The Human Rights and the alternation between
dictatorship and "democracy"
To confirm what we finish of explaining, about the classist nature of the Humna Rights , it is not only enough with distinguishing between the dominant economic or material base and its corresponding superestructure, ideological and political; also it must to distinguish between its respective agents: the bourgeois and the state bureaucrat, included the judges. We said that in the capitalistic society it prevails the freedom of the owners. The state bureaucrat represents this freedom of the burgeoise in its joint to the interior of the capitalistic State appliance.His primary functionality consists on putting the ideology and the state policy to the service in the general interest in the capitalistic class.
As opposed to the societies that preceded to it , under the capitalism the State stays separated of the civil society. The bureaucrat as such, he acts within State; he lives of it and for it. Of this manner, for the bureaucrat, the State is converted into a in itself same end.
But the political action not only has a content of general class. Also it is the expression of the particular interest that are settled in the civil society, where each sector of capitalistic class - at level of entrepreneurial groups and even individual - tries to making to prevail the their owns. And since of the state institutions emanate the laws from economic and social content, as well as the budgetary policy, fiscal, monetary, customs, etc.,etc., it is unavoidable that the struggle interburgeoise is moved to the interior of the institutions of the capitalistic State, where each social group tries to making to prevail its convenience. This implies to the bureaucrat, it links him with the civil society, with the particular interest that they are settled there. The bureaucrat is, since, the link between the civil society and the State, between the particular interest of each sector of the burgeoise and the general interest or of the burgeoise as class.
This link, while fomally political but of substantially economic and mercantile content, it turns out to be necessarily contradictory. As state official, the bureaucrat represents formally the general interest of the burgeoise as compared to the civil society. But in so much and how much the essential content than what the bureaucrat represents formally it is of economic character - mercantile and, by so much, particular and private, the bureaucrat tends to convert his function into thing of his particular property and, by so much, negotiable, alienable, object of mercantile consideration. Though it must be a staunch serving of each particular bourgeois in their/its/your/his relationship to the State, at the same time, the bureaucrat tends to be served as given particular bourgeoiss for his own personal end by virtue of the political monopoly as his function político-burocratic. In this aspect, the bureaucrat collissions with the interest of the burgeoise in its joint
<<...La bureaucracy is considered to herself as the end absolutely last of the State; and since it converts its objective "formal" (its functionality) into its own content, constantly it crashes with the real objectives (to serve to the burgeoise) (...) the objective of the State is converted into its own objective, into a highest posts hunt, into a making career>> (K.MARX: "Critical of the hegeliana philosophy of the state right". Cited from Irving Fetscher: "The marxism: its history in documents". The between brackets is ours)
This trend of the bureaucrat to make of the capitalistic State own thing by virtue of his charge, by effect of the generalization of the mercantile relationships he converts his functionality into merchandise and to the bourgeoiss into clients. One of those forms of clientelism is the bribe in the executive branch, the bribe in the legislative branch and the prevarication in the judicial power of the "democracy". Now then, this function of the bureaucrat is independent of the forms of government that adopt the State, but it is stressed sensibly under the dictatorships.
The word bonapartism was invented by Marx to explain the conclusion of a political situation in which no sector of the burgeoise is capable of prevailing on the other to maintain in balance the relationships of dominance of the joint of the dominant classes on the set of the subordinate classes. In those cases, the burgeoise in block decides to relinquish the government to the reservation of power of last resort: the army. It is here where the political superestructure reaches the greater degree of relative independence with respect to the material base of the system under the capitalistic production manner. And it is here where the trend of the state bureaucrat to convert the bourgeois State into own thing, it offers the greater possibilities and with the greater impunity, to the time that it tenses in extreme degree the relationship between the state bureaucrat and the particular bourgeois (becoming it most onerous for this), and between the particular interest of the totalitarian bureaucracy and the general interest of the burgeoise in its joint.
