State & Corporate elites
The state system was developed in Europe over hundreds of years of brutal, murderous warfare. The system was formalised by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (some years before the Ottoman advance was halted at Vienna in 1683) and reached its final stage in the early 1940s. Wherever Europeans went - in their many settler states or colonies - they set up states, leading to interminable conflicts. In particular, borders of new states in Africa and the Middle East were defined to suit imperial interests and with no regard to ethnic or tribal affiliations. The state has coordinated with private power to control substantial aspects of the life and it’s the state-corporate elites who make the big decisions. The business classes want the state to be powerful enough to work for their interests but not to infringe upon their privileges.
Noam Chomsky, the renowned political critic, distinguishes between state and government. He defines the state as ‘ a system of institutions, including private ones, that set conditions for public policy… These constitute the actual nexus of decision making power in the society, including investment and political decisions, setting the framework within which public policy can be determined.’ The government is the state executive - it ‘consists of whatever groups who happen to control the political system at a particular time.’ Chomsky says that the government is in effect the agency of those who own and manage the private economy.
State Origins
1. The origin of the state was explained by Frederick Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. When a surplus of wealth (including property) came to be amassed by a minority, this privileged or elite class needed both a legal system to ensure succession and a mechanism to protect that wealth from the majority whose labour produced much of it. The state was born. With economic wealth came power and privilege and state institutions came to be dominated by the elites - the ruling class. The state apparatus appears to be neutral but in fact sides with the capitalist (exploiting) classes against the rest. The state is said to create 'order' - enshrining the right of the rich and powerful to exploit the others and launch imperialist wars, of the courts to fine or jail a working class woman who can't afford a TV license, of the racist police to harass the black teenager and generally to keep the 'lower orders' in their place.
2. The people became subject to the rules or ‘laws’ of the state and are called citizens. The state is meant to provide basic services to its citizens – health, education, welfare - and to maintain law and order. In order to maintain order, the state assumes the power to arrest, detain and imprison those who break the laws. The state also maintains armed forces, in principle, to defend its territory against foreign enemies. The state is always ready to resort to violence - whether this is directed against other states or its own citizens who revolt against repression or discrimination. The state builds prisons, teargases civilians, starves people with sanctions, deports desperate refugees.
3. The state is meant to be neutral in its dealings with its citizens but in practice the interests of the elites take priority. The elites include the landed gentry, capitalists and senior decision makers in government & various state institutions. In the final analysis, the police, courts, armed forces and other state trappings are there to protect the property of the elites against the masses. Thus when workers are on strike, the police may be used to break up picket lines in the interest of the capitalist firms. The judges, who are members of the ruling class, are not impartial arbiters. . When protestors demonstrate against the multinationals, the politicians will take repressive measures (eg send out the riot police) in order to protect capitalist property. They are less inclined to listen to the grievances of the demonstrators. The City (business district) of London, a very small residential population but concentrated with finance institutions, has the highest level of policing in the country.
4. In the 19th century, the British state established a professional police force, the modern legal system of courts and a network of prisons. A modern standing army was also created as well as the elements of state education and welfare systems. For decades Britain was thought to be more humane and democratic society than others. No longer so. Since 1968, the state has become increasingly repressive – as evidenced by legislation like the Terrorism Act, curbs on civil liberties, attacks on Irish & presently Muslim people, an unaccountable civil service, more police powers, use of riot police on demonstrators, increased imprisonment (Britain’s prison pop is the highest in Europe.).
The
capitalist state
An ideology based on the accumulation of capital needs an efficient
state machine to protect the property and investments of its capitalists. The
state also has overseas interests. It may launch military or covert operations
against resource-rich Third World countries in order to create a favourable
investment climate for its corporations. The operations may include the removal
of a nationalist leader and installing of a more compliant one.
The intelligence (secret) services play a crucial role in gathering
sensitive information at home and abroad, especially in preparing for war..
The state institutions are simultaneously tied to the elites and kept detached from the masses. Army personnel are segregated from the rest of society – the families living in separate camps. To a lesser extent this is also true of the police and prison officers. The legal system is wrapped up in jargon that shields it from the ordinary people. There is little public access to the higher echelons of the civil service. Governing parties may change but the state machine goes on regardless of the views of voters.
Once in 4 or 5 years, the citizens have the right to vote for a candidate (not chosen by them but by the party) but thereafter are allowed little say in government policies. These policies are usually biased in favour of the profit seeking bosses rather than to promote the legitimate aspirations and welfare of the working classes. Once MPs are elected, people have little influence over them. The heads of the military (including SAS) and secret (MI5, MI6) services, the judiciary, the police and top bureaucrats (in the civil service, BBC) are all appointed and wield enormous power but remain unaccountable to the people. The top politicians like the PM are part of the state's inner circle but not always.
Controlling
the people through fear
The imperial states have
always needed to induce fear in their populations to get their support to make
war to secure resources, to increase military spending and so on. Formerly there
was the Red Menace (Soviet threat), now it is terrorism. Periodically the
political leaders or the defence establishment issue solemn warnings of imminent
danger.
Examples: (MediaLens 19Oct 2002)
Unique Threat -
No.1:
In April 1950, the US National Security Council
Directive 68 (NSC68) stated:
"The
Soviet Union, unlike previous aspirants to hegemony, is animated by a new
fanatic faith, antithetical to our own, and seeks to impose absolute authority
over the rest of the world."
The citizens of the United States, the report went on, "stand
in their deepest peril," being threatened with the "destruction
not only of this Republic but of civilisation itself".
Unique Threat No. 2:
In May 1985 Ronald Reagan declared a "national
emergency" to deal with the "unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the
United States" posed by "the policies
and actions of the Government of Nicaragua".
Unique Threat No. 3:
In September 2002, Tony Blair declared: "Iraq
poses a real and unique threat to the security of the region and the rest of the
world."
A threat must first be sufficiently plausible to generate fear in the general
population. Secondly, addressing the threat must be massively rewarding
to powerful vested interests.
Thirdly, addressing the
threat must carry minimal risks to those same interests.
State institutions and minorities
The state exercises power through a number of institutions with different functions and these are often used unfai:
1) The UK state administers justice & preserves law & order through:
- the Home Office, police, courts, prosecution service, prisons, armed forces.
In practice the criminal justice system tends to discriminate against the working class & ethnic minorities.
2) The Immigration & Asylum services determines who enters the country and for how long.
Again, the service discriminates against people perceived to be different - by skin colour, religion, culture.
3) Internal security and surveillance are maintained by the police (with wide powers), secret (intelligence) services and hi-tech devices. The security aspect has taken on the highest priority since the 11 Sept 2001 attacks on the US.
4) An imperialistic state can be identified by its trade, foreign & military policies.
“The nature of
the state has changed, it is no longer a welfare state that looks after its
people but a market-state which looks after big business. As a result, the
nature, shape, contours, purpose of racism itself has changed ... the fight
against racism is a fight against the new imperialism, globalism.'
A Sivanandan, Race & Class, April 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------
References
N Chomsky, Chronicles of Dissent, Common Courage Press 1992
N Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, Pluto Press 1993
Milan Rai, Chomsky’s Politics, Verso 1996
Socialist Review, States of Unrest, London (May 00, March 01)
(END)