Understanding the State

Since these columns are not the place where topics raised in doctoral discussions at universities are written and debated, one might wonder what the meaning of this title is. In other words, it might be a matter of curiosity why I have brought the phenomenon of the state to the agenda out of the blue. The topic I would like to discuss with my valued readers today is the degree of validity of certain proposals put forward to improve society within the state structure we currently find ourselves in. The essence of the matter is to discuss the meaninglessness of some proposals put forward while we struggle with inflation and a significant portion of our people are dragged into poverty, and on the other hand, to discuss their political function, whether intentional or not.

Let us dive into the subject with its most practical aspect, starting with the discussions and proposals made in front of the public. Our people are practically divided; while a growing segment of the population is being dragged into poverty, a small minority is adding wealth to their wealth. Some people who are saddened by this situation and have started looking for solutions suggest raising the minimum wage, bringing the tax system into a fair form, or even making quite extreme proposals such as imposing a wealth tax. The subject I will discuss with you is the degree of validity of these proposals within this state structure. However, please do not think that I am against these proposals before we move on to the discussion. Indeed, would it be bad if the minimum wage could be raised, or even removed from being a "minimum" and brought to a wage level worthy of human dignity; if our tax system were fair, as stated in our Constitution, by taking less from those who earn less and more from those who earn more; or if a reasonable level of wealth tax were imposed on those who accumulate unfair and excessive wealth? No, on the contrary, it would be very good! This is my conviction and what my heart desires. So, let us enter the main issue with the question of what we are discussing here and continue our discussion.

My dear readers, every state apparatus, just like an individual, has an identity that it must comply with in all its operations. The identity of the state apparatus is determined by the dominant economic system of the state. Although our Turkey is described as a social state or a secular state in the Constitution, as we see in practice, neither its failure to be secular nor its failure to be a social state in the required manner can be explained solely by the incompetence or reactionary mentality of the administrators. Just like economic areas such as the social state, social areas like secularism are also connected to the economic system, which is applied quite rigidly with limited flexibility. As such, political parties that are candidates for governing the country are also shaped as implementers of the dominant economic system, separating only with minor differences around the logic of the system. This is because the state is a plane of abstract relations that covers all areas and acts as an umbrella with continuity. The government, on the other hand, consists of public servants who have been elected for a certain period and are responsible for the provision of public services in line with the main provisions drawn by the state—the constitution. Without going into topics such as how the provisions of the constitution are determined, discussing the economic scope and goals of the state established in the capitalist system is sufficient to form the answer to the questions we have asked.

Let us pay attention to the name: capitalism and the capitalist state! This means that state power derives its strength from capital. If the state apparatus establishes an industrial enterprise in the economic field like an entrepreneur, it becomes a "capitalist state"; if it is shaped through the private sector, it becomes the "state of the capitalist system." In the first case, the state is the boss; in the second, the state is the servant of the boss. It is seen that the state's entry into the economy as a producer does not change the system, but only causes a change in the state's scope of duty and dominance. How can we expect labor-friendly policies to emerge from such a structure, from a state apparatus that is anti-labor and enslaved by capital itself!

If we look at the phenomenon of the capitalist state from the perspective of political theory, albeit somewhat superficially, it is said in theory that the state has two main tasks. The main task of the state is to look after private capital. Because private capital produces for society, employs labor, and pays taxes to the state. Yes, this is how it is reflected to society, and society perceives the situation this way, but the essence of the matter is not exactly like that. The essence of the matter is this: labor produces for society, provides profit to the boss, and gives a portion of what it produces to the state as taxes. In short, although labor performs almost everything, as a result of a kind of fragmentation of the image and alienation, the reflection of the whole to society happens (or is made to happen) very differently. Leaving the discussion of the essence of the matter to another article, let us keep in mind the fact that it is capital that establishes the state apparatus and move on to the discussion of the above examples and similar proposals in the context of the functions of the state.

Can the state, which is in the position of a political agent of capital, impose a wealth tax on capital? I wish it could; but no, it cannot. Because a wealth tax imposed on capital would cause capital to withdraw from the market, or even leave the country, dragging the country into even deeper poverty. In today's conditions of globalization, the enormous mobility of capital has made capital exceptionally protected against labor, the state, and the people. While privatization discussions were taking place, the goal of defending the retention of some industrial establishments by the state was to increase the resilience of the state apparatus against capital. Conversely, the hidden purpose of those who defended privatization with flimsy excuses was to weaken the state against capital. However, the supporters of the people could not explain their troubles and were defeated by the supporters of capital. This contradiction, which should be perceived as anti-people, is also the result of the powerful skill of capitalist ideology itself.

Minimum wage and tax issues must also always be pro-capital. Such practices carried out under the dominance of capital are the natural result of the dominance of capital, not labor. Yes, I would have liked all the proposals put forward for the sake of social justice to find an area of application and for us to live in peace in a fair society. The inability to realize this justified request is the result of the logic of the system, which is itself unjust.

I would like to close this topic, which we can discuss from different angles in future articles, with a small note for today. Economic systems work with internal consistency as a holistic structure and reject or vomit out inconsistent policy proposals. For example, when interest rates were suppressed by voluntary decision in conditions where raising them was necessary, the exchange rate suddenly skyrocketed, and the system implemented its own demand through another channel. While this is the case, there can only be two reasons for putting forward populist arguments that are contrary to the system, either without knowing how the system works or intentionally. First, arguments contrary to the system can never be implemented. The second reason is somewhat cunning and dangerous. Unfortunately, there is such a negative logic behind putting forward such absurd arguments against the system. The idea behind presenting absurd policies is to blame the negativity of the course of events not on the system and its rules, but on politicians or incompetent politicians or administrators who make wrong decisions, thus blaming the inept administrator or policies and protecting the system.