How to think about contemporary political (class) struggle the capitalist state
Foundational premises for an understanding of capitalist politics
It’s a pretty powerful image to see a group of billionaires and leaders of the largest tech companies in the world all line up at the recent inauguration of Donald Trump. The image of 4 men in particular has been making the rounds. Starting from the left, we see Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon Chairman Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sunday Pichai, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Seeing this, it’s hard not to feel like the executive of the modern state is “nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”, as Marx and Engels outlined in the Communist Manifesto. While it’s tempting to accept that politics in capitalism can be broken down to ‘corporate capture’, the process of political struggle in much more complex. Understanding this not only produces better strategies to fifth against capitalism, but also better ideas of how to move beyond it.
The following piece is an introduction to some fundamental ideas about class politics. It will outline several premises from which to build on further in future discussions, but on their own will also help to understand the present moment. These include 1) the formal division of the ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres (politics and economics) in capitalist society 2) the role of the capitalist state as the organizer of hegemony 3) its relative autonomy from the capitalist class 4) the nature of concrete classes as heterogeneous class fractions 5) the broad roles of accumulation and legitimation held by the capitalist state.
This piece builds heavily on the work of Nicos Poulantzas, who I believe outlined a strong theoretical foundation for the study of capitalist politics. There are a lot of my own wordings, but I want to be clear that I take heavily from him and Marxian method in general. This will be foundational to future discussions, and I wanted to get some thoughts out there given the way class politics is certainly ramping up.
What is the ‘political’ vs the ‘economic’?
Studying the intersection of politics and economics from a critical perspective is often fraught with difficulties. The vulgar Marxist sees all political outcomes as result of abstract economic forces or a vaguely defined ruling class. This interpretation is not without reason, as both passages from Marx and Engels and the historical positions from socialist movements have parroted these understandings of politics. Nonetheless, critics have used this to also justify unfair readings of the Marx and Engels, reducing these authors to the position of vulgar Marxists themselves. The following article begins to tackle this issue and seeks to outline fundamental elements of a theory of political struggle, that is, class struggle and its relation to the state. If you’re interested in radical political change, questions such as how do we identify the dominated and the dominators? What are their characteristics are concrete subjects? And how does the ‘ruling’ class and those in the state, well, rule?1
To begin dealing with these questions, we need to look first at the issue of the ‘economic’ and ‘political’. That is, what are they and what are their relations to one another? My approach takes heavily from Marx’s critique of political economy and the way he approaches studying the social world. Despite the prevalence of ‘economistic’ readings of Marx, his work is in practice a broad sweeping critique of capitalist social relations. This includes the way the ‘political’ and ‘economic’ spheres in society are treated as ontologically separated and merely externally related rather than immanently related, that is, inherently co-constituting. In other words, the state and the ‘economy’ are deeply embedded into one another by their nature.2 Theorists speak of the political and economic as discrete phenomena, but they are directly related to one another as part of the social whole. In practice, this means that we can speak abstractly of the ‘economy’ and ‘politics’ in a certain sense to analyse the essential elements of various discrete phenomena, but we must always understand the necessity of synthesizing the two as well.[1]
In liberal democracies, we’re told there’s a separation between the ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres of society. The private is that of the market and individuals, while the public comprises state institutions and the ‘general interest’ or the ‘public’ itself. This divide is not merely a legal fact, but is political and ideological (Mensch and Freeman 1988). However, critical analysis shows in practical that this is merely a formal and not essential divide. The public private divide is a product and component of capitalist political systems themselves. How ideas of the public/private separation are concretized in everyday ideology and state policies speak to the underlying class relations at play.
As Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin highlight in their study of American empire, political analysis should always seek to transcend the “false dichotomy between states and markets, and to come to grips with the intricate relationship between states and capitalism” (Gindin and Panitch 2012, 1). A vulgar analysis correctly rejects the absolute division between the political and economic, but through this sees no need in explain the form in which liberal capitalist politics appears, that is, as the separation between ‘public’ and ‘private’ life. Only through explaining why there is a formal separation between the two and how those effects both political struggle and state functions, can a proper analysis be achieved.
Capitalism has the unique characteristic of the legal and organizational differentiation between the state (‘politics’) and economy (Gindin and Panitch 2012, 3; Pashukanis 2002). However, this is a differentiation and not a separation of the two. The formal separation of the state and capitalist is a function of the material foundations of the division of labor. The state becomes in charge of tasks that are nominally separate from the economy and therefore deemed political affairs. This real separation becomes ideologically justified and mystified in discussions of the ‘public’ vs ‘private’ spheres.