After his rout, upon saying that "the bayonets can serve for any thing less to be sat on them" Napoleón Bonaparte recognized what Marx and Engels asserted of the bonapartism in "The Sacred Family":
<<... Napoleón was following considering to the State as a in itself same end and he would see in the burgess life only a treasurer and his subordinate, that it had not right to possess an own will. And he put by work the terrorism, upon substituting the permanent revolution by the permanent war. He satisfied until the satiety the selfishness of the French nationality, but he claimed also the sacrifice of the businesses, of the enjoyment, of the wealth , etc. of the burgeoise, as long as this would be necessary to reach the political purposes of the conquest. He repressed despóticly the liberalism of the burgeoise society - the political idealism of its daily practice - but without to be concerned already either of its material interest more substance , of the trade, neither of the industry, when entering these collision with his political interest. (K.MARX -F.ENGELS: Op.cit. )
More than hundred years after these facts, during a series of interviews conceded at the beginning of 1932 to the by then prestigious German journalist Emil Ludwig, Mussolini was defining precisely the profiles of his government:
<<The fascist State directs and it investigates to the employers, from the fishing until industry weigh in the Valley of Aosta (...) The capital is not a god, it is an instrument>>. (Emil Ludwig: "Conversations with Mussolini")
Inside out than what it occurs with the "democracy" in the stage of the late capitalism, the dictatorship supposes a deep political intromission of the totalitarian State in the civil society and of the bureaucrat in the life of the bourgeois; so much more how much accused more despotic is the dictatorship. To combat the idea of the fact that the marxism is an economic determinism, Marx and Engels have insisted in which political and economy are in permanent dialectical interaction, and yet when in the history the economic factor is the determinant of last resort, is even moments in which the political superestructure can reach certain relative autonomy with respect to the economic base of the system. Now then, the military Dictatorships and the rates "democratic" more or less bonapartists give test of this autonomy and, according to the circumstances, they can carry it to the maximum of its posiblilidades historical posibilities.
Such as it shows it Berlanga in "The national shotgun" is of general knowledge that under the Franc dictatorship, the Spanish burgeoise must go through the box of the franquist bureaucracy in each transaction with the State and other administrative contingent problems to its businesses. But the great majority of those cases of corruption, never they were known neither they were object of investigation and judgment for the justice. One of the principal objects of litigation and negotiation between the called " factic powers of the franquism" and the parties oligarchy that it happened it to the front of the Spanish State, it consisted precisely of this capacity of the totalitarian bureaucracy to convert to the civil burgeoise society into obligated client of the State, fixing the conditions of its relationship to any fraction of the burgeoise.
For so much, it is necessary to specify here something whose knowledge is very little extended, and is that, by virtue of that relative autonomy of the state appliance with respect to the civil society, the fascism repressed to the working class to reduce the effect of its struggles to the minimal organizational expression. And it made it under the determinant economic imperative of preserving the freedom of exploitation of the capitalists, that is to say, of their general interests as class. But in exchange for that essencial function , it regimented that freedom, it put it political conditions. The key of the rout of the nazism and of the fascism, as before that of First French Empire, it was in the lack of freedom that the international burgeoise did not tolerate it to the bureaucracy of Hitler and Mussolini, as before either it did not tolerate Napoleón. This has been the spirit that presided the judgements of Neürenber after the World War II. The other, they continue being little mirrors of colors in the typically bourgeois art of changing a thing by other.
