The Illusion of State Socialism

5/21/2018 The Illusion of State Socialism

1/63

The Illusion of State Socialism and the Contradiction between Wage Labor

and Capitali

by Wolfgang Muller and Christel Neusss

The following article provides a synopsis of different versions of the revisionist theory of thestate, and of its immanent tendencies. Further, it outlines a critiue of the establishment ofincome distribution as an autonomous sphere, independent of production, and of the way statesocialism is presented as carrying out its specific functions, as Mar! indicated by means of theFactory "egislation. #nly on the basis of these preliminary considerations it is possible to relatethe concrete manifestations of the state$s social and political%economic functions to the process ofcapital reali&ation and its contradictory development.' (lthough this deals with revisionisttheoriesof the state, it is not an actual analysis of contemporary state socialism. Thus, thehistorical and material conditions within which the illusion of state socialism has come about areonly touched upon. The history of theory is generally )ept separate from the history of capital.*et, it is necessary to critically evaluate the revisionist theorists$ reification of the state +or

rather, of income distribution +as a preliminary analytical step.

. The -olitical ignificance of /evisionist Theories of the tate

n the history of the labor movement, the relation between the state and capitalist society wascrucial in the debates concerning the wor)ing class$ political strategy and organi&ational form toseparate revolutionary from revisionist positions. The conception of the state as an institutionrelatively independentof the contradictions of society has been and still is the basis for allrevisionist strategy and pra!is. nitially, the revisionist strategy claimed to transform capitalisminto socialism with the gradual ta)e%over of state power by the wor)ing class through legalreforms within the e!isting system.

01radually, revisionist theoreticians abandoned the conceptual framewor) of the labormovement2 thus, e.g., instead of tal)ing about 3wor)ing class,3 they spea) of 3democraticprocesses.34 5ut so far, this opting for a continuous 3revolution from above3 6 0here, too,revolutionary language is used as 7argon4 has only resulted in the e!plicit abandonment ofsocialism as a political goal. 38e who pronounces himself in favor of the method of legal reformin place of and as opposed to the conuest of political power and social revolution does notreally choose a more tranuil, surer and slower road to the samegoal. 8e chooses a differentgoal. nstead of ta)ing a stand for the establishment of a new social order, he ta)es a stand forsurface modifications of the old order.39

( strategy focusing on the bourgeois state as the sub7ect of social change can be deemed aspotentially successful only if the state is seen as a 3sacred vessel3 to be filled with either

'These considerations emerged from discussions held while preparing for a series of essays investigating so%called3interventions of state socialism3 in the civil society of the Federal /epublic of 1ermany. (side from the authors,some of the other participants in the discussions were :lmar (ltvater, 5ernhard 5lan)e, ;ristina 5lunc), 6B4, p. 9B92 reprinted inGegen den Strom, 0(ugust, '>=>4, p. 9>.9 /osa "u!emburg, 3ocial /eform or /evolution3 Selected Political Writings, ed. Aic) 8oward 0New *or),'>?'4, pp. ''=%''D.


2/63

capitalist or socialist contents 0depending on the historical situation4 and if the state producedforms within which to reproduce social life. (ccording to Mar!, however, 3bourgeois society iscombined in the form of the state3 Eso that 3e!isting society3 can function 3as thebasisfor thee!isting state.3= n other words, the e!isting state is the outcome of a developed commodity%producing society which includes all the contradictions inherent in this mode of production.

Conseuently, as an institution, the state is itself riddled with these contradictions.D

Therevisionists$ re7ection of this notion of the state is thus consistent with their implicit re7ection ofthe idea that the capitalist mode of production can be abolished only by the revolutionarywor)ing class 0rather than by the state apparatus4.?

E;arl Mar!,Grundrisse, trans. M. Nicolaus 0"ondon, '>?94, p. '@6. ee also theGerman Ideology0New *or),'>DB4, p. D@ 3ince the tate is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests, andin which the whole civil society of an epoch is epitomi&ed, it follows that in the formation of all communalinstitutions the state acts as an intermediary, that these institutions receive a political form. 8ence the illusion thatlaw is based on the will, and indeed on the will divorced from its real basis +on free will.3=Mar!,riti!ue of the Gotha Program0New *or), '>DD4, p. '?. ee also Mar!,riti!ue of "egel#s Philosophy of

$ight0Cambridge, '>?@4 3What then is the content of political adaptation, of the political end what is the end ofthis end. . . What )ind of power does the political state e!ercise over private property. . . Aoes the state isolate itfrom the family and society and bring it to its abstract autonomy What then is the power of the political state over

private property -rivate property$s own power, its essence brought to e!istence. What remains to the political statein opposition to this essence The illusion that it determines when it is rather determined3 0p. '@@4. 3. . .GTHheinalienability of private property is the alienability of universal freedom of will and ethical life. 8ere it is no longerthe case that property is in so far as put my will into it, but rather my will is in so far as it is in property. 8ere mywill does not own but is owned3 0p. '@'4.D:arly on Mar! demonstrated that in the case of government administration, social contradictions are reflected inthe state. ee his 3Critical Notes on $The ;ing of -russia and ocial /eform$ 0'BEE4,3 in :aston and 1uddat, eds.,Writings of the %oung Marx on Philosophy and Society 0New *or), '>D?4 3The state cannot transcend thecontradiction between the aim and good intentions of the administration on the one hand and its means andresources on the other without transcending itself, for it is based on this contradiction. t is based on the

contradiction betweenpublicandpri&ate life, on the contradiction betweengeneral interestsandparticular interests.Theadministration, therefore, must confine itself to a formalandnegati&eactivity because its power ceases wherecivil life and its wor) begin. ndeed, as against the conseuences which spring from the unsocial nature of this civillife, of private property, trade, industry, and the mutual plundering of different civil groups, as against theseconseuencesimpotenceis the natural la'of administration. This dismemberment. . .ofci&il societyis the naturalfoundation on which themodernstate rests. . . f the modern state would want to transcend the impotenceof itsadministration, it would have to transcend itself, for it e!istsonlyin contrast to that life3 0pp. 9EB%9E>4. n contrast,the following uote illustrates the theory of state monopoly capitalism today 3(s has been indicated, themonopolies must use the state as an instrument, which can be used against them.3 n 8erbert Meissner, ed.,

B(rgerliche )ekonomie im modernen *apitalismus0:ast 5erlin, '>D?4, p. E66. :ven though still paying lip serviceto the contradictions of capitalist society, the theory of state monopoly capital forgets that these contradictions arereflected in the state apparatus as well as in its political potential for action. 8ence, the state apparatus cannot beconceived as a homogeneous instrument which is, by nature, neutral and therefore of potential service to the

interests of each class.?"enin,State and $e&olution0New *or), '>964. n critici&ing 8egel$s mystification of the state 0where the stateappears as the embodiment of reason4, Mar! himself clearly shows that only the proletariat as a sub7ect canovercome the contradictions of bourgeois society. ee also ;arl -ola), 3;arl Mar! ber taat, :igentum und /echt,3in*arl Marx.Begr(nder der Staats+ und $echtstheorie der ,rbeiterklasse0:ast 5erlin, '>DB4, p. 9=passim. (gainin a critiue of 8egel, Mar! recogni&ed 3that the determining principle of reality is class struggle, i.e., thecontradiction, and political power in the form of state is the e!pression of this contradiction of struggle3 0Marx+

-ngels Werke, , p. ='4. (nd further 3The dictatorship of the Iacobins was the attempt to control the contradictionswithin civil society through political power. t failed and had to fail3 0M:W, , p. E64. For details, see (. 1urland,3-rodu)tionsweise, taat, ;lassendi)tatur3 0unpublished dissertation "eip&ig, '>6B4.


3/63

ince the bourgeois state is defined as the product of developed commodity%producingsociety, i.e., capitalism, and since the strategy of the labor movement must be determinedaccordingly, it is crucial not to limit the critiue of revisionism to a critiue of isolated politicalinstitutions. 5ut to the e!tent that the debate has become politically relevant at all it is preciselythis )ind of interparliamentary critiue, which has characteri&ed the debate on revisionist

theories of the state in the 1erman New "eft. Mar!$s, :ngels$, -anne)oe)$s and others$ critiuesof bourgeois parliamentarism were used during discussions on the uestion of participation in theFederal :lections 0Bundestags'ahlen4, when the A 0the (ssociation of ocialist 1ermantudents, orSozialistische .eutscher Sudentenbund4 had to define the role of a socialist party ina bourgeois parliament under conditions of monopoly capitalism. (long with (gnoli$s/ransformation der .emokratie0'>D?4, these critiues were the basis for the position that theparliament was useless as an arena of class struggle and to bring about socialism +a positionstill held by the A;- 01erman Communist -arty4. B

5ut the "eft$s uncertainty regarding the e!tent of the present -A government$smaneuverability and its possibilities to 3manipulate crises,3 shows very clearly that the critiueof parliament, i.e., the political critiue of a political institution, can be no more than one aspect

of the total critiue of revisionism. :ventually, if it ta)es itself seriously, such a partial critiuemust not only become critical of the various functions of today$s state+e.g., its set ofinstruments for 3guiding3 the economy,3 for 3satisfying the needs3 of society+but it must thenbecome a critiue of its concrete limitations and contradictions. The presentation and critiue ofgovernment institutions as manipulatory tools of the ruling class fails to show its limitations. Thelatter can only be shown through an analysis which concretely demonstrates the needs for, andlimits to, state intervention in terms of the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, asa process of labor and reali&ation. >

