Capitalism and the State by Michael Heinrich DIE LINKE (the Left Party) has initiated a debate on its

draft party program, wh ich it wishes to officially adopt in Autumn 2011. Neues Deutschland is joining this debate with a series of articles. In the Neues Deutschland article publish ed on 9 August 2010, Michael Heinrich tackles the issue of the relationship betw een capital and the state and asks whether the "system change" proclaimed in the draft program is meant seriously. -- Ed. In the last century, the development of leftist parties that once wished to tran scend capitalism was one big tragedy. Either they increasingly moved away from their original critique, like the Social Democratic parties, becoming simply man agers of the political apparatuses and endeavoring to secure a frictionless accu mulation of capital, or like most Communist parties they retained their critique of capitalism while committing themselves completely to the defense of an autho ritarian and extremely repressive model of socialism, which could not be subject to even the most rudimentary criticism. But those parties that held onto a rad ical critique of capitalism as well as of "really existing socialism" usually wi thered into political irrelevance, if they ever managed to escape that state of irrelevance to begin with. Given this history, there are good reasons for the skepticism about and detachme nt from left parties exhibited these days by trade union and social movement act ivists. So, it is anything but insignificant that in its draft program DIE LINK E on the one hand rejects all authoritarian socialisms while on the other hand c learly declaring: "we struggle for a system change, because capitalism . . . is based upon inequality, exploitation, expansion, and competition" (page 3 -- all page references according to the supplement to the 27-28 March 2010 issue of Neu es Deutschland). Against Which Capitalism? However, the rest of the program is not so unambiguous. The last passage of the draft is only directed against "unbridled capitalism" (18), while in between it is primarily "financial market capitalism" (7) which comes up for criticism. A t the beginning of the section "Democratic Socialism in the 21st Century," the p rogram states that "capitalism is not the end of history" (8), but shortly after that it states that DIE LINKE seeks an economic system in which various forms o f property have their place, "state and municipal, social and private, cooperati ve and so on" (9). But DIE LINKE does not have to strive for this mix of property forms as a distan t goal: it has already been found in really existing capitalism for quite some t ime. And the fundamental anti-capitalist orientation is outright repudiated wit h this sentence: "the private pursuit of profit can promote productivity and tec hnological renewal, as long as no firm is strong enough to dictate price and the extent of supply" (10). Has the criticism of capitalism formulated at the begi nning of the draft program already found its fulfillment in a tightening of anti -trust legislation? The idea that the small capitalism of productive competitio n will save us from the large capitalism of unproductive monopolies has long bee n part of the credo of liberalism and neoliberalism. The same is the case with the fourth section under the heading "Left Reform Proj ects": "social inequalities of income and wealth are only justified if they are based upon differences in performance or are necessary as an incentive for the a ccomplishment of societal tasks" (12), which any neoliberal would agree with fro m the bottom of his heart. DIE LINKE probably wants to implement different crit eria for performance than neoliberal ones, but not much remains of Marx's insigh t that wages and profits have little to do with performance and much to do with the reproduction of the wage-dependent class (also necessary for capital) on the

one hand and with the exploitation of precisely those wage-laborers on the othe r hand. So as to avoid any misunderstanding: the point is not any doctrinal purity, but rather simply the question of what DIE LINKE regards as the central object of cr iticism: capitalism as an economic and social system or merely a few outgrowths of this system. The criticism of "predatory capitalism" and the banks' "unbridl ed pursuit of profit" already belongs to the standard repertoire of conservative presidents in the Federal Republic of Germany. Maybe this vacillation is not just the result of political indecisiveness, but r ather of an analytical deficit. An analysis of the systemic logic of capitalism remains considerably underdeveloped in the entire draft program. Capitalism ap pears to be primarily a problem of too great an influence exerted by owners of c apital and large corporations. Right at the beginning, the program emphasizes that DIE LINKE does not wish to s ubmit to the "wishes of the economically powerful" (3); more than once the "exto rtionate power of large corporations" (4) is pointed out, as well as the "aggres sive claims of owners of capital" (6). That capitalism is based upon a systemic imperative, the maximization of profit, is not so clearly stated. This princip le of profit maximization does not arise from the greed of individual capitalist s, but is rather imposed upon them by competition: only those who participate in the struggle for the highest profits have a sufficient foundation for the inves tments necessary to remain in the next round of competition at the national and international level. With Which State? This personalized conception of capitalism is contrasted with the state, which a ccording to the draft program should be the representative of all that is good a nd noble, but which unfortunately isn't, due to the power of capitalists and the reluctance of the ruling politicians. "The possibility of democratic influence and participation disappears to the extent that the power of the corporations a nd finance moguls increases" (7), states the program under the heading "The Eros ion of Democracy." One would naturally like to know in what Golden Age democracy was less eroded: i n the 1960s, before "financial market capitalism" really took off and the extraparliamentary opposition protested against the German Emergency Acts as well as the state's support of the Vietnam War and the Shah regime in Iran? Or under th e repressive anti-Communism of the Adenauer era? The difficulties of locating t his Golden Age in which democracy was not yet eroded suggests that the actual re lationship between the state and capital might look a bit different than the pic ture sketched out in the draft program. Apparently, the draft program imagines the power of "corporations and finance mo guls" as being inverse to the power of the state: if the power of one side incre ases, the power of the other side decreases. Consequentially, the demand is rai sed to push back the power of corporations, which is to be realized inter alia t hrough the nationalization of private banks (11) and structurally decisive large enterprises (9). However, during the financial crisis, the state-owned Landesb anken did not cut a better figure than the private banks. In a few passages of the program, it is mentioned that public property is not a "guarantee" (10) for a different economic order, but it is still assumed to be a precondition. However, the program remains vague as to what measures have to be introduced so that enterprises can start to conduct economic activity differently. Using vari ous inflections, the program constantly stresses that the influence of capitalis ts has to be pushed back and that of the public hand extended. But when the iss

