuity of fascist state power rests on the fascist party and its
organization of the mass movement within society. State power does not hover in
the air, it rises on social support. This is also true of fascism. It is also
necessary for fascist state, as a corporative state, to have an alternative
relationship with the working people in order to dismantle working class
organization.
The
fascist state defends the interests of the monopoly capitalist class, i.e.
finance capital, but this power has been able to organize individuals belonging
to all classes as its mass base, and has received the most support from the
petty bourgeoisie, which constitutes the intermediate layers.[48]
It
is not correct to characterize military/civilian dictatorships or authoritarian
forms of government in dependent countries, which are at the bottom of the
imperialist hierarchy, as fascism. There are similarities between fascism and
these political regimes, such as nationalism, racism, leader fetishism,
repression in the foreground, restriction of rights and freedoms,
passivization/deportation of the masses. These regimes/forms of government can
be called "fascistic". In our view, the legacy of the classical
examples of fascism between the two world wars has now been generally and
widely internalized by capitalist democracies. Social power relations in
capitalist democracies have acquired fascistic as well as formally democratic
qualities. This situation has been crystallized in the historical section from
the early 1980s to the present day, when neoliberalism's need and tendency for
authoritarian rule became apparent.
Capitalist democracy and the neoliberal authoritarian
capitalist state
Bourgeois
democracy is the usual/accustomed form of the capitalist state. Whereas in the
past, in this form of state called capitalist democracy, parliaments had
different parties in terms of class composition (mainly fractions of the
bourgeoisie), today, with the metamorphosis, all the parties represented in
parliament are tied to the interests of the capitalist class in terms of their
ideological/political vision, and all of them now only show slight nuances,
remaining in line with these interests.
Democracy
cannot be seen as the limitation of state power and authority[49]. Capitalist
democracy is the classical/conventional form of the capitalist state structure
that exists as a constitutive element of the social power of the capitalist
class. The structure of the state/regime called capitalist democracy is already
shaped according to the power relations between the working class and the
capitalist class.
Social
relations and the structure of the capitalist state are changing together.
Today, the neoliberal capitalist state is the ruling organization of the
capitalist class. So what are the characteristics of this state?
First,
we can look at what neoliberal ideology and practices are:
"Neoliberalism
is the ideology and practice of the ruling classes of both the developed and
developing capitalist world.
"(...)
Neoliberal ideology is the response of the ruling classes to the significant
gains made by the working and peasant classes between the end of the Second
World War and the mid-1970s. The huge increase in inequality since then is the
direct consequence of the growth in the income of the ruling classes, resulting
from class-determined policies such as a) the deregulation of labour markets,
an anti-working class move; b) the deregulation of financial markets, from
which finance capital, the dominant branch of capital, benefited enormously in
the period 1980-2005; c) the deregulation of trade in goods and services,
benefiting the high-consuming segment of the population at the expense of
working people; d) the reduction of social public spending, to the detriment of
the working class; e) the privatization of services, benefiting the richest 20%
of the population at the expense of the welfare of the working classes who
depend on public services; f) the promotion of individualism and consumerism to
the detriment of a culture of solidarity; g) the development of a theoretical
narrative and discourse that pays lip service to markets but masks a blatant
alliance between transnational corporations and the states in which they are based;
h) the promotion of an anti-interventionist discourse that clearly contradicts
the actual increase of state interventionism to promote the interests of the
ruling classes and the economic units that feed these interests - transnational
corporations."[50]
While
neoliberal ideology advocates the reduction of state intervention in economic
activities, in practice the nature of state intervention in economic processes
has changed. As a result of these interventions, social/class inequalities have
increased and the class character of the neoliberal capitalist state has been
reinforced.