(long these lines, "enin$s theory of imperialism is more relevant than his presentation of theMar!ist theory of the state inState and $e&olution in evaluating the bourgeois state and itsfunctions at the service of capital reali&ation. This is because in the latter, "enin tends to discuss

Bn this conte!t, see the essays by I. Aeppe and I. (gnoli in0eue *ritik, J, No. EE 0'>D?4, pp. EB%DD2 K, No. E?0'>DB4, pp. 6E%99, as well as -anne)oe), "u)Lcs, FriedlLnder, /udas,Parlamentarismusdebatte05erlin, '>DB4. (study group of the Freie DB after it was legally permitted to e!ist again in West1ermany.H The boo) also presents and critici&es the tradition and contemporary forms of revisionist state theories, aswell as their political and strategic conseuences. t shows analogies between the revisionism of the ocialAemocrats in 1ermany and (ustria during the '>6@s 0#tto 5auer, ;arl /enner, /udolf 8ilferding, :duard5ernstein, ;arl ;auts)y, and others by discussing their thesis of 3organi&ed capitalism3 as a novel and potentiallycrisis%free form of the capitalist mode of production4, and they show similar parallels in relation to the contemporaryA;- theory concerning state monopoly capitalism and the political sociology of 8abermas and #ffe, whichcontinue both the tradition of the social democratic theory of the state during the Weimar /epublic, as well as

bourgeois sociology since Ma! Weber. For further details, see pp. D=%''> of their boo), where the various forms and

contents of the revisionist state theory are described2 here they can only be outlined. ee also -. "apins)i, et al., intheir introductory essay to the new edition ofGegen den Strom0cf. note ' above4. Their repeated demand, also

brought forth by the A;- boo), for an 3historical%genetic3 analysis of the capitalist state has not been fulfilled intheir publication 0if that was ever intended4. n its attempt to give a full overview of revisionist political ideas, thecritiue invariably starts with the particular, where it is uite adeuate, since it is based on the critiue ofrevisionism in the labor movement. 5ut in the process it loses sight of the systematic conte!t of revisionist theories,along with a conte!tual critiue of revisionism. 8ence, it follows that it is difficult on this basis to find theoreticaldepartures for a real materialist analysis of capitalism and class.> This essay is a prolegomenon for this purpose. Cf. also :lmar (ltvater$s 3;on7un)turanalyse,3 Sozialistische

Politik= 0'>?@4.


4/63

the state in general, independent of the specific form that it ta)es in the various phases of thehistorical development of society$s organi&ation of material reproduction. Thus, the differencesbetween feudal and bourgeois state fade in the polemic with Menshevi)s and revisionist 1ermanocial Aemocracy shortly before the #ctober /evolution. This follows consistently from "enin$spurpose inState and $e&olution, i.e., apoliticalcritiue ofpoliticalinstitutions to demonstrate

the necessity of the collapse and smashing of the state apparatus by the revolutionary wor)ingclass. nState and $e&olution, the problem is to determine the wor)ing class$ political strategy&is+2+&is the political institutions of the state apparatus in a revolutionary situation. 5ut if theproblem is to determine the operating room and the perspective for practical strategies in theformative stages of a socialist movement, then a Mar!ist theory of the state in terms of "enin$sState and $e&olutionis of little help. For, while it refers to the general necessity of smashing thestate apparatus, it does not provide the tools for evaluating the range and effectiveness of stateintervention in the process of capital reali&ation. 0For the same reason, State and $e&olution isuseless as an introduction to 3the3 Mar!ist theory of the state4. Today, it is necessary to developcriteria to determine the scope of the state apparatus$ manipulative possibilities, their limitations,where they create new contradictions, where they entail+within capitalist forms +real

sociali&ation 0e.g., in standardi&ing production4, etc. in order to develop strategies. The issue thenis not to come up with a general Mar!ist theory of the state, but to probe the specific functions ofthe state in safeguarding the process of capital reali&ation in advanced capitalism, as well as thelimits to these functions.

/evisionism is the means whereby the class enemy becomes entrenched in the labormovement and the ideology of the ruling class also becomes the ruling ideology of the wor)ingclass. #f course, this diffusion does not 3ride on the bac) of a mere idea,3 but occurs on the basisof actual e!periences which constitute the bac)ground for both revisionism and wor)ers$ falseconsciousness. n the history of the labor movement the e!perience of 3socio%political3 bourgeoisstate legislation is essential for the emergence of revisionism. uch protective legislation limitscertain forms of e!ploitation in H capitalist enterprises and on the basis of a minimum wage

guarantees the material e!istence of wage labor during times when it cannot sell its labor poweras a commodity on the mar)et 0sic)ness, old age, unemployment4. These laws can easily appearas curbs to capital$s domination over living labor, particularly since the mediation of classstruggles has always resulted in their enforcement. Through the eyes of the wor)ing class+butespecially through those of its organi&ation'@ +the state could thus appear as a possibleinstrument in the gradual usurpation of political and social power by means of the 3salamitactic.3 (s ering correctly states 3there is a tendency that, up to a point, the influence ofreformism parallels the development of this function of the state 0transportation, education,social policy4.3''ncreasing state intervention in economic and social policies, the concentrationof capital, and long periods of prosperity 0primarily before World War and after World War 4 '6

form the basis of that e!perience which suggests the possibility of capitalism$s gradual

'@s it not the case that the revisionist theory corresponds primarily to the consciousness of bureaucrati&ed unionfunctionaries, who no longer personally e!perience the conflict with capital but are essentially characteri&ed by their

partially successful activity as mediators in relation to top organi&ations and the state administration n contrast, asmany studies show, this dichotomi&ed consciousness is still predominant among the mass of wor)ers. Without ane!planation of those organi&ational forms which actually mediate the class struggle, it seems altogether impossibleto account for the formation of revisionist consciousness. t is doubtful that it is possible to tal) about 3actuale!periences3 without reference to the level of organi&ation and the precise social situation where such e!periencesta)e place.''-. ering, 3Wandlungen des ;apitalismus,33eitschrift fur Sozialismus, Nos. 66%69 0'>9=4, p. ?'?.


5/63

transformation through the state apparatus. -rior to WW, this possibility was e!pressed in5ernstein$s theory. Auring the Weimar /epublic, it can be found in the theory of organi&edcapitalism and economic democracy 08ilferding, Naphtali, etc.4 and in the early stages of theFederal /epublic of 1ermany 0the Munich -rogram of the 1erman Federation of E>4. t is also e!pressed in those theories that define the

present phase in capitalist development as state monopoly capitalism. Finally, it is e!pressed inthe theory of the welfare and interventionist state, along the lines developed by the Fran)furtchool 08abermas, #ffe, etc.4.

The relationship between wor)ers$ and students$ empirical consciousness and revisionsttheories occurs when theory is used to ground and legitimate e!perience, thus ma)ing it appearas necessary. This has two conseuences. First, any political agitation among wor)ers must ta)einto account the long reformist tradition. The critiue of reformist ideas is perhaps even moreimportant with respect to agitation among university students since their position is tied to thestate more closely than wage labor. 5ut this debate can only ta)e place if the relationshipsbetween economic conditions and political forms, between economic and political struggle, canalways be concretely articulated. econdly, this ultimately leads to the conclusion that

revisionism and false consciousness cannot be eradicated solely by theory, but by social andclass struggles.

. #n the Theory of tate ocialism

4./he So&ereignty of the State in the .istribution of the Social Product.

/evisionist theories, political science, and many economic theories share the assumption thatunder capitalism the state can comprehensively and consciously regulate economic, social, andpolitical processes. n this conte!t, the state as 3state socialism3 would be independent ofcapitalist production in the 3distribution of the social product.3 (llegedly, the state could use itsleverage to improve capitalist society, or even to gradually transform it towards socialism. Thus,

this conception also assumes that 3the spheres of distribution and of production are independent,autonomous neighbours.3'9Conseuently, 3distribution3 should not be affected by fundamentally

'6t seems that the e!perience of the indispensability of 3successful3 cooperation with the state apparatus duringWorld War 0up to the denunciation of rebellious wor)ers4 was of decisive importance for the union apparatus. Thememory of so%called war socialism was important for the illusion of 3organi&ed capitalism,3 as was the wareconomy organi&ed by the state 0i.e., essentially the representatives of the interests of the large military comple!4.This applies, for e!ample, to Wissel and 8ilferding. n this conte!t, see "apins)i$s essay above, which treats in detailthe emergence of institutionali&ed class cooperation during WW and demonstrates its continuation into Weimar.The formation of the3entralen ,rbeitsgemeinschaft0Central Council for Cooperation4 between unions and business0November '>'B4 for the purpose of undercutting the revolution, albeit for different reasons, is only a highlight here.Cf. also Aeppe, Freyberg, ;ievenheim, Meyer, Wer)meister, *ritik der Mitbestimmung 0Fran)furt, '>D>4, and

/abehl,op.cit., p. ?E.'9Mar!,Grundrisse,op.cit., p. >@. n bourgeois science, the concept of 3distribution3 isa priorilimited to the levelof the net social product2 thus, the possibility of distribution on a different level, e.g., that of the productive agencies

+that of labor power and the means of production +is already e!cluded. n this conte!t, it is usually claimed thatthe social product distributed by the state is in a process of continuous growth. This reuires some comment The

proportion of the gross social product claimed by the state in the form of ta!es and deductions for social securityamounted to ''.B 0B.> plus 6.>4 in '>'92 69.' 0'D.? plus =.D4 in '>6>2 9E.E 06=.' plus >.94 in '>D9, for the3/eich3 and the F/1 respectively, including 5erlin. ee ;. :ishol&, 3tru)turLnderung der o&ialpoliti),3 *leineSchriften zur Sozialpolitik und zum ,rbeitsrecht, J, No. '@ 0Munich, '>D94, p. 9D. Aisregarding the fact that duringthe last decades, there has been a definite decrease in the state$s contribution to the gross social product, the


6/63

non%manipulatable limitations posed by production and the laws controlling it. This notion canbe found in revisionist theories as well as in numerous bourgeois theories 0mostly in politicalscience4.