Thus, the state appears then to ‘stand above’ society, acting itself as the representative of the ‘general interests.’ It acts as the unifying institution between public and private life, between the space of private market goers and public citizens. The vulgar analysis correctly rejects the absolute division between the political and economic but sees no need to explain why public life and the state appear in this way. Why does the state seem to appear “above” society, in particular, social conflict? Why does it toute to represent ‘general interests’ of a given society? Only through explaining why there is a formal separation between the two and how those effects both political struggle and state functions, can a proper analysis be achieved. That requires us to deal with the problem of classes and the state.
The problem of classes and the capitalist state
Understanding the role of the capitalist state forces us to deal with various practical political questions. The vulgar Marxist and ‘progressive’ understandings of the state merely see it as an empty vessel to be co-opted by class forces, most commonly by the capitalist class. But this is gravely mistaken, and a bad understand of the state and class struggle. To show why this is wrong, we’ve got to answer several questions about how states determine what to implement. In other words, who decides on the correct policies for a given moment? How are decisions on which policy to implement made? How are policies designed? How does the state understand the necessary changes that must be made to match the evolving dynamics of accumulation? How is support built for these policies? Do members of the capitalist class like CEOs just call up heads of state and say, “this is what I want, get to it”. Although it can really seem to be that simple, the reality is more complex and involves the struggle within and between various classes.
As outlined, the formal separation between political and economic (public and private) life is a presupposition of capitalism. Thus, the state acts as the unifying element, the institutions which seems on its own to bring together ‘public’ and ‘private’ life, as though they aren’t already inherently unified. The state then acts in many ways as the mediator between ‘public’ and ‘private’ affairs. But who is there to mediate within the public and private spheres? Social subjects. More specifically, subjects who are organized in concrete class relations. Thus, subjects organized into social classes.[2] Therefore, to understand the functions and dynamics surrounding the capitalist state, we need to understand the problem of class. Specially, we need to understand what constitutes a ‘class’ as a social entity and how ‘classes’ themselves are organized politically.
The deeper discussion of what constitutes a social class will be left for a future post, but for now it’s important to understand what the presence of multiple classes means for the state itself. Unfortunately, Marxists have often shown a tendency to rely on dogmatic abstract understandings of capitalist states. It is common for crude economistic readings of Marx to claim that the political actors merely act as the direct tool of the capitalist class, implementing their preferred policies without question as if they were handed a list of demands. It can often appear this way, but this relies on an erroneous understanding of class itself. The capitalist state, due to it formally being the representative of ‘all citizens’, must in some way represent everyone. This means not only different different classes, but different fractions within classes themselves.
Classes, as concrete social groupings, are comprised of actors with heterogeneous combinations of economic, political and ideological characteristics (among many others) and their grouping cannot merely be reduced to their common forms of revenue (wages, interest, profit, rent etc). The heterogeneity of their lives, which is determined by all their characteristics as concretely actually existing individuals, unsurprisingly produces heterogeneous political interest, values, and desires. Thus, there will always be tensions, conflicts and disagreements not only between the various classes but class fractions which comprise a given society.
By class fractions, I’m referring to the concrete historically grounded classes, not merely the “proletariat” or “capitalist” class abstractly, but the fractions of it, which have specific political, ideological, racial, gendered and economic characteristics. The necessity thus of analysing both inter and intra class conflict is crucial.
I love visual representations of theoretical concepts, in particular graphics. But art is also powerful tool to represent the meaning behind our theories. There’s something about Diego Rivera’s mural The history of Mexico, that I feel perfectly captures the messy, complex, and dynamic process that is class struggle. There’s a multitude of concrete classes represent in a chaotic field of struggle. The industrial working class in a battle with the police, along with the peasants. The sense of movement that these images evoke are incredibly powerful. But we also get a sense of the racial divides and the multi-ethnic characteristic of Mexican society.
And of course, the vileness of the ruling class is also in full display. TThe concrete linkages between the politicians, the military and the clergy are shown. The businessmen, the American imperialist, and all the domestic forces are shown as the hegemonic (and demonic) subjects literally within a ‘structure’ of capitalist rule.
The key point is that class must be understood concretely, that is, as the unity of various diverse social characteristics. This is the only way to produce a correct understanding of social classes for the purposes of practically political struggle. An example of a commonly known class fraction is the labor aristocracy, which is a part of the working class that political and ideologically supports Western imperialism. There could also be migrant laborers, who are legally and racially subordinated in a manner that is central to the way they are exploited. In the abstract, these actors are all part of the working class, but a concrete outlining of their characteristics shows how stopped at this level of analysis causes us to lose sight on reality.
These dynamics of heterogenous class fractions are no different within dominating classes. By their nature, individual capitals engage in a wide variety of concrete accumulation processes and as a result have various concrete particular interests. They all own capital, invest, and appropriate value from the exploitation of labor. But the devils in the details. Beyond the most obvious foundational policies such as the protection of property and rule of law, the abstract general interest of the capitalist class does not immediately exist. Practically, they all make their money in very different ways. Tesla and BlackRock are both insanely profitable companies, but that doesn’t mean they inherently agree on every particular policy. There is no one unified capitalist class in the sense that they natural come together and hand the state a list of demands. Rather, as Stephen Maher argues, a crucial role of the capitalist state is precisely the process of “forming the class-wide interests of capital and mobilizing a constituency that is not already self-mobilizing”.
