La vida amorosa

113

The class nature of society and the crucial role that the state plays in this class-based society is widely acknowledged. Capitalism and the state enjoy a mutually advantageous

relationship. There is also a close connection between class society with ideology being used to foster a semblance of harmony within society. Marx & Engels (1964: 78-79) argued that once the bourgeoisie assumed the ascendancy, it became imperative for the state to preserve the existing balance and state of affairs, by force if necessary. At the same time the link between the bourgeoisie and state is “more internal and essential than the contingent use of control … the state, as such, is intrinsically a bourgeois form of social relationship” (Sayer 1985: 241). This relationship has advantaged capitalism while limiting the use of force to maintain that status quo.

Capitalist society is framed by class relations and class interests that are ultimately opposed to one another. In order to preserve a sense of harmony and accord, the state must therefore limit any obvious manifestations of class antagonism. The use of ideology as a means of legitimising the economic structures upon which society rests assumes on-going importance. This task is made easier if the views of the working class can be aligned with those of the ruling class. An effective integration of the working class and of its organisations occurs. This integration into the structure of the state, serves to both reduce overt expressions of class antagonism and to promote capitalist development. As capitalism globalises, the role of securing the acquiescence of the working class acquires an even greater significance.

Workers are less able, under such conditions, to develop an independent political perspective. As capitalism developed, the tendency toward limitation of class struggle became ever more pronounced (Moore Jr 1978: 472-475). This is a theme that is revisited by Selwyn (2013: 50) who regards the integration of labour into the capitalist state as a two-fold process, with labour’s role and power being diminished due to the very real threat and prospect of the

114

dispersal of production. In this sense, he is referring to the globalisation of capitalist relations. It is a process that has long been in evidence.

In Marxist theory, ideology is essentially an expression of the world view of the dominant class in society. Eagleton offers a definition of ideology as “processes whereby interests of a certain kind become masked, rationalized, naturalized, universalized, legitimized in the name of certain forms of political power” (Eagleton 1991: 202). While the term is closely

associated with the ideas of the ruling group in society, it also describes the views of specific groups or classes pursuing political perspectives quite opposed to those of the ruling class. Eagleton (1991: 44) observes that the terms ‘class consciousness’ and ‘socialist ideology’ become synonymous in describing anti-capitalist theory and practice. However, there is an intrinsic link, in such a construction, between the notion of ideology as the legitimisation of political power and the diminution of class consciousness. Marx described how the

development of capitalism acted to promote such a state of affairs:

The advance of capitalist production develops a working-class, which by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions of that mode of production as self-evident laws of Nature. The organisation of the capitalist process of production, once fully developed, breaks down all resistance (1986a: 689).

Lebowitz (2004: 21-23) argues that capitalism maintains its position of ideological power by masking the exploitative nature of the economic system itself. The idea of labour power and the extraction of surplus value are never explicitly divulged. Capitalism, therefore, is not visibly exploitative which leads to a degree of ‘mystification’ of capital itself. Society, according to Lebowitz’s argument, does not appear to depend on capital but rather gives the impression of autonomy. Workers are not simply dependent on capital, but on particular

115

sections of capital. As these sections are often in competition with each other then so too are individual groups of workers in competition with other workers. This serves to intensify an already dependent relationship on capital which, in turn, reduces still further the potential for the development of class-consciousness.

This situation, whereby class antagonisms are masked, has been labelled false consciousness (Engels 2000) and cultural hegemony (Gramsci 1971: 257-264). Ramos Jr., describes the essence of Gramsci’s perspective:

In a given hegemonic system, therefore, a hegemonic class holds state power through its economic supremacy and through its ability to have, among other things,

successfully articulated or expressed in a coherent, unified fashion the most essential elements in the ideological discourses of the subordinate classes in civil society (1982).

In other words, state power is maintained by a combination of economic power and control of the broad machinery of state: the institutions of control. The effectiveness of state control and of its ability to evoke a feeling, not merely of acceptance, but of willing acceptance on the part of the working class has been extraordinarily successful.

Capitalism’s ability to limit overt expressions of class antagonism have been enhanced by its success in integrating the organisations of the working class into the organisations of the state. This integration has long been a reality (see for instance Enderwick 2006, Leisink 1999, Stevis & Boswell 2008). Trade unions became legitimate and, in a similar way, political expressions of working class ideology became an accepted and acceptable component of the life of the capitalist state. Social-democratic parties became legitimised within the capitalist

116

nation-state – legitimised, increasingly integrated into that state structure and actively promoting the values and mores of the state, even if this meant acting against the interests of the class they were formed to represent.

A consequence of this integration has been a diminution of working class independence. This state of affairs – the inability of the ‘legitimate’ organisations of the working class to act independently – is by no means a recent development in state and class relations. “Capitalism is less and less willing to reconcile itself to the independence of trade unions. It demands of the reformist bureaucracy … that they become transformed into its political police before the eyes of the working class” (Trotsky 1972: 11). Such a formulation accords with the

observations of Mann where he argues that “to the extent that trade unions pursue economic and job control issues separately and the latter defensively, and to the extent that they do not pursue wider issues of work control, they operate to weaken workers’ class consciousness” (1973: 25). While the experience of trade union organisations is a primary manifestation of integration and incorporation of working class organisations into the structures of the state, political organisations are similarly integrated.

The capitalist state has managed, through careful and calculated use of the ideological armoury at its disposal, to maintain a semblance of harmony and class unity. It has been an objective necessity for the stability of an inherently unstable mechanism to function. Such a situation poses enormous difficulties for those seeking an independent movement for emancipation. Smith (2014: 322-323) describes the crisis of leadership that exists and how the degree of working-class consciousness remains entrenched within a framework of

117

reformist and state-sponsored mechanisms. At the same time the contradictions that plague capitalist development remain unresolved.