Trade
deregulation, privatization, financial liberalization, financial deregulation,
transition to flexible production processes in working life are the
characteristics of the neoliberal era of capital accumulation. Through
privatizations, social wealth is capitalized and the social constraint on
capital accumulation is thus removed. There are those who call the strategy
formed by these mechanisms "primitive accumulation."[51] Harvey, on
the other hand, conceptualizes it as “accumulation by dispossession":
"Stock
speculation, conspiracies to take over joint stock companies, structural
devaluations caused by inflation, the fragmentation of assets through mergers
and acquisitions, the high debt burden that grips the entire population even in
advanced capitalist countries, corporate corruption, the seizure of assets
through credit and stock manipulation (pension funds being depleted by stock
and conglomerate collapses) are all, and I mean all, essential features of the
phenomenon called contemporary capitalism. The bankruptcy of Enron has left
many people unemployed and without pension rights. But what deserves more
attention than anything else is the recent culmination of accumulation by dispossession:
the speculative offensive with stray funds and other instruments of financial
capital."[52]
Yurtsever
lists the monopolization of intellectual property "rights", patents
and licensing "rights" of biotechnology products, the spread of biological
piracy, the control of the world's genetic resources by monopolies, the
wholesale commodification of nature, the privatization of public services as
new methods of "accumulation by dispossession."[53] As it is
understood, all these are only new mechanisms of capital accumulation. That is,
the processes are new, but there is no need to change the concept/abstraction
of capital accumulation. The content of the concept has been enriched.
We
can now list some of the main features of the neoliberal authoritarian
capitalist state:
i.
Although the intervention of the capitalist state in economic processes has
increased and the form of this intervention has changed, its role in the direct
production of commodities and services has been minimized.
ii.
In the neoliberal state, the legislature has become dysfunctional and the power
of the executive has increased. The executive power and the administration have
gained importance as the power that organizes and governs the state. The
political control of the executive over the state bureaucracy/administration
has increased, the autonomy of the administration has been lost and it has
become subordinated to the executive. The participation of parliamentarians in
decision-making processes in the state bureaucracy/administration has been
lost. Political decision-making and the formulation of state policies are no
longer the result of discussions and debates between the administration, the
government, MPs and political parties, but are directly monopolized by the executive
power and the state bureaucracy. Parliament has lost its role as the stage for
political compromises. The state bureaucracy and the executive power now
formulate and implement state policy. This has not only made it easier to cover
up corruption, but also completely removed state policies from social scrutiny
and embodied the impermeability of power. The parliament, the place of
legitimization of regulations in the interest of capital, has abandoned this
function and the legitimization processes of state policies have shifted to
referendums and structures such as media organs.[54]
iii.
The relative separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and
the judiciary no longer exists, they are now fused.
iv.
State power has become increasingly centralized and concentrated. The
presidential system is not a form of Bonapartism, but embodies this
centralization and concentration of state power. In the presidential system,
which is the orientation of the spaces and channels of power of the state administration
towards the apex of power, the president is the representative of the
increasing political role of the state administration. The
administrative-political apparatus is subordinated to the president.[55]
v.
In the neoliberal authoritarian state, there is a need for a dominant state
party that unifies and integrates the state administration, ensuring cohesion
between the different branches of the administration, loyalty and dependence on
those at the top of the executive power. State organization is openly and
intensely politicized in the neoliberal era. Since the ruling state party
cadres within the state personnel, there is a transitivity between the state
structure and the ruling party in terms of cadres. The ruling mass party acts
together with the media organs in conveying state ideology and policies to the
masses.[56]
vi.
The neoliberal authoritarian state involves transformations characterized by
the increasing authoritarianism of political apparatuses in capitalist
democracy. The masses are excluded from the centers of political
decision-making, the distances between state organs and citizens grow, the
state is highly centralized, organized physical repression is increased and
ideological manipulation is strengthened. Many fascistic mechanisms are also
crystallizing in this state.[57]
vii.
In the neoliberal era, the legal system is being opened to market relations and
a kind of privatization is taking place. Through new means such as arbitration,
mediation, conciliation, short trials, negotiation, and hiring judges, the
jurisdiction of the state is transferred to the private judicial market. The
national courts, which are in the public interest, are being replaced by a
private judicial system (law firms) that has turned into an economic sector.[58]
viii.
As the organization of power relations between the capitalist class and the
proletariat, the state has broken the organization and power of the working
class in this power relationship, increasing asymmetry and liquidating its
social functions towards society.
ix.