Certain it is that in its imperialistic stage, the capitalism carries implicit the trend to the totalitaritation of the economic power. But this does not mean that the system in its joint is pitied with her, but it repulses it historically. The same as all the things of this world, the capitalism is a contradictory reality. The centralization of the economic decisions tends to the annulment of the competition and to the parasitism, something which detains the development of the productive forces. In such conditions the pace of the accumulation and the metabolism of the capital go slowly and the increase of the surplus reduces still more threatening with provoking the collapse of the system. But, on the other hand, the tendnecial decrease of the profit rate that accompanies the intermittent and spasmodic process of the accumulation, provokes and incentivates the intercapitalist competition between the large capital already existing and the average and small that are incorporated into market, especially during the dismal phases of each cycle:
<<...Mientras all marches well, the competition, such as it is revealed in the leveling of the general profit rate, it acts as a practical confraternity of the capitalistic class, so that this is distributed communitily , and in proportion to the magnitude of the participation within each which, the collective booty. But when no longer it is considered to divide the earnings but of dividing the losses, each which procures to reduce in what is possible its participation in the same and of to transfer to another it to the other. The loss is unavoidable for all the class. But the quantity that of that loss there has of corresponding to him to each which, in what measure there has of participating in her, it is restitution then in an issue of power and of trickery, and the competition is converted as of there into a struggle between enemy brothers. It is made to feel, then, the antagonism between the interest of each individual capitalist and that of the class of the capitalists, in the same way that before were imposed practically the identity of these interest through the competition. (...) on the other hand, the decrease of the profit rate, linked with the accumulation, it provokes necessarily a competitive struggle. The compensation of the decrease in the profit rate through the increase of the bulk of the profit only it has validity for the global capital of the society and for the large capitalistic compactly installed. The new additional capital that operates in autonomous form, it is not found with no of this class of supplementary conditions, it must fight to conquer them, and of that manner, the decrease of the profit rate raises the competition struggle between the large capital and not inversely. (...) The profit rate, that is to say, the proportional increase of the capital, it is important for all the tappings new of capital that are grouped of autonomous way. And in how much the capital formation falls exclusively in hands of some few large capital definitely structured, for those which the bulk of the profit compensated the rate of the same, the fire that encourages the production would have been extinguished completely. In that case the production would be lulled. The profit rate is the driving force in the capitalistic production, and only is produced what can be produced with profit and in the measure in which could produce it with profit. (...)The development of the productive forces of the social work is the historical mission and the justification of the capital.>> (K. Marx: "The Capital" Book III cap. XV)
In political, this contradiction between the trend to the parasitism of the monopolies and the dynamism of the competition, it is expressed politically arriving to its extreme, in the dialectical between democracy and dictatorship. The political dictatorship has an economic effect of the stagnation, in reason of the fact that substitutes partially the competition, it suffocates it through the political monopoly of the totalitarian bureaucracy to charge of the State. Of this manner, the economic development in important areas of the accumulation process of the global social capital of a country submitted to the totalitarian regime, it lets of obeying to the economic law of the benefit, to be governed by decisions that a contingent or contingent bureaucracy to charge of the dictatorial political power adopts in favor of given individual or privileged entrepreneurial groups.
The hobbles to the socio-economic development of the parasitic cohabitation between the " franquist State" and the restricted group of known entrepreneurial leaders in who was covered the regime, it has been put of manifest in the qualitative jump that the accumulation of the capital has given in Spain once consolidated the "democracy".
The transition of the dictatorship to the "democracy" goes through the execution of two combined and simultaneous political operations. Consists an of diluting the justice longing of the antidictatorial movement in the judicial and propagandistic appliance of the system. Given the great or smaller difficulty according to the social forces correlation between the antidictatorial movement and the residual totalitarian power, in any event it is tried the art in combining the legal processal tempo with the manipulation of the "State to right" and the apologetic venal journalism, so that the greater resulting possible impunity of the judgement obligator to the "guilty", it passes by to be it more similar to the exemplary punishment than the social opprobrium of its demand crimes.
The other political operation goes through to use the force of the antidictaorial movement previously alienated in the bourgeois judicial appliance to instances of the philosophy of the Human Rights., as pressure instrument on the responsible for the State crimes. In this operation, the legal processal tempo, the procedures of the State to right, the jail system and the propaganda of the system, they have by assignment to contribute to the metamorphosis of the political dictatorship in "democracy". it is considered to weaken it more possible to the residual dictatorial power than hampers the normal course of the accumulation process, proceeding to eliminate certain remaining institutional clauses imposed by route of the political totalitarian power. For example, in Chile, the constitutional clause that empowers to the Army to have the surpluses state industry of the copper to maintain the military appliance, as well as the discretionary or arbitrational assignment of all the funds devoted to that end - included the budgetary - in favor of determinated providings of the warlike material to the occasion of purely economic considerations governed by the law of the greater benefit in relation of the expense; identical restrictive sense have had the privileges granted by the regime to the calls "children of Pinochet", designate managing fiduciary of the " pension funds" of the Chilean workers, on those which turned the first movement of the privatizations policy in that country.
y el resto de nuestros documentos en otros formatos grupo
de propaganda marxista
apartado de correos 20027 Madrid 28080
y el resto de nuestros documentos en otros formatos
de propaganda marxista