(s an e!ample, #tto ;irchheimer, whom the West 1erman "eft has been fond of uoting inrecent years, distinguishes between the 3sphere of direction3 and the 3sphere of distribution.3 The

sphere of direction is controlled by 3laws inherent in the capitalist economic order,3 whereas thesphere of distribution 3is in the domain of the free play of political forces.3 'E( 3sphere ofdirection,3 which ;irchheimer identifies with capital production, is postulated against anautonomous sphere of distribution that can be regulated by the state. n -aul 5ering$s 5enseitsdes *apitalismus1 the bible for a whole generation of "eftist unionists and ocial Aemocrats +the separation of distribution and production is blatantly obvious it is becoming $more and morevisible that the actual distribution of income is not determined by immutable economic laws, butthat it can be changed, instead, through political struggle to influence the government$s economicpolicy.3'= Iust as the economism castigated by "enin understood the economic sphere asultimately determining the political, the opposite appears in revisionism as 3politicism.3/evisionism turns the political possibilities of the state, as opposed to economic laws, into an

absolute by neatly separating the totality of capitalist society into spheres. #f these, the politicalsphere stands out since it permits crucial social changes without any essential changes in theeconomic sphere. To illustrate this point, revisionism points to the socio%political activities of thecapitalist state. For e!ample, 5ernstein claims that 3the classical conception of capitalism usuallyrefers to three separateareas the mode of production, the form of distribution, and the legalorder. #nly the mode of production has remained essentially unchanged in previous times. Thetwo others, however, have undergone great changes.3'D

increased proportion does not change the fact that prior to the government$s collection of ta!es and social security,the 3distribution3 of the social product ta)es place as a direct conflict between the two classes, i.e., concretely inwage negotiations, or in the underlying latent or open class struggles. #bviously, concerning the deductions forsocial security 0>.9 in '>D94, it would be difficult to argue here for a redistribution by the state, since nothing else

is involved but an insurance guaranteed by the state. No one would seriously entertain the notion that a privateinsurance company, for e!ample, would be state intervention into capitalist distribution. ocial security simplymeans a redistribution within the wage uota, and from a general perspective, whether paid immediately in the formof wages or after the utili&ation of labor in the form of pensions, it all belongs to the value of labor power. ince itsvalue includes its 3educational cost3 as well +e.g., a grade school education +in the final analysis, the proportionof government e!penditures allocated for it is a proportion of the variable capital advanced by collective capital,which does not, however, circulate as individual wage. ( very considerable proportion of government e!pendituresfalls, therefore, into the category of variable capital or+loosely e!pressed % the wage uota. imilarly, it should be

possible to attribute a portion of the collective social surplus to the various sectors of the budget, where part of it ismerely redistributed to certain parts of capital 0subventions, ta! brea)s, etc.4 or is spent on the ideological, military,and other forms to protect capital relations. The idea of 3redistribution3 would thus become a lot narrower. This isone of the tas)s that must be underta)en in a concrete analysis of interventionist state socialism.'E #. ;irchheimer, 3Weimar und was dann3 in his Politik und 6erfassung 0Fran)furt, '>DE4, p. E6. Tugan%

5aranows)y already perceived distribution purely as a power issue, while seeing production as determined byeconomic and technical laws. Cf. :. -reiser, "and'7rterbuch der Sozial'issenschaften, under3Aistributionstheorie,3 vol. J, p. D69.'=ering,5enseits des *apitalismus0Nuernberg, '>ED4, p. =>. #ne edition of several thousand copies was bought up

by .1. Metall. Frit& Jilmar in$(stung und ,br(stung 0Fran)furt, '>D=4 draws heavily from ering. /udi Autsch)eli)es to uote ering2 however, he prefers the '>9@s essays.'D-eter 1ay, in.as .ilemma des demokratischen Sozialismus0Nuernberg, '>=E4 reports here the concept in one of5ernstein$s speeches from '>6=. Cf. Mar!$s critiue of Iohn tuart Mill, apital, vol. ll, pp. B?Bff2 also"u!emburg$s critiue of 5ernstein,op.citpp. '@D%'@? 3(gain and again, 5ernstein refers to socialism as an efforttoward a distribution which is $7ust,$ $7uster$ and $still more 7ust$. . . ocial Aemocracy see)s to establish socialist


7/63

This absolute separation of the two spheres through which the state apparatus comes into itsown, leads immediately to the autonomy of the state &is+2+&isthe capitalist mode of production.This absolute separation of the two spheres is also e!pressed in the theory of 3political wages,3as formulated by /udolf 8ilferding. Wages are no longer determined by economic laws, but bythe strength of the wor)ing classes$ parliamentary representation, the strength of its organi&ation,

and the relations of social forces outside -arliament.'?

The ability to control economicantagonism by means of cartels GGeneralkartellH finds its counterpart in the political ability tocontrol the income of the masses, independent of economic laws. Claus #ffe$s thesis is part andparcel of these revisionist attempts. upposedly, individual income today falls under 3politicalregulation3 and can no longer be e!plained by the capitalist mode of production, but only by thesociopolitical constellation of different social strata.'B

Thus, distribution is no longer seen as a necessary moment of the production processes and ofthe circulation of capital, but as an area of politically determined state activity. The proportionsaccording to which the state distributes what is produced +3the ca)e of the social product30:rhard4 +depend on the intensity and vehemence with which the 3interests3 of the varioussocial groups are presented to the state, on the amount of wor)ing class power, on the 3citi&ens$ 3

political consciousness, on the interest of the state in a 3balanced system,3 and on whether or notthe process of forming political will GWillensbildungprozessH is democratic or authoritarian. tdepends on the administration$s efficiency, on what party wins elections, on the degree ofpolitical participation, etc.'>n other words, since socio%political conditions are independent of

distribution by eliminating the capitalist mode of production. #n the contrary, 5ernstein$s method proposes tocombat capitalist distribution in the hope of thereby gradually establishing the socialist mode of production.3'?Protokoll des SP.+Parteitages in *iel, '>6?, p. '?@. 8ilferding, who converted to revisionism during the Weimar/epublic, already presupposed in his 8inanzkapital 0where he primarily deals with the circulation sphere andessentially ignores the production process4 that the developmental process of capitalist production would tendtoward the formation of general cartels, thus eliminating the anarchy of production. The primary tas) for thesocialist revolution would then mostly consist of the elimination of ineualities in distribution. (t that time, heualified his remar)s that such a development would only be possible economically, not socially or politically. Cf.

8inanzkapital0Fran)furt am Main, '>DB4, pp. 966 and E@9. Auring Weimar, 8ilferding used these ideas as a basis todevelop his theory of 3organi&ed capitalism,3 and in this conte!t, his conception of the 3political wage.3 For acritiue of this theory, see M. ;riwi&)i, 3Aie "ohntheorie der deutschen o&ialdemo)ratie,3 in Unter dem Bannerdes Marxismus, 0'>6B%6>4, pp. 9B'ff, reprinted inGegen den Strom,op.cit., pp. ?=ff2 see also W. 1ottschalch,Struktur&er9nderungen der Gesellschaft und politisches "andeln in der :ehre &on $udolf "ilferding05erlin, '>D64.'B ee Claus #ffe, 3-olitical (uthority and Class tructures (n (nalysis of "ate Capitalist ocieties,3 in

International 5ournal of Sociology, , No. ' 0pring '>?64, pp. ?9%'@B. 8abermas refers to severe stateinterventions in the 3system of commodity production and distribution3 08abermas, et al.,Student und PolitikGNeuwied, '>D'H, p. 664, but then he is forced to concede that 3private disposition over the means of productioncontinues to be the basis of the economic process3 0p. 694. n his theory of state socialism he relies heavily on thee!plication of the sovereignty of state power as distributive &is+2+&is the capitalist production process, which

becomes most visible in his theses on the determinants of political actions of state power.'> This is a brief overview of the decisive aspects in theories of state socialism in 8ilferding, ering, #ffe,