In the face of the dangers that the struggles of the working class pose for the
hegemony of the capitalist class, material mechanisms have been created to
prevent these struggles. The trade union bureaucracy, partisan unions,
corporative relations between the state-union-bosses-workers are some of these mechanisms.
"'Reformist' trade unions are now directly embedded in the administrative
apparatus."[59] In neoliberal capitalist democracies, there is a marked
decline in political freedoms and an expansion of authoritarian control over
all aspects of social relations.
x.
In the political regime of the neoliberal era, the disconnect between the
leaders of parties and their grassroots, their participants, has become
apparent. One indicator of this disconnect is the widespread use of public
opinion polls instead of direct interactions with the masses. The demands of
the grassroots, which are evaluated by the party, are not taken into account by
the ruling parties in the formation of state policies. Candidates for
parliamentary seats are also appointed by those at the top of the government.
In the neoliberal era, the range of differences between the political
approaches of the parties has narrowed[60]. The establishment of the
hegemony of capitalist class power over society involves the pluralization of
social forces,[61] but the pluralism created by the parties of order is
deceptive. Political parties are in decline in their function as structures of
hegemony in the formation of the social power of the capitalist class.
xi.
The security organization of the neoliberal capitalist state is being
strengthened and restructured. For example, in Turkey, the army is being
restructured through the professional army/contracted military service, and the
structure of the police organization is being strengthened by recruiting its
cadres from nationalist-conservative party bases.
xii.
Imperialist organizations such as the EU, the WB, the IMF and NATO become an
intrinsic component of political power in countries by directing some of the
policies implemented by capitalist states, thus transferring the responsibility
for some of the policies implemented by the capitalist state to unreachable,
anonymous organizations.
xiii.
The neoliberal capitalist state functions similar to a conglomerate. Market
relations have permeated the state and its relations.
What
Poulantzas writes about the differences between the neoliberal authoritarian
state and fascism is also meaningful:
"The
emergence of authoritarian statism can neither be identified with a new fascism
nor with a fascist process. It is not a new form of a genuine exceptional
state, nor is it in itself the form of a transition towards such a state. It
represents the new 'democratic' form of the bourgeois republic at the present
stage (...) Moreover, the fascist state corresponds to a political crisis and
beyond that to a real state crisis: This is not the case in many countries
where authoritarian statism imposes itself without corresponding to a state in
crisis (...) The fascist state presupposes a historical defeat of the populist
movement and the working class (...)"[62]
Communism and the state
In Europe,
absolute monarchies helped the development of capitalist relations of
production, and after the bourgeois revolutions, state governments played an
important role in the development of capitalism. Therefore, the formation of
capitalist social relations is not a completely spontaneous process; bourgeois
class consciousness and organization were factors in the emergence of
capitalism. Comparing to this, for the construction of communism, a more developed worldview than
that of the bourgeoisie and organizations such as the vanguard party and the
dictatorship of the proletariat are needed.
The
understanding that it is possible to use the bourgeois state structure as it is
for socialist purposes under socialism has been historically negated since the
Paris Commune and Soviet power. The capitalist state organization has elements
to be both liquidated and transformed. The socialist revolution builds and
organizes a new state of the socialist type. What is meant by the
"destruction" or "dismantling" of the organs of state
power, such as the army, police, judiciary and other bureaucratic structures,
is the transformation of their structure and functioning and the organization
of new organs with the participation of the people.
The
dictatorship of the proletariat is a phenomenon and concept that describes the
power or rule of the working class after the socialist revolution. The
dictatorship of the proletariat has the same meaning as the concepts of
"state of the working class", "socialist state",
"socialist democracy", "proletarian democracy".
Marx's
formulation of this issue is as follows:
“Between
capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary
transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a
political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat."[63]
Marx
divides communism into two phases and does not use the term
"socialism". Lenin calls the dictatorship of the proletariat
socialism. Under socialism, workers and peasants exist as social classes, but
during this period class differences fade over time. The dictatorship of the
proletariat, i.e. the socialist state, is needed for the abolition of classes
in the socialist country(ies) as much as it is needed to counter resistance and
attacks from the capitalist class on a national scale and from imperialist
states on a world scale.
