A Bourgeois creature: Thoughts ON the state in capitalist societies

In the following discourse, an attempt will be made to critically examine the nature of the State in Western societies that are politically operated under a system of ‘liberal(representative) democracy’ and economically grounded in ‘capitalism’. This examination, is based on and inspired from a reading of Ralph Miliband’s groundbreaking book: ‘The State in Capitalist Society’, in which, he posits that despite the general claims made about the State is (such as it being ‘democratic’ and ‘neutral’),  the true nature of the State in these societies, is contrastingly different from what it is believed to be. In Miliband’s view, the State in most of these societies is ‘perceptibly’ (nothing more than) an unjustified force that is suggestively controlled by a biased state-elite that seeks to serve and consolidate capitalistic interests and capitalism itself (as if it were nothing more than a ‘Bourgeois Creature’). Thus, if he is correct in his findings, Miliband’s work offers a definitive answer to our investigation albeit a fatalistic one. Ultimately, I disagree with Miliband’s portrayal of the State in these societies and it is the objective of this dissertation to outline my reasons as to why, whilst in the process revealing ‘a great deal more about’ the true nature of the State.

Indeed, the State has always been a fascinating subject to study. Particularly, when one examines the abstract(often, metaphysical) writings of early political-philosophers, who painted fantastic portraits of the State, as an all-powerful chimeric-creature, a certain Leviathan, which apparently reigns/ed over civil society since time ‘immemorial’. Of course, with much examination and study into political science, it eventually came with a matter of clarity that disregarding its abstract nature, the common metaphysical depiction of the State as some sort of entity, does in fact practically highlight and point to a wide-spread political phenomena, observable in almost all civil societies, which sees the governance and administration of society, undertaken and enforced by an overarching collective body of political institutions that (often) act in inscrutable unison, possessing a monopoly of power in these societies. In essence, “State-theory” offers a very concise, intelligible and seemingly rational way of identifying and explaining governance and how political institutions and societies are organized; but, furthermore, how power is distributed, exercised and authorized in such communities. It is, indeed this latter point on power that makes the study of the State itself particularly interesting for ‘power’ is, in most society(at-least the ones that we are concerned with), concentrated  in the State, in fact it has even been claimed boldly by many commentators, that it defines it. 

Without delving into too deep of a discussion at this stage, it is important to clarify what ‘power’ means(and in the setting of this dissertation). Here, it should be understood in its most literal and conventional sense, as a variable and a term that properly defines, measures and reflects, ‘the capacity to act, behave in certain ways(in a given context); simultaneously, the capacity to control/direct/influence a given-context’. Applied in the context of a society, it simply refers to the ability and the extent to which an actor can actually/freely perform certain acts or commit one’s self to a certain line of conduct conduct,course of action/behavior within the society and simultaneously but quite importantly the extent to which the actor can influence and direct society(i.e. the context itself).(Logically,  the more powerful the actor in the society, the larger the extent and the capacity the actor can freely act without official restraint and limits and influence the society.) It is this ‘power’, that has often been claimed to be centralized exclusively in the State.

Surprisingly, in modern-western representative-democracies with its vast rhetorics on ‘freedom’,in the sense of doing anything one desires, and ‘self-determinacy’, the ability to mould society to preference, a simple calculated-observation would actually demonstrate that power is largely concentrated in a body of pervasive political institutions which, accordingly by definition, make up the State. Although it is widely accepted that democracy realizes most of its ideals, it is ultimately the State that possess ultimate power and when viewed comparatively the individual is actually very much powerless against the State. For it is ultimately the vast political institutions that compose the State, that have the ‘sole-capacity’ to independently pursue an extensive range of actions(officially but also potentially-illegitimately against any societal resistance as shown by history), and utilize societal resource extensively to pursue certain courses of action(again very independently), but most importantly, it is the State in the form of these institutions that possess the actual ‘ability’ to influence and control society and its constituents. Thus, the existence of the State actually poses a potential threat to the idea of “democracy” itself(this will be discussed at further length below).

This feature alone makes the study of the nature of the State very important(as will be explained in due course) particularly for the context that we are dealing in, the modern-western liberal-democracies.

Defining the The State

It is important to begin by defining what exactly the State is before we can conduct a proper examination on ‘the State’. It may perhaps come to the surprise of some, that this process of actually ‘defining’ the State is actually much easier said than done, as the concept of the State  is indeed a complex one and as such there is actually no academic consensus on an exact working definition of the State; that is a single-universally-applied description for what exactly the State is. In fact, there are various assortments of definitions expounded by different political theorists; they diverge from being definitions that stem from an ‘institutional’ perspective, (that is ‘what the State looks like’,) and others that stem from a ‘functional’ perspective(,that is ‘what the State does’). An ‘institutional’ definition would define the State, by defining its ‘body’ and that is the composite centralized-body of political and coercive institutions existing in society(briefly mentioned earlier), which altogether are committed to and actually partake in governing society. Whereas a ‘functional’ definition would define the State by examining, without specifically mentioning or accrediting these institutions, the roles and purpose achieved by centralized-political ‘power’ arising from these centralized institutions. Thus as it can be seen, these two definitions involve different forms of analysis; though, they are really concerned with the same phenomena, how do we define and explain the centralization of (political) power in civil society ‘beyond the hands of’ and ‘above’ the individuals. 