8abermas, 8ennis, and others, concerning the distribution formula according to which the social product is dividedamong various 3social groups3 and state activities 0social consumption, social investments, the military4. There is adistinction between those theories of the state which already refer to the contemporary capitalist state as statesocialism 0#ffe4 and those which presuppose that state socialism could eventually gain ground through a gradualrolling bac) of monopoly power by means of democratic forces in -arliament. This distinction is primarily based onthe latter$s assumption of the direct influence of the monopolies on the state and of thus seeing the state as aninstrument of monopolies. The former presuppose that today it is 3problematic3 to impute 3the dependence of

political activities on economic interests.3 Cf. Iiirgen 8abermas,/heory and Practice05oston, '>?94, p. 69=. #n p.'>= he refers e!plicitly to the 3stage of organi&ed capitalism3 where the 3sphere of commodity e!change3 is alreadylargely politically mediated. 5ut since here in particular the theory of state monopoly capital argues on the level of


8/63

economic laws, distribution depends on 3social change.36@:ven so, 3the economic tendencytoward ineuality3 is not simply denied. -recisely because its political sphere has come into itsown, however, the state is able to 3politically compensate3 the ineuality necessarily resultingfrom the mode of production. Thus, on the basis of this alleged 3autonomy3 of political powerfrom the economy, the )eys to the distribution of the 3social product3 are rightly at the disposal

of the state.6'

Thus, through state intervention, capitalist production of commodities has become separatedfrom distribution, both in order to e!pand production as well as individual consumption. Thestate appears as an autonomous sub7ect with respect to relations of production. Conseuently,bourgeois theory describes the state as the 3distribution state,3 3welfare state,3 3interventioniststate,3 3service state,3 the 3obliging state3 +in short, 3state socialism.3 66 (ccordingly, statesocialism is characteri&ed by the state$s access to an increasing proportion of the social product.This product can be used and distributed according to political and social considerations in theform of social services, welfare and warfare pro7ects. The creation of what is to be distributed,i.e. , the production process, is not a distribution problem. Thus, state action can be seen as

political influence, no clear relation between the state and the capital reali&ation process is visible 0precisely indistinction to the mere 3dependence3 on 3economic interests34.6@Mar!,Grundrisse, op.cit., p. B?. 3The aim is. . .to present production. . .as distinct from distribution, etc., asencased in eternal natural laws independent of history, at which opportunity bourgeois relations are then uietlysmuggled in as the inviolable natural laws on which society in the abstract is founded. . . n distribution, by contrast,humanity has allegedly permitted itself to be considerably more arbitrary.3 8ere and in what follows, Mar! suggestshow, through the 3crude tearing%apart3 of production and distribution, the production process appears as a natural

process. (s a conseuence the distribution process becomes a phenomenon which is solely determined by 3sociallaws3 0p. B>4 0which, in this conte!t, are synonymous with 3social chance34. The inability to understand capitalist

production as the circulation process of capital results in the elimination of distribution from this conte!t. From this,then, comes the illusion of the redistribution by the state at the level of 3income.3 From its very inception,revisionism ties in with the basic thought pattern of bourgeois economy 0which does not prevent it from falling preyto much greater illusions4. This is what Mar! is critici&ing here. ee also his riti!ue of the Gotha Program,op.cit.,

p. '' 3Julgar socialism 0and from it in turn a section of democracy4 has ta)en over from the bourgeois economiststhe consideration and treatment of distribution as independent from the mode of production and hence the

presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution.3 The real development of this critiue is, of course,contained inapital.6'Cf. here 8abermas,Student..op.cit., pp. E6 and =@. The same can already be seen in 5ernstein, ;auts)y, Cunow,/enner, and others see . Fetscher, ed.,.er Marxismus,seine Geschichte in .okumenten, vol. 0Munich, '>D=4,

pp. E'%=D. n theGodesberger Program,op.cit., it is stated, 3The mar)et economy as such does not guarantee a fairdistribution of income and wealth for this, a purposive policy concerning income and wealth is necessary3 0p. 'D4.ee also #tto 5renner, 3Technischer Fortschritt und 1ewer)schaften,3 in,utomation und technischer 8ortschritt in

.eutschland und den US, 0Fran)furt, '>D94, pp. 9@Bff 3(utomation and technological progress permit greaterwelfare for everyone. 5ut to what e!tent the labor force will share it depends on the way in which the highernational income is distributed. .. The declared goal of the unions has been and will be the increase of the wor)ers$share in the national income3 0p. 9'64.

66 (s with original revisionism, today$s apologists for capital in political science view the state$s distributiveactivities as a new development. Thus, they denounce this function with concepts li)e 3welfare state,3 the state as3the great euali&er,3 etc., since this function violates the principles of performance and mar)et income. ee :rnstForsthoff, 35egriff und Wesen des so&ialen /echsstaats,3 in 6er7ffentlichungen der 6ereinigung derStaatsrechtslehrer 05erlin, '>=E4, No. '6, pp. Bff2 Werner Weber, Spannungen und *r9fte im Westdeutschen6erfassungssystem0tuttgart, '>='4. n the following analysis of advanced capitalism we will repeatedly point outanalogies between revisionists and reactionary bourgeois scientists in order to show that there is 7ust no third way

between Mar!ist and bourgeois social analyses and that revisionist theories necessarily flow into bourgeois theory. tis impossible to deduce completely different social conclusions on the basis of 3scientific3 findings, from Forsthoffto 8ennis, as 8abermas would li)e to do. t always remains a 0morali&ing4 critiue.


9/63

purely political, dependent on political power relations, but independent of economic lawsgoverning the reproduction of capitalist society.

n contrast, economic theories generally have a more realistic assessment of these economiclaws, and thus of the limits to state action. This is already e!pressed in the terminologicaldistinction between 3primary3 and 3spontaneous3 as opposed to 3secondary3 and 3political3

distribution. n many cases 0especially in conservative versions4, there is a clearer perception ofthe limits on state redistribution inherent in 3the reuirements of sound economic processes30they usually appear, e.g., in the e!perts$ warnings against 3a runaway social policy3 and inrecommendations that the best social policy is grounded on sound economic policy4. *et, theactual relation between production and distribution is not recogni&ed. Nor can it be otherwise.From the bourgeois viewpoint, product distribution+hence, income+cannot be understoodsimply as a moment in the circulation of capital. To do this would reuire dealing with theproduction sphere as the only point of production of surplus value, in accordance with theconcept of circulating and self%reali&ing capital.

Following Mar!, revisionist theories still refer to the 3capitalist3 organi&ation of production.For e!ample, 8abermas and #ffe+not to mention the pre%fascist revisionists, who could still

naively operate with the concept of capitalism+glide right over the very thing which is specificto the capitalist mode of production that the circulation of capital is the basis for the economicreproduction of society and that the sphere of income distribution is only a moment in thecirculation of capital. Conseuently, from capital$s standpoint, 3political wages3 are seen asvariable capital since the amount advanced thus affects the rate of profit. This alone falsifies theidea that the capitalist mode of production and the state$s distributive function are two separatemoments in capitalist society.

;./he Inability to Understand the .ual haracter of the Production Process

(s already suggested, overestimating the ability of the state to intervene in the distributionprocess ta)es different forms in various theories, ranging from the complete neglect of theproduction sphere to a limited consideration of it, thus following the division of labor as it e!istsin the bourgeois sciences. More recent state socialist theories are no longer formulated in termsof the social pra!is of the labor movement 0and hence, they are no longer really revisionist4.They present themselves primarily as socio%political theories relegating the analysis of the3economy3 to economic theories. From the latter, they lift out those statements that fit with theirconceptions. 8abermas thus relies on Ioan /obinson for the 3refutation3 of Mar!$s theory ofvalue, #ffe on honfield, and all of them on the ;eynesian variety of bourgeois economics. 69

They no longer understand that to postulate as absolute the particular segments of the totality ofthe capitalist mode of production is already implicit in the particular sciences and in theirdivision of labor with respect to theory construction. 1lueing together statements in the varioussegments cannot result in a conception of the whole. ince 5ernstein, however, all revisionists

69(. honfield,Modern apitalism/he hanging Balance of Public and Pri&ate Po'er 0"ondon, '>D=2 and W.Mller, 38abermas und die (nwendbar)eit der (rbeitswerttheorie,3 in Sozialistische Politik 0'>D>4, pp. E@%EE. Therevisionists$ arbitrary use of the concepts 3social product,3 3social wealth,3 or sometimes, 3abundance ofcommodities,3 and then again 3products3 already indicates that they no longer see a problem with what Mar!describes in the very beginning ofapital, i.e., that in capitalism, social wealth appears as an enormous abundanceof commodities. The arbitrariness of the conceptuali&ation indicates the overloo)ing of the specific problematic ofthe mode of social production the dual character of the commodity as e!change value and as use value, and+accordingly+the dual character of labor and the production process.


10/63

share the position that the production process+even where it is e!plicitly discussed+cannot beseen as the contradictory unity of the processes of labor and capital reali&ation. /ather, it appearsas a mere labor process which is still identifiable as capitalist only because of its specific legaland organi&ational forms.

"u!emburg already critici&ed 5ernstein because, 3by $capitalist$ GheH does not mean a category

of production but of property rights2 not an economic unit but a fiscal unit... 5y transferring theconcept of $capitalist$ from the relations of production to property relations. . .he moves theuestion of socialism from the realm of production into the realm of relations of fortune +fromthe relation between capital and labor to the relation between rich and poor.3 6E8ere it is obvioushow 5ernstein$s reduction of the critiue of f capitalism to the issue of 3fair distribution3 is aresult of his purely 7 sociological%legal conception of capital relations. This, in turn, is the basisfor his reformist strategy with the state seen as the sub7ect of social f transformation. uch aconclusion can be reached only if the production process is not seen in its two%fold character, butas mere labor process whose capitalist character is only contingent and can therefore beeliminated under capitalism through the good will of the capitalist and corresponding pressure bythe wor)ing class.

