|
|
Rosa Luxemburg
Reform or Revolution
Part One
Chapter IV: Capitalism and the State
The second condition of the gradual realisation of
socialism is according to Bernstein, the evolution of the State in
society. It has become a commonplace to say that the present State is a
class State. This, too, like referring to capitalist society, should not
be understood in a rigorous absolute manner, but dialectically.
The State became capitalist with the political victory of the
bourgeoisie. Capitalist development modifies essentially the nature of
the State, widening its sphere of action, constantly imposing on it new
functions (especially those affecting economic life), making more and
more necessary its intervention and control in society. In this sense,
capitalist development prepares little by little the future fusion of
the State to society. It prepares, so to say, the return of the function
of the state to society. Following this line of thought, one can speak
of an evolution of the capitalist State into society, and it is
undoubtedly what Marx had in mind when he referred to labour legislation
as the first conscious intervention of “society” in the vital social
process, a phrase upon which Bernstein leans heavily.
But on the other hand the same capitalist development realises
another transformation in the nature of the State. The present State is,
first of all, an organisation of the ruling class. It assumes functions
favouring social developments specifically because, and in the measure
that, these interests and social developments coincide, in a general
fashion, with the interests of the dominant class. Labour legislation is
enacted as much in the immediate interest of the capitalist class as in
the interest of society in general. But this harmony endures only up to
a certain point of capitalist development. When capitalist development
has reached a certain level, the interests of the bourgeoisie, as a
class, and the needs of economic progress begin to clash even in the
capitalist sense. We believe that this phase has already begun. It shows
itself in two extremely important phenomena of contemporary social
life: on the one hand, the policy of tariff barriers, and on the other,
militarism. These two phenomena have played an indispensable, and in
that sense a progressive and revolutionary role in the history of
capitalism. Without tariff protection the development of large industry
would have been impossible in several countries. But now the situation
is different.
At present, protection does not serve so much to develop young
industry as to maintain artificially certain aged forms of production.
From the angle of capitalist development, that is, from the point of
view of world economy, it matters little whether Germany exports more
merchandise into England or England exports more merchandise into
Germany. From the viewpoint of this development it may be said that the
blackamoor has done his work and it is time for him to go his way. Given
the condition of reciprocal dependence in which the various branches of
industry find themselves, a protectionist tariff on any commodity
necessarily results in raising the cost of production of other
commodities inside the country. It therefore impedes industrial
development. But this is not so from the viewpoint of the interests of
the capitalist class. While industry does not need tariff barriers for
its development, the entrepreneurs need tariffs to protect their
markets. This signifies that at present tariffs no longer serve as a
means of protecting a developing capitalist section against a more
advanced section. They are now the arm used by one national group of
capitalists against another group. Furthermore, tariffs are no longer
necessary as an instrument of protection for industry in its movement to
create and conquer the home market. They are now indispensable means
for the cartelisation of industry, that is, means used in the struggle
of capitalist producers against consuming society in the aggregate. What
brings out in an emphatic manner the specific character of contemporary
customs policies is the fact that today not industry, but agriculture
plays the predominant role in the making of tariffs. The policy of
customs protection has become a tool for converting and expressing the
feudal interests in capitalist form.
The same change has taken place in militarism. If we consider history
as it was – not as it could have been or should have been – we must
agree that war has been an indispensable feature of capitalist
development. The United States, Germany, Italy, the Balkan States,
Poland, all owe the condition or the rise of their capitalist
development to wars, whether resulting in victory or defeat. As long as
there were countries marked by internal political division or economic
isolation which had to be destroyed, militarism played a revolutionary
role, considered from the viewpoint of capitalism. But at present the
situation is different. If world politics have become the stage of
menacing conflicts, it is not so much a question of the opening of new
countries to capitalism. It is a question of already existing European
antagonisms, which, transported into other lands, have exploded there.
The armed opponents we see today in Europe and on other continents do
not range themselves as capitalist countries on one side and backward
countries on the other. They are States pushed to war especially as a
result of their similarly advanced capitalist development. In view of
this, an explosion is certain to be fatal to this development, in the
sense that it must provoke an extremely profound disturbance and
transformation of economic life in all countries.
However, the matter appears entirely different when considered from the standpoint of the capitalist class.