 Fortunately,  the currently favored definition, is a combination, of the two, though with a large emphasis on the ‘institutional’ perspective. The settled definition and the one that will be used in the context of this discourse, being that the State is a body of different institutions(and indeed, personnels operating within them) that altogether embodies and expresses a certain centrality of power over and above a territorially demarcated area, in which it also exercises a monopoly of ‘administrative authority’  and a monopoly of ‘physical force’. Admittedly, this is the definition utilized by Miliband in his work; admirably, he elucidated the concept further, by giving us important examples of institutions that fulfill the scope of the definition such as the executive/government(which holds the ultimate power over the administration of the entire territory), the legislative body(which holds the ultimate power over authoritative rule making for the territory), the judiciary(which holds the ultimate power over the application and administration of legislated-rules in the territory; similarly a power over the application of force), the police and the military(which holds the ultimate power over physical violence and force), the civil service, and the local government. Indeed, these institutions exist in most civil-societies today, though the extent of their power (over certain functions) obviously varies with the different civil-societies they are instituted in, all-in-all most States remain relatively the same, characteristically-speaking, in the society they are grounded in. 

Adopting this definition, we can immediately see that most of civil societies currently in existence do have States and in fact they possess States that are quite similar when viewed comparatively and indeed it was the witnessing of this general phenomena that gave rise to the concept of the State itself. It is also here, we begin to see why the functional definition is very important to our understanding of the State, and why it was ultimately incorporated into the accepted definition of the State in political study; as although we have shown that power has been and indeed is seemingly centralized in modern societies(to a similar extent in most cases), an explanation is still lacking as to why this seems so. 

Here, the definition differs, with differing societies and political thoughts, but the corresponding view is that such arrangements are premised on the necessity of society for the centralization of political power and function; namely that it is argued that without such arrangements, civilized living would be impossible. Logically, as it has been made out to seem, it is hard to imagine life without the State(the political institutions mentioned by Miliband), the only “stateless” societies that have actually existed have been primitive ones, whereas we have no examples of stateless societies enduring past the primitive level of development. Although there are many good sociological reasons for why the existence of the State is necessary, which we shall come to later in our discussion, for now it can be made out that there the major arguments put forth are that the State (as an arrangement/institutional body) offers security(to the individual) and order(to society in general). As a result the State exists not only as an centralization of power in society but it exists as an reasonable, necessary and beneficial centralization of power that seeks to serve, as its purpose, the macro-interests of the civil society it governs. 

To degree to which, the State actually serves the interests of society(specifically in terms of order and security), is not contested, at this moment, though certain polities that are rooted in particular ideals, might stress that the functions and purposes of the State are expansively wider than others(i.e. they extend beyond the two mentioned). Modern liberal-democracies, which is of-course, the core focus of our study, would be a perfect example, in that the nature of the State is premised not only on the perceived necessities aforementioned, but also on its (1) ability to reflect and capture the preferences of the constituent and (2) realize the democratic process and ideals underlying democracy itself. In a simple manner of speaking, the State in modern democratic society(‘Democratic State’) is thus functionally subjected to and attributed with a vast amount of democratic responsibilities/functions of which it is believed to be legitimized upon. This is extremely important as well(and the question of legitimacy inevitably arises), as the vast centralization of power associated with the nature of the State(as discussed earlier) and the shift of administrative authority from the constituents to the anemic institutions that constitute the State, are potentially hostile to the ideals of democracy, (namely those of ‘individual and political freedom’ and ‘self-determinancy’) which ultimately see that individuals should be free from arbitrary power and be able to govern themselves (and participate in their own governance), furthermore, that individuals should be free and equal in their rights of being able to self-determine their lives and the society of which they are part of. Indeed such ideals are strongly grounded in these particular polities. Thus the functional aspects of the concept of the State is particular important in the study of the Democratic State, in that it not only serves an explanatory role for describing why Democratic States are slightly different in practice and in form(i.e. institutional form) in comparison to those of other polities; but it serves a very important role of validating the existence of the State, which is, as established above, potentially contradictory, in democratic societies. It only remains potentially contradictory; in so far as the State actually ascribe to democratic principles and it has even been claimed by many that the existence of the State in democratic society is necessary for the actual establishment of ‘democratic governance’. With these considerations in mind, theorists have thereby written notable works about the Democratic State being constituted by some form of preceding ‘Social Contract‘(whether, suppositional or actual such as various existing Constitution) whereby the constituents recognizing the needs of ‘governance’(i.e. centralization of power, see above) and certain important democratic principles have voluntarily given up their ‘power’ to be governed by a functionally “Democratic” State.

 In short, the preeminent definition of the State in democratic society is thus, not only a body of different institutions(and indeed, personnels operating within them) that embodies and expresses a certain centrality of power  over and above a territorially demarcated area, in which it also exercises a monopoly of ‘administrative authority’ and a monopoly of ‘physical force’; it is also a centrality of power that is ultimately authorized and ratified by the constituents of the area on the condition that it serves the overall societal interest of centralized governance(i.e. security and order) and democratic ideals(note: it is the inclusion of the conditions and purposes of democratic principles; that separates Democratic States from ordinary States.).