What is lost is any notion that the production process, as the process of capital reali&ation, isdetermined by certain regularities operating behind individuals$ bac)s and which turn individualcapitalists into their instrument. :ven though revisionists spea) of 3capitalist production,3 thusbelieving that they are tal)ing in Mar!$s sense, they suppress the specific character of thecapitalist production process. :very production process is also a labor process. ndependent ofthe relations of production, it is the performance of useful labor with the purpose of producingcommodities. 3n the labor%process, therefore, man$s activity, with the help of the instruments oflabor, effects an alteration, designed from the commencement, in the material wor)ed upon. Theprocess disappears in the product the latter is a use%value, Nature$s material adapted by a changeof form to the wants of man.36=The reali&ation process, on the other hand, is characteri&ed by theproduction of use%value, not for its own sa)e, but as depositories of e!change value. The

capitalist$s aim 3is to produce not only use%value, but a commodity also2 not only use%value, butvalue2 not only value, but at the same time surplus%value.36DThe capitalist production processe!ists only if, on the one hand, it produces more value than the capitalist invested in it throughthe purchase of the means of production and labor power and, on the other, the values producedcan be sold as commodities, to be finally converted into money.

(ll the methods and organi&ational forms of e!ploitation practiced in the history ofcapitalism, along with the crises and the misery they create for the total population, are a resultof the law that applies to each individual capitalist capital reali&ation is a precondition for hise!istence. From the hierarchical organi&ation of manufacturing to the technical design of themachines, from the outlay of factories to all the various speed%ups, the whole production processis characteri&ed by the need to reali&e individual capital. (ll these methods are designed for the

capitalist$s benefit, allowing ma!imum e!ploitation of the labor day+the labor time sold by thewor)er+down to the very last minute. The capitalist sees to it that labor power is 3applied withthe average amount of e!ertion and the usual degree of intensity.36?

6E"u!emburg,op.cit., pp. >D%>?.6=Mar!,apital, p. '[email protected]., p. 'BD.6?Ibid., p. '>D.


11/63

The specific legal and organi&ational forms of the capitalist production process are nothingbut the necessary e!pression of the two%fold character of the production process under capitalismas both a process of labor and capital reali&ation. 5ut, almost without e!ception, revisionists seeall of this as chance accident. This is especially obvious in the characteri&ation of the capitalist$srole &is+2+&is the wor)er. n revisionist theory, this relationship is not e!plained in terms of

economic relations between capital and labor, i.e., their relation within the process of capitalreali&ation. They are blind to the fact that the individual capitalist and the individual wagelaborer are economic mas)s hiding capital relations. Their ideologies of economic andparticipatory democracy are also rooted in this blindness. Thus, Frit& Naphtali writes 3n theplant, the entrepreneur, or management in general, and the wor)er confront each other2 here, theovercoming of managerial despotism reuires wor)ers$ right to participate in decision%ma)ing.Wor)ers should no longer be treated as disenfranchised ob7ects.36BThus, capitalist despotism isonly the result of arbitrariness and can be removed on the organi&ational level by theestablishment of committees to participate in ma)ing decisions within the capitalist enterprise.ocialism becomes an ethical challenge and capitalism an issue of entrepreneurial morality.

(nother re7ection of the two%fold character of the capitalist production process can be found

in -aul ering$s theory of production hierarchy. 8e sees the capitalist enterprise as a rationalorgani&ation, where the 3intelligentsia of production3 0technicians, mar)et e!perts4 3wor)unflaggingly toward further progress and the creation of cooperative forms of technical andeconomic organi&ation,3 and where managers are, 3above all, people with the ability to ma)e andimplement decisions concerning the maintenance of a comple! organi&ation. . . The only pointwhere the old entrepreneurial function has been maintained is at the top of the pyramid+themonopolistic and financial oligarchy+where production management does, indeed, depend onthe profit motive of the owner. (nd this oligarchy. . . becomes increasingly entwined with theorgans of state economic policy.36>

Thus, the dual character of the production process as both labor and reali&ation is ignored. 5utin the capitalist enterprise, managers simultaneously obtain from labor both commodities as well

as surplus%value.9@

Thus, in eringOs account, the sub7ugation of living to dead labor, thesuee&ing out of surplus%value, and the economi&ing of capital 0which means that 3in spite ofcutting corners, it is thoroughly wasteful with manpower34, 9'disappear from the organi&ation ofproduction in the capitalist enterprise. nstead, capitalism is seen as a technical and rationalinstitution where only its organi&ational top remains capitalist. Thus, the introduction ofsocialism merely reuires changing top personnel, rolling bac) the capitalist oligarchy$sinfluence on economic policy through a strong social%democratic government, and graduallydismantling the top by replacing it with planning e!perts. The current strategy of the 1ermanCommunist -arty 0which, drawing on the theory of monopoly capitalism, calls for the peacefultransition of capitalism to socialism4 is based on such ideas. Thus, the power of monopolycapitalism is to be reduced on two fronts through wor)ers$ participation in decision%ma)ing in

their wor)%place2 and through the establishment in economic policy of a democratic program tofight monopolies. The struggle is for gradually ta)ing over the 3apparatus to direct and managethe economy3 and 3subordinating it to the interest of the people.3 35etween the hegemony ofmonopoly capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat for the transition

6BFrit& Naphtali,Wirtschaftsdemokratie0Fran)furt, '>DD4, p. 69.6>ee ering,5enseits...,op.cit., pp. E?%E>.9@ee here especially Mar!,apital, pp. 99@%996 and 99E%99=.9'Ibid., , pp. ??%'?9.


12/63

to socialism, there is the phase of struggle to establish and develop a democracy opposed tomonopoly capitalism.396

DB4, pp. 69> and ?6?. Cf. the chapter 3Aie demo)ratische (lternative gegen denstaatsmonopolistischen ;apitalismus,3 pp. ?6E%?='2 see also its criticism by /abehl,op.cit., pp. D?ff.99Thus, for ecretary (uerbach of the Ministry of "abor, economic coverage of pensions and health insurance isinsured only if gross wages and salaries increase annually by =.B, up to '>B=. 0ee /agesspiegel, Aecember 69,'>D>.4 Cf. alsoSozialen!uete, 3o&iale icherung in der 5/A3 0tuttgart, '>DD4, pp. 'E9ff, esp. p. '=9, where it isshown that social security, and particularly unemployment compensation, would totally fail under conditions ofmass unemployment.9Eee :ugen Jarga$s essay, 3-robleme der Monopolbildung und die Theorie vom $organisierten ;apitalismus$,3 inhis.ie *rise des *apitalismus und ihre politischen 8olgen 0Fran)furt, '>D>4, pp. ''%E'. ee also /abehl,op.cit.,

pp. >?ff.


13/63

3concerted action,3 and 3wage guidelines.3 (s an e!pression of state autonomy in distribution,3political wages3 now serve as the unmediated economic instrument of manipulation to stabili&eproduction against cycles. Thus, the state intervenes in the circulation of capital by ta)inginitiative in distribution so as to 3cushion3 economic crises. (ccordingly, the state$s regulatoryactivity presupposes that the assumed autonomy of distribution is limited so that state

intervention in this sphere does not affect the production process.9=

From this viewpoint, theseparation of production from distribution is no longer total, but one%sided. Aistribution policy ispostulated as independent of the laws and limitations of the process of capital reali&ation. 5ut, atthe same time, it is also assumed that the accumulation process, now under the neutral label of3continued economic growth,3 can be actually affected through distribution policies as a form ofcrisis control. #n this basis, the relative autonomy of the state in the distribution sphere and,hence, in determining distribution policies, are legitimated along with its strategy of 3crisisprevention.39D#ne becomes the precondition for the other, and both are anchored in the samesub7ect. Conseuently, the accumulation process and its internal laws become unproblematic,especially since during the last 6@ years the effectiveness of state policy and the accuracy of thetheories based on these assumptions have apparently been demonstrated in West 1ermany.