For
us, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of state, while socialism is
a transitional society. But this "transitional society" does not
constitute a separate phase between the two, since the transition from
capitalism to communism takes place within communism. There is no objection to
conceiving of the historical section beginning with the "period of
revolutionary transformations" after the socialist political revolution
until the end of the lower stage of communism as socialism. In the stage of
socialism, in other words in the first stage of communism, the first form of
state after the political revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dynamic structure that changes over
time. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the first form of the
socialist state, metamorphoses with the disappearance of classes and reaches
the form of a socialist state in which producers participate and thus become
public. Socialism, the first stage of communism, must be understood as a
dynamic system of social relations.
Haluk
Yurtsever argues the opposite of our view:
"To
combine the lower stage of communism with the transitional period under the
dictatorship of the proletariat and to call the whole process 'socialism'
leads, in my opinion, to a great and important theoretical error."[64]
However,
Yurtsever makes a mistake by treating the issue as "angular", by
dividing a historical section characterized by continuities and transformations
into compartments.
Yurtsever's
idea of communist society is as follows:
"Communist
society is a society where there is no private property, exploitation, classes,
commodity relations, where the law of value does not operate, where alienated
labor is abolished. These categories do not exist either in the lower stage of
communism or in the upper stage. If they exist, there is no communist society
yet. It is impossible to discuss the problem on a correct theoretical basis
without putting it in such a precise and angular way."[65]
In
our view, this approach is static. The theoretical conception of communist
society must embody the dynamism of historical reality. Communism is a process
of formation. In socialism, which is sub-stage of communism, what Yurtsever
lists takes place in a transformation. The static and "angular"
understanding of processes and transformations in abstraction leads to wrong
conclusions. A conception such as "if there is this, there is no
communism" cannot understand the development of communism over time. For
example, capitalism has developed and undergone changes, taking the form of
imperialism. Imperialism is a stage of capitalism. Just because imperialism has
developed, capitalism has not disappeared. Similarly, the advanced stage of
communism describes a social system that is formed by going through a
transitional period called socialism, which is its sub-stage. Again, we know
that there is no pure capitalism, that capitalist relations of production exist
in social formations as the dominant mode of production. There is no such
purity in the first stage of communism, socialism.
Socialism,
the sub-stage of communism, is historically transitional. The initial state
form, the dictatorship of the proletariat, develops, strengthens and transforms
into the state of the producers. The abolition of exploitation is an issue to
be implemented quickly after the socialist revolution. The first limitation and
then complete abolition of commodity production, the replacement of classes by
productive laborers, takes place during the first phase of communism, the
period of socialist transformations. Under socialism, for example, the
educational differences of workers are reflected in wages, not only because
this regulation is necessary to prevent workers from sanctifying unskilled
labor, but also because it is inevitable that this transitional phase, insofar
as it emerges from capitalism, will bear its birthmarks.[66]
Under
socialism, exploitation is eliminated in a short time, but the extinction of
classes takes place over a longer period of time. The limited production of
commodities, and therefore the law of value, which prevails in a limited
sphere, can only be completely abolished after a certain period of time. The
socialist state, initially in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
will gradually become the state of all producers, classes will become
producers, and the separation of society and state will gradually blur. With
the transition from the period of socialism to the communist world society (the
second stage), the political governance of people over each other will be
replaced by the collective management of work and processes.
Since
the class determination of social relations will cease to exist under
communism, the relations of political sovereignty and government observed
between people in this period of history will also cease to exist. This means
the disappearance of the state as an instrument of political power, domination
and oppression. Under socialism, the state will gradually abandon this old
function. Only when the state as a political organization becomes the
organizational form of all social life will it fade away and dissolve into
society. The state(s) will gradually come to perform the objective social work
that people living all over the world collectively organize and take under
their control. Tasks within the scope of social engineering, such as planning,
the realization of production processes, the satisfaction of needs, the
education of younger generations, the care of the elderly and the disabled,
will be carried out by an organization that includes everyone. In short, while
the state/states as an organization of domination and a structure of political
power will fade and dissolve within society, an organizational structure that
encompasses all of humanity will gradually be created. The unity of the states/state
will become the organization of society encompassing all humanity. The state
will be identified with organized society. The historical transcendence of the
state is only possible through its transformation and development.
