Andres Pelaez is the first secretary of the Uruguayan embassy in Australia. He will be speaking at the Sydney Latin America Solidarity Conference over October 16-17 (visit www.latinamericasolidarity.org for details). Below, he provides a theoretical look at the nature of the capitalist state and its relation to the struggle for socialism.
The issues he raises are being debated by the Latin American left. Throughout the region, popular struggles have given rise to a number of governments led by new or traditional left parties.
In some cases, such as Venezuela and Bolivia, these governments are heading mass movements that aim to transform society under the banner of struggling for “socialism of the 21st century”. In others, such as Brazil and Uruguay, left parties are, with some reforms, largely managing the existing system.
It is in this context the discusion raised below, which will hopefully continue at the solidarity conference in Sydney, is taking place.
* * *
What future is there for socialism as an alternative model in an international context where capitalism has been taken for granted and where any problems that disrupt its normal functioning, beyond environmental threats and other emergencies, are seen as simply the result of “bad governance” or reflect “the need to improve the international financial architecture”?
To answer this question, we need to understand what it is that we want to change: the capitalist system.
We have to establish at what stage of its development capitalism is at.
Only then can we reveal its internal contradictions and the dialectic of its movements, which will allow us to develop a coherent theory for change.
I believe a good starting point is to understand the capitalist state. We need a new approach to the capitalist state.
The existence of more than 200 national states undermines the theory that dominated the late 1990s. This theory foresaw the disappearance of the state as the main arena of dominance, replacing it with “globalisation”.
In recent years, liberalism has imposed the image of a benign, neutral and disinterested state, based on the free consent of equal and rational individuals. It has ignored the role that states play in organising and centralising force, and in securing class domination and social cohesion.
In the midst of this storm, we have lost our focus: a large part of the left has dismissed the state as a valid domain to investigate and a potential instrument for change.
By understanding the role of the state, we can begin to identify the immediate political problems we face, explore potential strategies and tactics of resistance and mobilisation, and develop a strategy for the radical transformation of the capitalist system and a transition towards socialism.
It is important to recognise the state continues to be the central site of domination.
Greek Marxist Nicos Poulantzas argued one of the distinguishing characteristics of the capitalist state is its relative autonomy from the dominant classes. Because the state is located within the contradictions of the mode of production, the state itself is wrought with contradictions.
So the state bureaucracy acts within the class contradictions.
We understand the state as a social relation, as a form determined by the changing balance of class forces.
In the context of a process of internationalisation of capital, the new role of each state is managing the process. The state has managed to adapt to the international capital accumulation process.
Market logic is introduced directly into the public sector. Not only is the internal system of organisation transformed, but public services are becoming detached from their original functions.
Productivity is now the standard to evaluate the results of the public service. The state has become a marketing unit and manager of the capitalist system.
Moreover, as a response to class struggle, the state reacts with repression. The main function of the state is to reduce class struggle and to promote a suitable environment for capital accumulation (erasing national boundaries for capital flows).
The only way to change the state is from both within and outside, and at three interdependent levels: economic, political and ideological.
So what is the way forward in Latin America?
The left-wing process under way in the region shows how much left parties have came to accept the system as it is and have failed, with some exceptions, to develop strategies aimed at achieving socialism.
In the case of Latin America, it is clear that there is no difference between a left- or right-wing government in terms of how it manages the system: a government is defined as good or bad depending on its performance on economic growth, education and other big issues.
Productivity trumps social values; fiscal balance overrides equality.
Instead, we must begin to look towards socialism because we do not believe in this system. Capitalism must be transformed to end poverty, homelessness and promote equality.
With this aim and within the existing democratic framework, a left-wing government should have clear concepts and socialist policies aimed at promoting the acceleration of changes in work, health, education, poverty eradication, income distribution, social justice, gender equality, decentralisation and democratisation.
Of course there is not only one road to socialism, each country will build its own path. But to do so, we must accept socialism as a valid alternative to capitalism, and not utopian.
It is real and we are going to build it, although it will not be easy.
Those who are in power will fight till the end, but with determination and class consciousness we can win.
Emilio Frugoni, founder of the Socialist Party of Uruguay in 1910 and its first representative in parliament, whose thinking remains valid today, said: “The social revolution ... can not be decreed, it won’t be a spontaneous phenomenon, it does not depend on the impatience of the stakeholders; it will be the inevitable result of general movements produced by the modern society.”