Most of the contradictions between capitalist production and social policy are thus eliminated.This is best e!emplified in the left%;eynesian or unionist notion that effective 3crisismanagement3 is possible through wage increases meant to stimulate effective demand in theform of increased purchasing power. (s early as '>6B, Frit& Tarnow wrote 3the concern here isnot with social issues, but with the economy$s need to enforce the increased use of consumergoods in order to clear the way for increased consumption and production.3 9?This comfortabletradition of mere appeals to the state and to the 3reason3 of the capitalist class +rather than theactual preparation of the wor)ing class for revolutionary practice +counts among its followers.1. Metall which in '>D? recommended that the state aid wor)ers in the 3purchase of a carthrough investment credits, thus simultaneously stimulating the auto industry.3 (t the same time,.1. Metall also complained about the industry$s lac) of integrity, for having cut social benefits

and wages during a crisis out of sheer nastiness and against their awareness that only massconsumption could guarantee the mar)et for their products.9B(t least Tarnow was aware of theproblem when he wrote 3#f course, theindi&idualmanager can continue to calculate as thougha wage cut would be nothing but an advantage. 5ut such manipulation would no longer bepossible for management as such, whose interests in capital and profit would suffer severelyfrom such a decision.39>8e thus pleaded for a balanced distribution of the total purchasing powerbetween consumption and accumulation which, by harmoniously integrating the interests of both

9=8ere we are dealing with a problem that we could not fully agree on during our discussions. What are the practicalconseuences of the illusion of the distribution sphere$s autonomy or political wages under conditions of anti%cyclical boom policies To what e!tent does it not involvede factorecognition of the dependence of distribution on

production, as well as the limits this dependence imposes9DI.M. 1illman,Prosperity in the risis0New *or), '>D=4, demonstrates how the welfare state theories of the NewAeal era considered social security as a mechanism for crisis regulation 0p. '964. Then 1illman tests this assumptionon the basis of the cyclical movements of capital in the . For a critiue, see ;riwi&)i,op.cit.2 :ri)a ;Pnig,6om $e&isionismus zum demokratischen Sozialismus0:ast 5erlin, '>DE4, pp. '=Bff.9BMetall, No. 'D 0'>D?4, andWeissbuch der I G.Metall0'>DB4. t can also be seen how 5renner, in '>D? and '>DB,argues for the theory of regulating the crisis through increases in general income.9>Tarnow,Warum arm sein=> op?cit?>p. =9.


14/63

capital and the wor)ing class, would provide the basis for healthy capitalism. 5ut Mar! hadalready commented on such ideas 3To each capitalist, the total mass of wor)ers, with thee!ception of his own wor)ers, appear not as wor)ers, but as consumers. . . #f course he wouldli)e the wor)ers ofother capitalists to be the greatest consumers ofhis o'ncommodity. 5ut therelation ofe&erycapitalist tohis o'nwor)ers is therelation as such of capital and labor, the

essential relation.3E@

n '>D?, the pra!is of crisis manipulation by the state had shown that it is upto 3state socialism3 to ta)e into account this 3essential relation3 the state thus cut the socialbudget and had to permit stagnation and even some lowering of wages.

Thus, what is ignored is that capital e!ists only as indi&idualcapitals and that the state canrepresent collective capital only to the e!tent to which it represents the interest of individualcapitals, or at least, of its most powerful faction. t is inherent in capitalist relations that thecontradictory interests of each individual capitalist see) to develop the ma!imum consumptionpotential of all wor)ers, with the e!ception of his own, whose wages are to be )ept at aminimum. These interests cannot be eliminated by the state. This is further e!pressed in the factthat the 3spontaneous3 distribution of wages and profits is not regulated by the state at all, but viadirectconfrontation at the bargaining table. 5riefly summari&ed, the activity of the state is

limited to the redistribution of wage incomes 03social services,3 manpower training4 and to acertain redistribution of profits among various groups of capitalists 0subventions, ta! brea)s forinvestments, etc.4. Thus, it is no longer possible to assume the complentarity of the state$sfunctions as manipulating crises and as ta)ing care of social policy.


15/63

n this respect, and in this respect alone, bourgeois science has fewer illusions than all therevisionist trade union theoreticians since the Weimar /epublic. (ccordingly, the functions ofstate socialism are to be subordinate to the primary function of securing growth and prosperity.The conflict between these two state functions is fully recogni&ed, but harmony is re%establishedby the claim that sound economic policies are the best social policies. n securing growth, sound

economic policies give the state the needed means to carry out its function of social distributionwhile, in addition, preventing 3unemployment.3 (long these lines, the Sozialen!ueteGthe ocialnuiry of '>DDH sponsored by the West 1erman government 0and underta)en by professors closeto the parties in power4 assumed that, as far as the function of social policy is concerned, i.e.,fulfilling the people$s needs for security and welfare, there is an identity between these tas)s andthe goals of economic policy.E'(n economic policy that does not interfere with social policy byincreasing costs at the wrong time 0and it always turns out to be the wrong time4 E6should thus bein a position to guarantee economic growth and 3full employment.3 E93n general, social policy isby nature oriented towards the long range and can only be rationally implemented if theeconomy succeeds in preventing e!cessive ups and downs.3EEThis results in the need to directsocial policy and subsume it under economic measures, as long as it can be done without

endangering 3social peace.3 Maintaining 3social peace3 is, therefore, a determining factor for thelower limits of social benefits 07ust ne!t to maintaining the capacity for 3wor) and performance,educational training, and mobility34. 3-rice stability3 and the 3management$s readiness to invest3define the upper limit.E=(ccording to the authors of the Sozialen!uete, this is the leeway given tothe redistributive socio%political measures of the state.

@.State Socialism and Pluralist .emocracy

The theoretical separation of economic conditions from production and distribution haspolitical conseuences. 8istorically, of course, the theory is the conseuence of a revisionistpra!is which it further confirms the ocial Aemocratic -arty$s attempt to 7ustify its non%revolutionary politics, its collaboration with capital and the bourgeois state have led to recurrent

E'Cf.Sozialen!uete> op?cit?>pp. '[email protected]., pp. '=9ff. t is argued here that under conditions of a fired%up economy, social benefits have an inflationaryeffect, but they are economically possible and perhaps even reasonable during a crisis. 08ere, the illusion is similarto that of the unions.4 The latter is, however, not recommended on the basis of political factors, since such measuresare difficult to revo)e later on without the potential danger of social discontent.E9Time and again, it is necessary to altogether avoid bourgeois%scientific concepts, which so obviously veil reality,or at least to put them in uotes. Thus, according to prevailing opinion, 3full employment3 includes an officialunemployment statistic of 3only3 9%=. The figures of the official unemployment statistics are, in turn, misleading0particularly during a recession or a 3low34, because they do not include foreign wor)ers who have been returned tounemployment prematurely 0especially female wor)ers4, or who went home on their own. The figures hide a muchlarger industrial reserve army, which is actually the appropriate concept for capitalist reality. This is another

reminder indicating how+in bourgeois science +one constantly moves around dummies, which, however, from theperspective of capitalist society and its science, are accessary and the only reality which actually determines theactions of capital$s agents and of government functionaries.EESozialen!uete> op?cit?>p. '=9.E=Ibid.., p. 'EE, where the limits to social policy are generally correctly outlined. #n the other hand, the state, e.g.,the


16/63

attempts to show not only that today$s capitalism is fundamentally different from that of Mar!$sday, but that there has been a ualitative change in the relation between the capitalist productionprocess and the state. This subseuently legitimates the strategy which is actually practiced, i.e.,the class cooperation in the bourgeois state. For revisionist theories of the state, the state$sautonomy in distributing the social product and the disappearance of capitalist crises 0either as a

result of natural processes of capitalist development, or as a result of the state$s crisismangement4 constitutes an essential precondition for the gradual transition of capitalism tosocialism, of the bourgeois state to a socialist and democratic constitutional state. #nce social%democratic theoreticians from 5ernstein to 8abermas have put state socialism on the firmgrounds of a continuously increasing 3abundance of goods,3 there are no longer anyinsurmountable obstacles to the reali&ation of a democratic society 3From this perspective classconflict loses its revolutionary guise, aprogressi&e democratization of society is not e!cludedfrom the outset, even'ithin the economic order of capitalism.3ED

5ernstein wanted to formulate a non%revolutionary strategy for the wor)ing class socialreform instead of revolution. The claim that a wor)ing class revolutionary struggle had becomehistorically obsolete+socialism could be achieved through the state by means of labor parties

and strong cooperation of unions+this claim led to the elaboration of the idea of the state$sindependence from the conditions of capitalist production. n the course of its furtherdevelopment 0the Weimar /epublic4, the state has increased through mediation by parliamentarydebate, its interventions in society, primarily in the distribution sector 0an increasing proportionof the social product was distributed by the state4. Therefore, the state$s distributive functioncame to be viewed as the sphere of autonomous state power as opposed to capital accumulation.8ere is the origin of 8ilferding$s theory of political wages and the corresponding notions of;irchheimer, ering, and other social%democratic theoreticians.

(ccording to 8ilferding, class power relations are constantly assessed by elections. Thesepowers are immediately translated by -arliament into the will of the state, which, in ademocracy, is the will of its citi&ens. This, according to 8ilferding, results in the 3adaptation of

state power to changing power relations,3 which necessarily leads to an increase in the laborparty$s influence, since the proportion of wor)ers in the population is increasing. This in turnshould be followed by an increase in wages that are determined not economically, but politically.3Now the wor)ers consider the state as a political instrument for the building of socialism.3 E?

:lections and parliament are the means for the peaceful resolution of the struggle between wagelabor and capital.

n '>E>, the ocial Aemocratic -arty 0-A4 endorsed the West 1erman Constitution in the-arliamentary Council GParlament arise her $atH. The provisional nature of the new state, itsopen attitude to sociali&ation of large industries 0(rticle '=4, the strong position of the rulingparty and of the Chancellor, the 7urisdiction of the /epublic$s legislature, and the basically fi!edclause concerning state socialism 0(rticle 6@4, led the -A to thin) that the new state would be

sufficient to transform the capitalist society which by that time had already been restored, to asocialist society.Firmly counting on election victories, the -A sought to achieve their social and political

ideals by ta)ing over state powers with a parliamentary ma7ority. The ambivalent and evennegative position during debates on the Constitution of the -A concerning the political right to

EDIiirgen 8abermas,/heory and Practice> op?cit?>p. 699.E?ee /udolf 8ilferding, 3-robleme der Qeit,3 inGesellschaft 0'>6E4, p. '9, and his 3/ealistischer -a&ifismus,3 inGesellschaft 0'>6E4, p. '''. ee also W. 1ottschalch,op.citpp. '>B%6'B.