"Communism is not a "stateless" society or a society in which
the state is destroyed, but a social system in which the state is transcended.[67]
At
this point, it is useful to recall Bakunin's question to Marx: "There are
about 40 million (proletarians-MB) in Germany. For example, will all 40 million
be members of the government?", it is useful to recall Marx's answer:
"Of course! (...) 'All the people will rule and not be ruled'."[68]
As
for the relationship between the vanguard communist party and the state under
socialism... Since the socialist state is a dimension of social relations, the
communist party also leads these relations. It is the vanguard organization
that makes the socialist state work, manages it, and gives it a direction in
line with the goal of communism. It is physically/objectively impossible for
the communist party to completely identify with the socialist state. The "destruction"
of the capitalist state organization, i.e. the dismantling and reorganization
of its main organs, the participation of the producers in the state
administration, is only possible through the vanguard organization's personal
work in state practices. The vanguard is the subjective factor that will resist
the sabotage and disruptions caused by the bureaucratic, academic and technical
cadres inherited from the past.
It
would not be correct to ignore the experience of socialism in terms of how the
organs/structures of the socialist state will take shape in the future. Each
country will have its own specificities in this regard, but as the socialist
revolution spreads, there will be integration and similarities between states.
The
primary regulations of the socialist phase are to put an end to the
exploitation of labor, to abolish private ownership of the means of production,
to implement central planning of production and distribution, and to abolish
commodity production and the market. The property appropriate to the social
character of the advanced industrial production of capitalism is the
social/public ownership of land and the means of production. Under socialism,
property is not abolished, it is socialized.[69] The ownership of the means of
production and the land is in the hands of the state under socialism. The basic
and final form of the socialization/expropriation of property is state
property. It must be seen that property will not be destroyed or abolished, but
transcended, just as in the case of the state and the family. The overcoming of
private ownership of large consumer goods such as houses and cars will take
time.[70]
Central
planning ensures the use of wasted social resources, mobilizes idle manpower in
line with social goals, and tends to create new resources. "Central
planning is a political process rather than a technical one; it is the activity
of making political decisions and choices."[71] Under socialism, central
planning is the name of managing the economy for the benefit of society, in a
rational way, in harmony between sectors, and in an economical manner. However,
in the process of socialist establishment, planning goes beyond the technical
dimension of what and how much to produce; it is a means of political struggle
in line with the goals of communism. In socialism, ideal planning is central,
because the transition to complete public ownership in property relations is
the basic trajectory of socialist establishment.[72]
The transcendence
of the division of labor is only possible in the advanced stage of communism.
The division of labor is a "fixation of social activity", an
externally imposed social constraint. The division of labor is therefore a lack
of freedom and therefore a form of alienation. In communist society, the
division of labor will exist in the sense of the distribution of workspaces or
concrete types of labor to individuals, but individuals will not be restricted
to individual activities. "In a communist society there are no painters,
there are only people who, among other things, are engaged in
painting."[73]
REFERENCES
[1]In
the writing of this subtitle, the ideas of Poulantzas and Jessop have been
utilized and Poulantzas' ideas have been criticized from time to time.
[2]
Bob Jessop, Devlet Teorisi, Epos Yayınları, 1st Edition, 2008, p. 474
[3]
The concentration of armed power in the state prevents inter-class struggles
from evolving into civil war and enables them to take place through political,
trade union and other organizations of struggle.
[4]Nicos
Poulantzas, Devlet, İktidar, Sosyalizm, Epos Yayınları, 2004, p. 102
[5]John
Holloway, Sol Picciotto, Kapital, Kriz ve Devlet, Editor: Simon Clarke, Devlet
Tartışmaları-Marxist Bir Devlet Kuramına Doğru, Ütopya Yayınları, 1st Edition,
2004, p. 155
[6]K.