This brings us to the primary function of the capitalist state as the organizer of class hegemony. The capitalist state is a capitalist state, that is, in its institutions and practices it protects capitalist society in general. However, the particular interest (economic and or political) of a fraction of the capitalist class is not always indicated of what is best for the system in general. Furthermore, the ruling class of specific historical moment is comprised not of the capitalist class ‘but a specific hegemonic political bloc. At a given historical moment, this bloc is comprised of members from various classes. Again, the state does not merely rule over one class but many classes. Thus, as the political form of capitalist society, the state must look over the well-being of the system as a whole. This means balancing the interests of the various fractions not only of the ruling class, but of the dominated classes themselves.
General functions of the capitalist state: Accumulation and Legitimation
From these basic premises we can get at the two general functions of the state which stem from their foundational role as the organizer of hegemony; these are supporting both accumulation and legitimation of the system. Accumulation refers precisely to the various functions which support the accumulation of capital among the capitalist class itself. Legitimation refers to producing general support for the system, using methods that involve both consent and/or coercion. Thus, a part of the broad task of producing legitimacy is the process of articulation, of creating a political coalition between different actors to establish ruling class hegemony.
Having established these facts, we can speak further to the relationship between the state and the ruling class. It’s now relatively trivial to understand why there could never be merely a 1:1 relationship of desired and implemented policy between the capitalist class and capitalist state. It is because there is no unified general class interest when it comes to more concrete policy decisions. Different owners of capital, due to the concrete differences in how they make profits, will have differing policy desires.
Furthermore, the relationship between the state and ruling class can’t simply involve the ruling class ‘calling up’ politicians to tell them what they want. Even instances where this appears or really in the case, when a politician is simply implementing the desired policy of a capitalist, it can never be the ‘class’ altogether. It’s the policies of one capitalist over the others. There will always be divergences in interests.
This then assumes a certain degree of relative autonomy of the state from the capitalist class. The meaning of this is not that the state is ‘separated’ from the economy or that it in fact stands ‘above and beyond’ society. It appears this way and in a different sense does stand ‘above’ society, in that it must act in the general interest of the system and sometimes discipline various class fractions to get along. But of course, the ultimate goal is the reproduction of capitalist society.
From this we can further understand the separation between the social actors who comprise the capitalist state and capitalist class The ruling class comprises both political actors and the capitalist class, two social categories which are not mutually exclusive, as politicians are often members of the class itself. However, in their function as ruling politicians, they are differentiated in meaningful ways. Due to the nature of capitalism, political actors and the capitalist class must have a close relationship, while at the same time being formally separated in their roles and responsibilities. However, policy implementation is not the result of a unidirectional influence by the capitalist class. This is because in practice there is not an easily identifiable and politically unified capitalist class with a singular and pre-existing set of self-evident interests. Thus, the state also functions are an organizer of class interest, both in bringing together class fractions and helping in the formulation of a broader class project.
Conclusion
I hope that this provide some clarity to those interested in a more concrete theorization of class politics In following posts, I will build on these broad premises to flesh out the role of the capitalist state as the organizer of ruling class hegemony. This will be involved building on its two broader tasks of fostering accumulation and legitimation. Hopefully, this will provide a broad outline of ideas from which readers can practically analyze their own political situations and gear their struggles against the ruling class accordingly.
Works Cited
Maher, Stephen. 2022. Corporate Capitalism and the Integral State: General Electric and a Century of American Power. Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83772-3.
Poulantzas, Nicos. 1978. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: Verso.
Chamas, Tony. “Why the ‘Ruling Class’ Need Not Rule: Nicos Poulantzas and the Marxist Theory of the State.” Cosmonaut (blog), November 22, 2023. https://cosmonautmag.com/2023/11/why-the-ruling-class-need-not-rule-nicos-poulantzas-and-the-marxist-theory-of-the-state/.
Murray, Patrick. 1990. Marx’s Theory of Scientific Knowledge. Repr. in paperback. New Jersey: Humanitities Pr. International.
For a piece which looks deeper into the question of why the ruling class doesn’t rule on its own, and how the state governs on the behalf of hegemonic forces, I suggest reading Tony Chama’s on Why the “Ruling Class” Need Not Rule.
The division of society into public and private life is a foundational political assumption of liberalism. It was the subject of one of the earliest writings by Marx and crucial to understanding his later critique of political economy. For further on this, see chapters 1-3 of Murray’s text.