17/63

stri)e, as well as the absence of any protection for mass action in the Constitution itself, indicatethat revolutionary mass action and labor struggles were not included in this plan.

imilarly, the contents of their political ideas refer less to the wor)ing class as the historicalsub7ect of social processes than to the state. The difference between the Christian Aemocraticparties 0CA=?4, p. '@. /abehl points out that in the 3sociology of the state,3 3it is not class struggles that determine thismonopolistic society2 rather, this era is based on the democratic struggle of the $underprivileged$ for recognition andsupport by the state.3 0/abehl, op.cit., p. >94. This political idea rests precisely on the reduction of capitalistcontradictions to distribution problems.


18/63

the theory of pluralism. The 3class struggle,3 to which revisionists still paid lip service during theWeimar /epublic, is reduced to balancing pluralistic interests through competing organi&ationsand representative practices.=@ The ocial Aemocrats of Weimar still assumed that the socialinterests relevant to the formation of political will would always be constituted by the conflictbetween capital and labor and that the conflict had decreased owing to economic developments.

8ence, for them, the state apparatus 0especially -arliament4 became a useful instrument in thegradual transition to socialism. -ost WW revisionism moves further away from Mar!ist theory.The formation of political will and the decision%ma)ing process are seen as resulting fromconflicts of interest among pluralist social groups. While the theory of state socialism claims theautonomy of the state from capitalist production in regulating crises and in distribution, itrecogni&es no corresponding autonomy of the state from social groups. Iust the opposite in thistheory, the state is seen as a tool to implement or to merely mediate various social interests andinterest groups, which conseuently can determine state policy. uch a conception, on the onehand, sees the state as dependent on social interest groups 0with wage labor and capital stillpredominating4, but at the same time it perceives the state as autonomous in relation to the3economic process.3 8ence, it follows by necessity that the connection between the production

process and the constitution of social conflicts are torn apart. f the state is understood as the realor potential sub7ect of the distribution of the 3social product3 and of the regulation of theeconomic process, and if in principle the laws of distribution and regulation as laws of the capitalreali&ation process do not have priority over the state, then there can be no connection betweenthe capitalist mode of production and conflicts of interest which then appear as merely 3social.3f the state can change the distribution of 3social wealth3 without abolishing capital relations,then social conflicts of interest over distribution can no longer be understood as merely the resultof capital relations. ociety is hypostati&ed to the arena of interests to be mediated by the state. ='

f all the state needs is 3a positive indication of how to reali&e 7ustice through the interventionof state socialism,3 then in principle the laws of capital reali&ation could not prohibit it fromdoing this, given the contemporary conditions of capitalist societies and states. #ther forces,

aside from those of material production, must be at wor) here. For contemporary revisionism,the issue of the democratic and social constitutional state becomes the issue of its democraticpotential, and the issue of the 3political maturity of the people3=6becomes that of democratic andpeace%loving forces. No longer is any attempt made to define such forces, e!cept for the mentionof the little word 3anti%monopolist.3 ncreases in democratic potential and the formation ofpolitical will reuire an automatic increase in the margin of state power to direct the reali&ationof social 7ustice. The continuous transition toward a society which is self%regulating is thuspossible insofar as a growing democratic force usurps the stateR apparatus and uses it to establisha 7ust and rational social order. 5ecause 3the state advances to become the bearer of socialorder,3=9the )ind of social order that is reali&ed depends on the consciousness of those who usethe state. Thus, the 7ustification given by Fran)furt chool sociologists, who polled students at

the underprivileged groups have refined themselves into underprivileged needs.=@:. Fraen)el, 3tru)turanalyse der modernen Aemo)ratie,3 in ,us Politik und 3eitgeschichte0supplement to thewee)ly.as Parlament4, Aecember D, '>D>, p. 69 3-luralism is the state theory of reformism. t implicitly re7ectsthe thesis that the antagonism between capital and labor, whose e!istence it does not doubt, leads by historicalnecessity to the ,ufhebungof this antagonism in the classless society.3 ee also by the same author,.eutschlandund die 'estlichen .emokratien0tuttgart, '>DE4.='-. ering, 3Aer Faschismus,3 in3eitschrift f(r Sozialismus, Nos. 6E%6= and 6D%6? 0'>9=4, p. ??=.=68abermas,Student...,op.cit., pp. 9= and E=.=9Ibid., p. 9=.


19/63

the end of the '>=@s, was that, since students provide the manpower for leadership positions inthe 3large industrial enterprises3 and in the civil service, =Ethey are particularly relevant to thistheory as democratic 0S4 potential. The political and social consciousness of managers and highercivil servants is thus essential in determining the reason or unreason of 3political and socialprocesses3 and of the method and substance employed in satisfying needs. ocial contradictions

are ultimately reduced to individual consciousness the good or ill will of the capitalists or theirmanagers2 the reactionary or progressive consciousness of civil servants2 the uestion, fore!ample, from which social strata the elite reconstitutes itself. 8ere we have already come toAahrendorf.==

Whether reason or unreason determines the organi&ation of production and the satisfaction ofsocial needs, as well as the uestion of reason in political decisions, becomes a matter of what isin individual heads 0especially the heats of the elite4. Aemocracy becomes a uestion of theideological and political orientation of the ruling elites. The theory of democracy atrophies intothe theory of elites. :ven if various sociological categories are used to historically e!plainpresent social conditions and the formation of the political will, the analysis still concludes bypromising the beginning of the end of domination through the recurrent appearance in the ruling

apparatus of individuals with a critical consciousness.5y comparison, #ffe$s theory of the welfare and interventionist state has no illusions. #ffe$stheory of the welfare and interventionist state, which continues 8abermas$ theory of statesocialism, no longer involves the concept of social emancipation. Class conflict is eliminated as adynamic force of social development and the critiue of political economy is e!plicitly re7ectedas a theoretical approach to understanding the movements and laws of monopoly capitalistsociety. 3n the planned capitalist welfare state, domination of man over man 0or of one classover another4 has largely given way to the dominance of a few spheres of social function overothers. . . The gap that ranbet'eenthe great position groups Gread classesH in the early stages ofcapitalism has shifted, as it were, to within individuals themselves.3=D

#ffe$s theory has fewer illusions because it sees the boundaries limiting 3the range of action

given to the political%administrative center3=?

as nearly insurmountable. tate power is heredefined as social%irrational activity. The processes and forms for the formation of political willhave been run into the ground and ossified. -ractical, i.e., rational activity of state power is ruledout, since the social mechanisms for the articulation of needs and for the self% definition of statepower do not function to ensure the system$s euilibrium. The ossified forms in which socialneeds are now articulated are the boundaries to be overcome.

f these forms were to change, then the state$s actions would change as well. The road tochange is a revolution of individual needs which alone would permit a change in thosephenomena and organi&ational forms that have so far determined the formation of political will.(t least, this conclusion could be drawn from #ffe$s approach. 5ut it is not e!pressly stated, and

=EIbid., pp. =6ff.== Critical research of the elite ta)es the same direction. ee, e.g., 8elge -ross, Manager und ,ktion9re in

.eutschland0Fran)furt, '>D=4, and W. Qapf,Wandlungen der deutschen -lite 0Munich, '>D=4. ee also the theory ofstate monopoly capitalism 0as well as the corresponding Ptunerous studies of contemporary history as published inthe 1A/4, which attempt to prove the fsarticularly aggressive and reactionary nature of the monopolies and the stateon the basis of the identity of the elite structure in fascist and contemporary 1ermany. (ccording to this approach,se most important argument for the claim that West 1ermany is a monopoly state is the e!istence of the sameindividuals in both economic and political elites.=D#ffe,op.cit., pp. >=%>D.=?Ibid., p. '@9. G:nglish translation slightly altered.H


20/63

rightly so. For why should individuals revolutioni&e their consciousness and needs, so long as thestate succeeds in 3avoiding crises3 and so long as sharp social contradictions can be ignored fromthe outset in anticipation of 3success.3 0#ffe$s terminology brings his theoretical standpoint inline with this concept.4

What applies to #ffe applies to 8abermas as well. ( fundamental change in the form and

content of the state$s distributive powers, which they euate with the rationali&ation of thetotality of social reproduction processes, does not reuire a basic revolution in productionrelations, but merely a change in the formation of political will. (ccording to #ffe, such changewould mainly involve those processes which create the political will of parties 0the pressure tomediate among particular group interests4,=B as well as that of the 3pluralist3 system offederations. These processes present to the state only those partial interests which can beorgani&ed and can create conflict. #nly by these means can the state be moved to action, as itsfunction is to maintain the system$s euilibrium through the avoidance of conflict. The partialinterests would determine how and why the social product is distributed by the state.(ccordingly, general social needs for schools, hospitals and for the development of publictransportation systems, are not sufficiently dealt with by the state since these needs cannot be

articulated by partial interests that alone can organi&e and create conflict.=>

Thus, the organi&ationof society into a pluralist system of federations and the specific effect this has on the process ofpolitical decision%ma)ing prevent the state$s rational action towards satisfying general needs.