For the latter militarism has become indispensable. First, as a means
of struggle for the defence of “national” interests in competition
against other “national” groups. Second, as a method of placement for
financial and industrial capital. Third, as an instrument of class
domination over the labouring population inside the country. In
themselves, these interests have nothing in common with the development
of the capitalist mode of production. What demonstrates best the
specific character of present day militarism is the fact that it
develops generally in all countries as an effect, so to speak, of its
own internal, mechanical, motive power, a phenomenon that was completely
unknown several decades ago. We recognise this in the fatal character
of the impending explosion which is inevitable in spite of the complete
impending explosion which is inevitable in spite of the complete
indecisiveness of the objectives and motives of the conflict. From a
motor of capitalist development militarism has changed into a capitalist
malady.
In the clash between capitalist development and the interest of the
dominant class, the State takes a position alongside of the latter. Its
policy, like that of the bourgeoisie, comes into conflict with social
development. It thus loses more and more of its character as a
representative of the whole of society and is transformed, at the same
rate into a pure class state. Or, to speak more exactly, these
two qualities distinguish themselves more from each other and find
themselves in a contradictory relation in the very nature of the State.
This contradiction becomes progressively sharper. For on one hand, we
have the growth of the functions of a general interest on the part of
the State, its intervention in social life, its “control” over society.
But on the other hand, its class character obliges the State to move the
pivot of its activity and its means of coercion more and more into
domains which are useful only to the class character of the bourgeoisie
and have for society as a whole only a negative importance, as in the
case of militarism and tariff and colonial policies. Moreover, the
“social control” exercised by this State is at the same time penetrated
with and dominated by its class character (see how labour legislation is
applied in all countries).
The extension of democracy, which Bernstein sees as a means of
realising socialism by degrees, does not contradict but, on the
contrary, corresponds perfectly to the transformation realised in the
nature of the State.
Konrad Schmidt declares that the conquest of a social–democratic
majority in Parliament leads directly to the gradual “socialisation” of
society. Now, the democratic forms of political life are without a
question a phenomenon expressing clearly the evolution of the State in
society. They constitute, to that extent, a move toward a socialist
transformation. But the conflict within the capitalist State, described
above, manifests itself even more emphatically in modern
parliamentarism. Indeed, in accordance with its form, parliamentarism
serves to express, within the organisation of the State, the interests
of the whole society. But what parliamentarism expresses here is
capitalist society, that is to say, a society in which capitalist
interests predominate. In this society, the representative institutions,
democratic in form, are in content the instruments of the interests of
the ruling class. This manifests itself in a tangible fashion in the
fact that as soon as democracy shows the tendency to negate its class
character and become transformed into an instrument of the real
interests of the population, the democratic forms are sacrificed by the
bourgeoisie, and by its State representatives. That is why the idea of
the conquest of a parliamentary reformist majority is a calculation
which, entirely in the spirit of bourgeois liberalism, pre–occupies
itself only with one side – the formal side – of democracy, but does not
take into account the other side, its real content. All in all,
parliamentarism is not a directly socialist element impregnating
gradually the whole capitalist society. It is, on the contrary, a
specific form of the bourgeois class State, helping to ripen and develop
the existing antagonisms of capitalism.
In the light of the history of the objective development of the
State, Bernstein’s and Konrad Schmidt’s belief that increased “social
control” results in the direct introduction of socialism is transformed
into a formula that finds itself from day to day in greater
contradiction with reality.
The theory of the gradual introduction of socialism proposes
progressive reform of capitalist property and the capitalist State in
the direction of socialism. But in consequence of the objective laws of
existing society, one and the other develop in a precisely opposite
direction. The process of production is increasingly socialised, and
State intervention, the control of the State over the process of
production, is extended. But at the same time, private property becomes
more and more the form of open capitalist exploitation of the labour of
others, and State control is penetrated with the exclusive interests of
the ruling class. The State, that is to say the political organisation of capitalism, and the property relations, that is to say the juridical organisation of capitalism, become more capitalist and not more socialist, opposing to the theory of the progressive introduction of socialism two insurmountable difficulties.
Fourier’s scheme of changing, by means of a system of phalansteries,
the water of all the seas into tasty lemonade was surely a fantastic
idea. But Bernstein, proposing to change the sea of capitalist
bitterness into a sea of socialist sweetness, by progressively pouring
into it bottles of social reformist lemonade, presents an idea that is
merely more insipid but no less fantastic.
The production relations of capitalist society approach more and more
the production relations of socialist society. But on the other hand,
its political and juridical relations established between capitalist
society and socialist society a steadily rising wall. This wall is not
overthrown, but is on the contrary strengthened and consolidated by the
development of social reforms and the course of democracy. Only the
hammer blow of revolution, that is to day, the conquest of political power by the proletariat can break down this wall.
Next: Chap.5: The Consequences of Social Reformism and the General Nature of Revisionism
Last updated on: 28.11.2008
|