Marx, Kapital Vol. 1, Yordam Kitap, pp. 718-9
[7]Haluk
Yurtsever, Tarihihten Güncelliğe Sınıf Savaşları ve Devlet, Yordam Kitap, 1st
Edition, 2006, p. 90
[8]To
read an article evaluating this issue: https://ayrintidergi.com.tr/burjuva-devrimi-tartismalari-isiginda-1908-ve-1923e-bakmak/
[9]
Bob Jessop, op. cit. pp. 61-2
[10]https://tr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ulus
[11]Andrew
Heywood, Siyasi İdeolojiler; Bir Giriş, 2007, pp. 197-8
[12]According
to scientific data, "races" do not exist. "Race" is an
ideological coding. On this subject see; https://evrimagaci.org/irk-nedir-biyolojik-olarak-insan-irklari-var-midir-683
[13]Anderson
conceives the nation as an imagined community that replaces the old type of
communities that existed through blood ties or religious relations. See;
Benedict Anderson, Hayali Cemaatler-Milliyetçiliğin Kökenleri ve Yayılması,
Metis Publications
[14]
The dominant ideology is a collection of ideological elements that are
widespread in society and participate in the formation of ideological
dominance/power in the power relations between the capitalist class and the
proletariat, which ensure the reproduction of social relations. Within the
scope of the dominant ideology, realist ideological motifs and common sense elements
are also found together with religious, nationalist and liberal ideological
motifs and themes in a fragmented, contradictory and ambiguous sense. Official
ideology is the form that some elements of the dominant ideology in society
take within the state, ensuring the unity and continuity of the capitalist
state personnel.
[15]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., pp. 108-9
[16]E.
J. Hobsbawm, Milletler ve Milliyetçilik, Ayrıntı Yayınları, 3rd Edition, 2006,
p. 24
[17]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit. pp. 106-7
[18]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit., p. 129
[19]
Bob Jessop, op. cit. pp. 238-9
[20]
See Nicos Poulantzas, op. cit. pp. 184-212
[21]
"The sphere of power is strictly relational. The power of a class (e.g.
that of the ruling class) does not refer to a substance held by it: Power is
not a quantifiable magnitude to be shared or exchanged by various classes
according to the old conception of power as the sum of nothing. The power of a
class refers above all to its objective place (...) in economic, political and
ideological relations." See Nicos Poulantzas, op. cit., p. 163
[22]
"The state (as capital is, according to Marx) must be seen as a relation
or, more specifically, as a configuration of the power relation between
struggling classes." See Nicos Poulantzas, Kapitalist Devlet: Miliband ve
Laclau’ya Cevap, N. Poulantzas-E. Laclau-R. Miliband-Kapitalist Devlet Sorunu,
İletişim Yayınları, 2nd Edition, 1990, p. 161
[23]Louis
Althusser, İdeoloji ve Devletin ideolojik Aygıtları, Trans: Alp Tümertekin,
Ithaki Yayınları, First Edition, 2003
[24]Nicos
Poulantzas, Faşizm ve Diktatörlük, İletişim Yayınları, 4th Edition, 2019, pp.
351-2
[25]Nicos
Poulantzas, Kapitalist Devlet Sorunu, in ibid, pp. 35-6
[26]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 132
[27]Ralph
Miliband, Kapitalist Devlet: Nicos Poulantzas’a Cevap, in ibid, pp. 52-3
[28]
"State power is the primary and ultimate - but not the only - means by
which class power is achieved and maintained." See; Ralp Miliband, Poulantzas
ve Kapitalist Devlet, in ibid, p. 67. "(...) for Marxism, power is not
identified with and reduced to the state (...)" See; Nicos Poulantzas,
Devlet, İktidar, Sosyalizm, Epos Yayınları, 2004, p. 39
[29]
A similar argument is expressed in the following sentences: "Although we
cannot say that the relations of distribution are the basis of relations of
domination and conflict, we can say with certainty that the relations of
production are such a basis. This means that the relations of production (...)
are relations of domination between social classes." Simon Clarke, Marksizm,
Sosyoloji ve Poulantzas’ın Devlet Kuramı, Editor: Simon Clarke, Devlet
Tartışmaları-Marksist Bir Devlet Kuramına Doğru, p. 118 "(...) economic
ownership implies, first and foremost, the power to put the means of production
to given uses and thus to own the products obtained, and ownership implies the
power to operate the means of production and to dominate the labor process."