(t this point, in spite of all reservations against authoritarianism, the analysis of 3left3theoreticians of state socialism converges with that of the right. Conservative theoreticians ofstate socialism such as 8ennisD@begin by assuming that in order to carry out its businessefficientlyand in terms of thegeneralsatisfaction of its citi&ens$ needs, the state must be freedfrom the 3accidents3 caused in the democratic formation of political will. This is all the more so,since the state now can essentially fulfill needs through administrative and distributive functions.The state$s democratic legitimation rests on its function to provide for its citi&ens$ welfare2 to thisend, it must organi&e its institutional apparatus toward fulfilling these immanent 3reuirements3

Gsachgesetzliche 8orderungenH. n order to democratically function according to its legitimation,the state would have to free itself from all forms of informal, pre%stateG&orstaatlichH formationsof political will. Thus, it would not be hampered in the fulfillment of its democratic tas)s bysocial conflicts of interest. n this conte!t, the 3e!perts on behalf of the common good3recommended by :rhard play an increasing role, even if under changed names. 8ennis, fore!ample, refers to 3institutionali&ed eyes and ears3 who remind the state of its general tas)s asopposed to the pressure of group interests. (t last, a good use might be found here for politicalscientists. The process of forming political will reuires the transformation of the state apparatusinto more authoritarian forms and, in )eeping with this, the creation of a 3people able to begoverned Gregierungsf9higH3 08ennis4, or more e!plicitly 3The maturity of a society correspondsto the degree to which it can be manipulated.3 3(nd from the perspective of scientific research,

which is ma)ing great strides in this area, there are neither factual nor normative limits tomanipulation.3D'(ccording to :rhard$s '>D= proclamation, formed and informed society go

=BIbid., pp. B9ff.=>Ibid., p. B=.D@W. 8ennis, 3(ufgaben einer modernen /egierungslehre,3 inPolitische 6iertelAahres+ 7t)rifi J 0'>D=4, pp. E66%EE'.D'/. (ltmann,Sp9te 0achricht &om Staat0tuttgart, '>D>4, p. ='.


21/63

together. (uthoritarian state socialism and the manipulation of the 3citi&ens3 it provides for areonly two sides of the same coin.

Thus, the argument can be summari&ed as follows f the state is to be democratic, i.e.,responding to the wants of its 3citi&ens3 and ta)ing care of their needs, then it must streamline itsactivities, if possible, on the organi&ational level. n other words, it must transform itself into an

authoritarian state. ocial pluralism of interests, or the 3social articulation of interests,3 hampersthe state in effectively organi&ing distribution 0e.g., shifting priority from 3social consumption tosocial investments,3D6 i.e., to education, transportation, etc., was essential for the economy$scontinued growth4. Thus, pluralism must either be eliminated, reduced, or organi&ed as acorporation. This conclusion could also be drawn from #ffe$s analysis of the obstacles to rationalstate power. (ccording to this, there is no reason why enlightened statesmen+who havesucceeded in increasing their range of maneuverability by liuidating that pluralism of interestswhich only limits the state, and who lend their enlightened ears to the science that counselspolitics +there is no reason why these statesmen should not contribute to the establishment of abetter society as well. Why should they not consider those needs for 3housing, health,transportation, education, constitutional government, and leisure3+needs which, however, are

presently ignored since needs are e!pressed by federations and by the parties which must alwaysbe committed to their own interests because of election strategies.(ccordingly, 8abermas perceives scientists as providing the ability to 3rationali&e3 political

decisions.D9 cientists act as political advisors and, by publishing their findings, create theenlightened masses which bestows relevant political meaning onto their enlightened advice.3Citi&ens3 thus form the ob7ects of 3mass enlightenment3 by the scientific elite. Widmayer, thetechnocratic educational economist and planner, correctly refers to 8abermas and #ffe when herecommends as a cure%all for society$s ills the scientific advisement of politics and the end to allinfluence on the state from federations and from parties corrupted by elections. DE

The rightist theoreticians of state socialism see the solution to the problem as obvious. tatesocialism means 3ta)ing care of$ in the dual sense of the term providing for the necessities of life

as well as for the political silencing of those ta)en care of. ( higher standard of living can onlybe guaranteed on the basis of increased manipulation of the clients. Thus, the conservativeapproach to state socialism models its conception of the distributive state according to theorgani&ational principles of the capitalist industrial enterprise. (s the 3total entrepreneur3 in thehighly organi&ed capitalist 3total enterprise,3 it is oriented towards efficiency, and its efficiency isdetermined by 3the degree of its organi&ational%instrumental adaptation to a given situation.3D=

5oth bourgeois science and, of course, capitalists, hold that the capitalist dictatorship over thewor)ers in industry has priority over the needs of the citi&ens as consumers for an increasingmass of commodities from which to freely choose. The need for improved wor)ing conditionscan be considered only to the e!tent to which they do not interfere with the economic side of theenterprise 3f he becomes part of the production process, man must necessarily submit to its

D6This e!pression was first used in industry publications and in :rhard$s official address of '>D=.D9ee 8abermas, 3Wissenschaft und -oliti),3 in)ffene WeltBD 0'>DE4, pp. E'9%E69.DE8.-. Widmayer, 3(spe)te einer a)tiven o&ialpoliti). Qur politischen #e)onomie der o&ialinvestionen,3 lecture

presented to the6erein f(r Sozialpolitik0'>D>4.D=ee 8ennis,op.cit., p. E6>. ee also p. E6? 3f it is correct to perceive in the science of government somethingli)e a science of management of the modern state, then our field 0political Menee4 creates the impression of amanagement science, whose only theme is co%determination.3 This whole point is first made attractive to the publicin the ideologies of the structured society 0formierte Gesellschaft4, a slogan that was also swallowed by some of the"eft.


22/63

economic laws of efficiency. The economy is not an end in itself, and man is not really a meansto the end. The purpose of the economy is to satisfy man$s material needs, to give him the meansto free himself for higher spiritual and moral goals. 5ut this is possible only if man becomes partof the production process which reuires his subordination to the goals of the enterprise, thusbecoming a means to an end. This is certainly an inner contradiction which is, however, in the

nature of this matter.3DD

n the 7argon of the scientific apologistU of capital, there e!ists aninsoluble contradiction between the needs of the wor)er as consumer, and as a spiritual%moralbeing who must transcend his e!istence in the industrial enterprise as a 3mere means to an end.3n principle, since these needs oppose each other, participation in the industry$s decision%ma)ingcan be permitted only to the e!tent that 3the relation between the factor of human performanceand the enterprise is formed in a way that carries out the enterprsie$s goals as perfectly aspossible. .. The individual wor)er should gain the impression that he is not a mere ob7ect but thathe can somehow participate in shaping his own fate as part of the enterprise.3 D?5ut, against thesesporty recommendations of capital$s scientific apologists to use co% determination as a tool toincrease efficiency 0the union$s efforts to ma)e co%determination palatable to capital arenowadays not too different4, capitalists argue, now as ever, that co%determination results in

decreased productivity. To them, dictatorship rather than manipulation in the industrial enterpriseappears as a more reliable instrument to e!tract surplus value.DB

5ut the real issue here is this the crucial contradiction is not seen as obtaining betweencapital and wage labor, but between the citi&en as consumer and as wage earner. For him,freedom and a good standard of living reuire his enslavement as producer. While there is ofcourse no such problem for the capitalist, production and consumption oppose each other asirreconcilable differences within each and e&ery individual wor)er. Whether revisionist orconservative, the theory of state socialism ultimately reaches the point where it pro7ects onto theindividual himself the contradictions prohibiting the rational organi&ation of society. 3"eftist3theoreticians of state socialism describe this conflict of interest within the individual as the resultof historical processes mediated by the way in which social interests are formulated. /ightist

theoreticians perceive the conflict as a natural constant. 8ence, the difference between politicalstrategies enlightenment of the masses administered by an enlightened elite, or manipulation. nboth instances, the masses are ob7ects to be handled by the elites.

Aifferent political goals also follow from this. While the authoritarian state is an unavoidablenecessity for the conservative, for the revisionist D>it is an historically developed institution, thus

DD;arl 8a!,Personalpolitik und Mitbestimmung0Cologne, '>D>4, p. 'D. ee, in this conte!t, Mar!, apital, , p.9=D 3t is very characteristic that the enthusiastic apologists of the factory system have nothing more damning tourge against a general organisation of labor of society, than that it would turn all society into one immense factory.3The early bourgeois Veconomists were not so bold as to as) of the wage laborer total submission during the wor)day, so that he would be free for his 3higher mental and moral ambitions.3 nstead, they wisely distributed this3internal contradiction3 among the different classes. Thus, torch 0'B'=4 praises the advantages of capitalist society

3The progress of social wealth ... begets this useful class of society. . .which performs the most wearisome, thevilest, the most disgusting functions, which ta)es. in a word, on its shoulders all that is disagreeable and servile inlife, and procures thus for other classes leisure, serenity of mind and conventional 0c$est bonS4 dignity of character,3ibid., p. DE?.D?(s an illustration, see the well%)nown slogan, as effective now as ever 3The democrati&ation of the economy is asnonsensical as the democrati&ation of schools, barrac)s, and 7ails.3 uoted

The Illusion of State Socialism

Documents

Transcript of The Illusion of State Socialism