ue is what to do with this increased influence, the program only offers the same magic formula of "democratic control." Everything should be subject to democra tic control: the European Central Bank, energy companies, public services, and f inally even the regulation of markets and the media. What should all that look like? Should the parliaments take a vote on changes c oncerning the utility companies or of key interest rates? Should the elected go vernment exercise influence on the personnel and content of the media (as the co nservative former minister-president of Hesse Roland Koch did with regard to the public television channel ZDF)? One gets the impression that, whenever it isn' t so clear what should be done, the catchphrase "democratic control" is pulled o ut of a hat like the proverbial rabbit. If "democratic control" is not to becom e merely an empty phrase, one has to at least suggest who should exercise contro l in what way and according to which criteria. If an attempt were made to argue more concretely, it might become clearer that t he relationship between the state and capital cannot be reduced to the influence of various groups of people (capitalists upon the state, politicians upon the e conomy). The state and capital exist in a structurally rooted relationship of m utual dependency, which also exists even without any personal exertion of influe nce. Capitalist production in many respects has the state as its necessary prec ondition: as a guarantor of property and adherence to contracts, but also as an instance that furnishes those material prerequisites that capital either cannot produce itself or can do so only insufficiently, such as for example various inf rastructures, but also the educational system that supplies properly educated fo rces of labor, a health care system that makes damaged forces of labor once agai n fit for valorization, etc. The state for its part is dependent upon a functioning accumulation of capital, since only then can sufficient tax receipts be generated and social expenditures held in check. Even without a direct exertion of influence by "corporations an d finance moguls," every government is therefore forced to take into considerati on the systemic imperatives of capital valorization in one way or another. For that reason it is often the case that leftist parties, once they assume governme ntal power, continue the policies of their predecessors in essential respects. This is not to deny that there are quite different forms of capitalism and diffe rent possibilities for political planning. The fact that the state as "ideal to tal capitalist" (Engels) has to provide the formal organizational framework as w ell as those material prerequisites of capital accumulation that capital itself cannot provide does not at all mean that the best way of accomplishing these tas ks is obvious in every situation. That in recent times the political personnel, up to and including the German president, have started to warn against unbridle d capitalism and excessive power on the part of banks underscores the fact that at the moment it is not at all clear how much regulation is necessary or what we ight the banking sector should have in relation to industrial capital. But thes e debates revolve around a recalibration of the general political framework of c apitalism and are in no way the beginning of its end. A Keynesian Wish List If DIE LINKE enters into such debates, it should at least render an account of t heir character and think about its own goals: making an ailing capitalism once a gain fully functional, or using this weakness in order to gain concessions for t he subaltern classes, which makes life easier for them in the short term as well as improves the conditions for future struggles. The latter necessarily presupposes a willingness to engage in fundamental confli cts. But in many passages the draft program reads like a Keynesian wish list ad dressed to Santa Claus: as if by means of sufficient regulation as well as a nat

ionalized financial sector (under "democratic control," of course) a capitalism can be created that reconciles all contradictions. Whoever succumbs to this ill usion will no longer be able to perceive the differences in purpose behind polit ical intervention. And whoever does so will be sure to misunderstand the signif icance of extra-parliamentary movements: the draft program mentions that left po litics has to be supported by extra-parliamentary pressure from trade unions and social movements (18), but these appear as merely the auxiliary forces for parl iamentary politics. If the goal is really the "system change" announced at the beginning of the draf t program, then extra-parliamentary movements critical of capitalism are not mer e auxiliary forces, but rather the main actors upon which a left party is depend ent, like it or not. That these movements hardly play a role in the draft progr am, that the question of how a movement for the desired system change can be per manently mobilized and supported is not even posed, throws doubt upon how seriou sly this system change is actually meant. However, the draft program is suppose d to be subject to debate for a while longer. Michael Heinrich is editor of PROKLA, journal of critical social science. Heinr ich is also a collaborator on the MEGA-edition (Marx-Engels- Gesamtausgabe). Hi s Kritik der politischen konomie. Eine Einfhrung (Critique of Political Economy: An Introduction) is now in its 8th printing, and an English translation has been recently been completed.