See Nicos Poulantzas, Devlet, İktidar, Sosyalizm, Epos Yayınları, 2004, p. 39
[30]Nicos
Poulantzas, Kapitalist Devlet: Miliband ve Laclau’ya Cevap, in ibid, pp. 154-5
[31]Nicos
Poulantzas, Faşizm ve Diktatörlük, İletişim Yayınları, 4th Edition, 2019, p.
364
[32]"The
relations of production are not simply relations of the labor process (...) The
relations of production are not independent of society (...)" See; Simon
Clarke, Marksizm, Sosyoloji ve Poulantzas’ın Devlet Kuramı, Editor: Simon
Clarke, in ibid, p. 106
[33]There
are those who call the overemphasis on the apparent autonomy of the capitalist
state from the processes of accumulation "politicism". See; John
Holloway, Sol Picciotto, Sermaye, Kriz ve Devlet, edited by Simon Clarke, in
ibid, pp.146, 152
[34]Colin
Barker, Kapitalist Devlet Kuramı Üzerine Bir Not, edited by Simon Clarke, in
ibid, p. 253
[35]Nicos
Poulantzas, Devlet, İktidar, Sosyalizm, Epos Yayınları, 2004, p. 18
[36]Bob
Jessop, Birikim Stratejileri, Devlet Biçimleri ve Hegemonya Projeleri, edited
by Simon Clarke, in ibid, p. 208
[37]Simon
Clarke, Devlet, Sınıf Mücadelesi ve Sermayenin Yeniden Üretimi, edited by Simon
Clarke, in ibid, p. 230
[38]Simon
Clareke, Devlet, Sınıf Mücadelesi ve Sermayenin Yeniden Üretimi, Editor: Simon
Clarke, in ibid, p. 231
[39]Clarke
writes: "(...) the state did not logically develop out of the necessities
of capital; it emerged historically out of class struggle." See Simon
Clarke, Devlet, Sınıf Mücadelesi ve Sermayenin Yeniden Üretimi, in ibid, p. 231
[40]The
conception of the state as a relation is a point mentioned by Poulantzas and
other authors. See for example Nicos Poulantzas, Kapitalist Devlet: Miliband ve
Laclau’ya Cevap, in a.g.e., pp. 163-4; Nicos Poulantzas, Devlet, İktidar,
Sosyalizm, Epos Yayınları, 2004, p.143. "(...) the state is not a
superstructure that can be explained by referring to the economic basis. Like
money, value, etc., it is a historically specific form of social relations
(...) the state can be defined as a form of social relation (...)" See;
John Holloway, Devlet ve Gündelik Mücadele, edited by Simon Clarke, op. cit. in
Simon Clarke, pp. 275-314. "State power is also a form-determined social
relation." See Bob Jessop, Birikim Stratejileri, Devlet Biçimleri ve
Hegemonya Projeleri, edited by Simon Clarke, op. cit. p. 208 "State power
is a complex social relation that reflects the shifting balance of forces in a
given conjuncture." "The particularization of the most fundamental
formal characteristic of the capitalist state type; that is, a form-determined
social relation with institutional separation from the circulation of capital
(...)" Bob Jessop, Devlet Teosisi, Epos Yayınları, 1st Edition, 2008, pp.
162, 455
[41]Prepared
by: Gérard Bensussan-Georges Labica, Marksizm Sözlüğü, Yordam Kitap, 2016, 1st
Edition, p. 144
[42]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., pp. 158, 173-4
[43]Mehmet
Okyayuz, Faşizm, eds: Gökhan Atılgan, E. Attila Aytekin, in Siyaset Bilimi, pp.
377-90
[44]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 174
[45]Nicos
Poulantzas, Faşizm ve Diktatörlük, İletişim Yayınları, 4th Edition, 2019, p. 36
[46]Mehmet
Okyayuz, Faşizm, in ibid, pp. 377-90
[47]Yaşar
Ayaşlı, Eski ve Yeni Faşizm, Yordam Kitap, 1st Edition, 2023, p. 196
[48]
"These parties are well-organized mass parties whose mass base, supporters,
militants and representatives are mainly composed of the petty bourgeoisie."
