The State and crises

It is known that the difference between the modern state structure and tribal structures is that it treats its citizens equally. Let us review our current situation with the assumption that this criterion is correct and valid.

A governor is appointed to a city, and you see that a horrific crime is committed, involving the family, and even incorporating the city's hospital and doctors into the system. How it happens that this crime is swept under the rug for years, and then you see that a newly appointed minister, who is facing serious opposition, is able to open the file.

We still use the word "minister" out of old habit, but in the new administrative system, the title of "secretary of state" responsible for relevant affairs would actually be more appropriate for such officials. Indeed, when these individuals leave their posts, they cannot resign (this must be an issue related to freedoms!), but they can be dismissed. After closing this parenthetical remark, shouldn't one ask: while the newly appointed secretary of state was being bombarded with fierce objections by the opposition, how did they manage to open a rather old file, the guilt of which extended to an appointed governor (did they, or were they able to!)? After so much time has passed and several secretaries of state appointed to the same position have served since the incident occurred, how did the file that had been sleeping—or perhaps kept asleep—until now fall to the new secretary of state! In this situation, one cannot help but ask: what do the relevant secretaries of state who served in the past think about this incident today! Is it really the relevant secretary of state who opened this file, or is it a person or persons in a higher position who have hidden the incident until now and are bringing this aged event to the field now for other calculations and purposes!

Can we treat miners' strikes as an ordinary business relationship? The answer is very clear: No! Because when a debt committed in a business relationship is not paid, legal proceedings are initiated. If the purchase of a laborer's labor for a certain period through a signed contract, and the failure to pay the committed wage despite this, is an extraordinary situation, shouldn't the employer be legally responsible according to the agreement? While laborers who have exhausted all avenues are rebelling against the injustice they face, should they see the state standing against them or by their side? Or we can ask this question more accurately: Should the person or persons suffering such injustice see the state or justice by their side! In connection with this, does the fact that the state apparatus does not open paths to protect the rights of laborers in this incident, and even attempts to prevent them with law enforcement, show that the business or institution that has failed to fulfill its commitment is being protected by the state! Specific to the situation here, should the state apparatus reveal justice in the face of an injustice or make an effort in this direction, or should it suppress justice by police force! What is seen in the picture is that by deploying police against laborers demanding their rights, the government, which has captured the state that should be the agent in ensuring justice, has prevented the manifestation of justice through the police. The issue can actually be defined as follows: the restriction, or even prevention, of the demonstration rights of laborers who have suffered injustice is a very clear indicator of who the state apparatus, created within the framework of bourgeois law, is against, or which segment of the people it takes a stance against. Moreover, this indicator is not just a code of conduct that can emerge in a single incident or selected violent events and cannot be seen as related to the nature of the state structure. In other words, the nature of the bourgeois state is not compatible with the laboring segment, but with capital; that is, defining the state's main task as contributing to private capital puts political power in the position of a political agent of capital.

Bob Jessop is a famous British economist. Among the various studies this person has conducted on the state, the one titled "The State" is the most important. In this work, Jessop processes the state thesis also developed by his colleague James O’Connor, and reveals the main function of the bourgeois state structure and the methods of performing this function. One cannot help but think: if the bourgeoisie, that is, capital, is this powerful, why do laborers, and even the entire public, fall into the illusion that they have the right to vote in general elections, and why is such trouble given to the entire public at great cost, and why are dozens or hundreds of token deputies (who, in truth, should perhaps be called deputies of capital!) sent to parliament? This is the contrast between the fake democracy understanding of the famous 1789 French Revolution and the concept of economic democracy, which was put forward by the industrial revolution that matured in England in the 1840s, but which was ignored by capital and its political agent, the state structures. Do we have the authority to use whichever view we want; do you think it is possible in the face of the oppressive power of capital?

The same question should also be directed to the deputies who, after receiving votes from the public as "members of parliament," act in parliament as the "deputy of the party leader" (that is, the deputy of the leader appointed by capital). Namely, since the title of member of parliament is seen as a title only until one receives votes from the public and enters parliament, in this case, let elections be held for political parties, not for deputies, and let political parties make executive decisions in parliament in proportion to the votes they receive. Thus, a massive budget saving would be achieved, parliamentary fights would be prevented, and the noise of arguments would not be experienced; in short, parliament would turn into an extraordinarily peaceful place.

If this result is an indicator of political pathology, we need to develop intense thought and form ideas about the cause. However, there is a wide range of political views on this subject as well, extending from the famous thinker Gramsci's views on "manufacturing consent" to the concept of ideology. In short, our job is difficult, but not impossible; as long as we are not sheep in the flock, but conscious and brave!