Editorial - The Socialist Issue 6 - 2010 -

The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

This little gem comes from the Communist Manifesto. Authors, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels argue that economic elites also need political control exercised through the state. The two worked together. However, this much-cited quote has led to many controversies among socialists attempting to understand the effects of this or that policy or the impact of economic elites on particular political debates.

Today, it is even more difficult to recognize how these two parts of society – the capitalist class and the state - are adhered together. The state, even isolated to its executive function, is a complex set of departments, advisors and functionaries. Private industry is equally spread out among multiple corporations, private, often competing, interests and industry groups.

Yet, moments of crisis offer opportunities to ob¬serve the links between the state and economic elites. BP’s recent oil explosion in the Gulf of Mexico did more than pour millions of gallons of oil into the environment. It ex¬posed the relationship between a multinational corporation and, by extension, the energy sector and the US government. This allowed a chance to measure the degree to which modern corporations direct the activities of the state and how such control comes about.

The spotlight of the crisis allowed people to recognize that politicians were putting the public at risk by complying with the wishes of the energy sector even before the Deepwater Horizon exploded. The Bush Administration operated the scandal-ridden Department of the Interior (DOI) as a rubber stamp for industry and a site to disseminate anti-global warming “science.” Obama has kept things low profile but equally industry-controlled at the DOI by appointing noted industry ally, Ken Salazar. Salazar’s Mineral Management Services dutifully delivered more than 250 inspection waivers to energy companies engaged in offshore drilling.

In return, the campaign contributions kept flowing and the lobbyists continued to shape policy. Campaign contributions from the Oil and Gas sector surged from about $8 million in 1990 to more than $33 million in 2008. Lobbying also increased sharply from around $51 million in 2000 to $175 million in 2009. Buying off the state has certainly become more expensive as private corporations plow deeper roots into all aspects of society creating, in effect, a corporate state.

The oil explosion grew out of this process as energy companies expanded their field of operations and legislators abandoned the public trust. As a result, ideas about things like public ownership, regulation and green energy were set aside or presented as outdated notions.

However, once the Deepwater Horizon exploded, the public could see how deeply the energy companies had penetrated in the state. BP, and not the toothless govern¬ment, was calling the shots in the Gulf – determining who got to photograph the site, which scientists could conduct tests and the speed of cleanup. The government had little to offer. BP controlled all of the experts, the facilities and the resources. At points, the Hollywood actor Kevin Costner, with his fancy oil removal machine and director James Cameron, with his fleet of submarines, seemed more relevant than President Barack Obama.

Instead of facing a nationalization order, BP CEO Tony Hayward was allowed to refuse to answer questions at a Congressional hearing one day and be an invitee to a private White House meeting the next.

But, something strange happened in all of this. After donating $70,000 to Federal candidates since 2009, BP’s campaign payoff money dried up. Once the light of public scrutiny appeared, BP ran for the exits. Politicians, especially those who had already feasted, made public declarations that they would return any check cut by the rogue energy giant. At least in the short term, one part of the tether than links corporate America to the political class was severed.

This is not to say that the US government declared its independence from the energy sector. Nor, even that they will get serious about regulation. But, that two observations may be made by returning to the idea presented by Marx and Engels. We can say that the modern state is not just an entity that manages “…the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” This duty or relationship is not automatic, but requires the outlay of some amount of resources on the part of corporations. The process itself causes changes in the structure and function of both the state and private corporations.

Second, the key element that the state attempts to manage for economic elites, in an ostensibly democratic society, is public opinion, or mass sentiment or even people’s “common sense.” Making sure that ideas about the public ownership of vital resources are defeated is as essential as granting waivers to allow energy companies to self-regulate. And equally as dangerous.

Understanding how this link between the state and corporations operates is critical to opening the possibility that fueled the work of Marx and Engels in the 19th century. That one day the majority of the “managed” population might realize its own power and put an end to the incestuous connection between the state and economic elites. The links between oil and politics explored in this edition of The Socialist share a similar aim.

We intend to discover and expose the weak points in the relationship between economic elites and state. We do so, in order to suggest that regular people can and should exercise the kind of radical democracy necessary to save our planet, reclaim the wealth we create with our labor and open new age of peaceful global relations. In short, we think democratic socialism offers a way out of the cycle of politics where campaign contributions matter more than the public interest.