Nicos Poulantzas, Faşizm ve Diktatörlük, İletişim Yayınları, 4th edition, 2019,
p. 292. It is a theoretical fallacy for Poulantzas to include
"non-productive wage earners" within the petty bourgeoisie, such as
those working in the circulation of capital, laborers who contribute to the
realization of surplus-value, service sector workers and civil servants. All
these laborers are components of the working class. Poulantzas is also mistaken
in considering the petty bourgeoisie, i.e. the layers between the working class
and the capitalist class, as a "class". See Poulantzas, op. cit., pp.
277-88
[49]This
is how H. Yurtsever sees it. See; Haluk Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 199
[50]Vincent
Navarro, Dünya Çapında Sınıf Mücadelesi, Çağdaş Marksizm Seçkisi-Yüzyıla
Damga Vuran Metinler, eds: Bertell Ollman-Kevin B. Anderson, Yordam Kitap,
2019, p. 302
[51]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 204, quoting Metin Özuğurlu's opinion. The concept used
by Marx in Volume 1 of Capital is "primitive accumulation" means
“primordial accumulation”.
[52]David
Harvey as cited in Haluk Yurtsever, op.cit., pp. 204-5
[53]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 205
[54]Nicos
Poulantzas, Devlet, İktidar, Sosyalizm, Epos Yayınları, 2004, pp. 243-53, 257
[55]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit. pp. 255-6
[56]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit., pp. 261-6
[57]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit., pp. 268-9
[58]
İlhan Gülhan, Karşıdevrimci burjuvazi ile geriye dönüş, https://sendika.org/2023/06/karsidevrimci-burjuvazi-ile-geriye-donus-686105/
[59]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit., p. 253
[60]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit., pp. 258-9
[61]
Bob Jessop, Devlet Teorisi, Epos Yayınları, 1st Edition, 2008, p. 245
[62]Nicos
Poulantzas, op. cit., p. 234
[63]Karl
Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program
[64]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 255
[65]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 289
[66]H.
Yurtsever argues otherwise: "In a society where equal and free education
for all is publicly guaranteed, there is no rational explanation for the
reflection of educational differences on wages." (ibid., p. 291)
[67]The
family, like the state, will not disappear under communism, but will be
overcome. The way to overcome this is to socialize many of the tasks that take
place within the family. Yurtsever wrote the following about the state under
communism: "The state will undergo changes in parallel with social
development, some of its functions will diminish and disappear over time, some
functions will be transformed, some functions will be socialized, new functions
will emerge that we cannot even imagine today, and eventually the 'state' will
cease to be the state as we know it. As soon as the function of oppression over
the other class or classes disappears, the process of the extinction of the
political state will begin. In the advanced stage of communism, it is clear
that an organization, the concrete forms and relations of which we cannot know
at present, will be necessary for the organization of 'things', for the
planning and coordination of social life." (ibid., p. 301) In our view,
this organization is the state. In the advanced stage of communism, we should
not speak of a sovereign state, but of a state in which society itself is
sovereign. This is the state as an organization that encompasses all of
society.
[68]As
cited in Haluk Yurtsever, op. cit., pp. 257-8
[69]Sean
Sayers, Marx ve Yabancılaşma-Hegelyan Temalar Üzerine Yazılar, Kor Kitap, First
Edition, 2018, p. 163
[70]On
this subject, see; Mahmut Boyuneğmez, Konut Sorunu, https://marksistarastirmalar.blogspot.com/2023/02/konut-sorunu.html
It should also be kept in mind that the use of cars will gradually decrease,
public transportation will become widespread, and rail, air and sea
transportation will be developed.
[71]Haluk
Yurtsever, op. cit., p. 283
[72]Kemal
Okuyan, Sovyetler Birliği’nin Çözülüşü Üzerine Antitezler, Yazılama Yayınevi,
4th Edition
[73]Karl
Marx-Friedrich Engels, Alman İdeolojisi as cited in Sean Sayers, op. cit., p.
183