Given the importance of the functional aspects of defining the State, particularly in democratic polities. Naturally, it is here where the significance of Miliband’s work begins to radiate. Rather, than concur with the Democratic State painted by the social theorists, in the State in Capitalist Society, Miliband argues antagonistically that the State in modern democratic societies is not in fact reflective of democratic principles or constituent preferences; instead the State is in reality a coercive machinery that is supposedly operated by an elite group of partial individuals; which empirically demonstrates itself time and time again, to act only in the interests of a minority interest in society, at the detrimental exclusion of a majority. Not much analysis is needed to illustrate why, these points made by Miliband are noteworthy and controversial, particularly for many Democratic States. As a matter fact, Miliband’s work was based on a notable Democratic State- the United Kingdom, of which he holds is a paradigm for other Democratic States(Indeed, in his writing, he was addressing all western liberal democracies). 

Simply put, if a State in modern democratic society, no longer serves the interests of society at large, it seems that the State becomes nothing more than an unjustified coercive force imposing over society. At least this was the depiction that Miliband was trying to portray in his writing. The potency of Miliband’s representation of the State lies in the fact that it is allegedly evidenced by observable “empirical” proof; whether we can truly give our regard his work as the perfectly captured snapshot of the actual nature of the State, becomes difficult, but it is nevertheless a very important issue that should be examined in any study of the State; indeed, it is the primary concern of this discourse. 

However, before we can begin to appreciate and analyze the truth behind Miliband’s argument, an overview of Miliband’s views must be presented to highlight the cogency and logic of his argument. Indeed, we must see why the State is a Bourgeois Creature.

The State in Capitalist Society

Our study of Miliband’s views is centered on Chapter IV(pages 63-76) of his book, a chapter concerned with “the purposes and role of governments” and it is an overview of this chapter that will be in turn be presented here. It might seem perhaps odd that after such an in-depth discussion and investigation into the nature and definition of the State and democratic society, focus has instead been given to governments. The reason why we have chosen to conduct and limit our study on a Chapter concerning governments in our investigations into the nature of the State, is because of all institutions existing over (democratic and) civil society the government is the perhaps the very epitome of the State. That is not to make the absolute claim, that the government is the State itself in all instances, which of course we have established earlier, by settled definition is also embodied in and draws its power from other institutions. Rather, the government in the structure of the State, is one of it’s most central institutions and it is, in many ways it is perfectly correct to label it as the crux of the State: for being entrusted and endowed with most authority in most cases over the other State institutions; it is able to effectively direct, control and mobilize those institutions for the purposes of administrating society(i.e. governments theoretically speaking in most polities, have a monopoly of power and force and are able to direct and coordinate State/institutional powers to achieve State-objectives/functions).As Miliband puts it: “It is not very surprising that government and state should often appear as synonymous. For it is the government which speaks on the state’s behalf. It was the state to which Weber was referring when he said, in a famous phrase, that in order for the state to be, it must ‘successfully claim the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’. But ‘the state’ cannot claim anything: only the government of the day, or its duly empowered agents can. Men it is often said, give their allegiance not to the government of the day but to the state. But the state, from this point of view, is a nebulous entity; and while men may choose to give their allegiance to it, it is the government that they are required to give their obedience. A defiance of its order is a defiance of the state, in whose name the government alone may speak and for whose actions it must assume ultimate responsibility.” So in many aspects, an investigation into the nature of the government, should in turn reveal a great deal on the nature of the State.(Note: It is for these reasons, the government has often been identified as being synonymous with the State. The degree to which this is an accurate identification of the term, will depend on the degree to which State/institutional power and force, is centralized in the government itself; in most cases this is largely the case.)

For Miliband, the role and the purpose of the governments in all western liberal-democracies is essentially ‘tied-up’ with the underlying economic-system that characterizes these polities- capitalism. Indeed, capitalism is the prevailing economic system of not just “western” liberal-democracies, but of most liberal-democracies around the world; not so surprisingly, perhaps it is because capitalism and the theory of democracy share a lot of common grounds with their beliefs and emphasis on certain ideals; such as ‘freedom’, ‘self-determinancy’ and additionally, ‘individual-rights’ . Where democracy assumes that individuals should be able to self-determine their own governance and life in society, whilst generally recognizing the right of the individuals and holding individual liberty as its highest ideal. Similarly, capitalism assumes that individuals should be able to self-determine their own economic-life in a market and it holds the free market and the idea that individuals can possess economic rights as both its’ highest ideals. (Whereas one paints, the political utopia of the individual freely pursuing his own life purposes in a society that recognizes his individual preferences and protects him via the recognition of his rights; the other paints, the economic utopia of the individual freely pursuing his economic-purposes in a market that recognizes his preferences and protects him via the recognition of his rights). Together the picture painted (as rhetoric has suggested) is one where an individual is able to freely realize and achieve his own human potential in a free(market) and free and self-governed society that recognizes the principles of liberty, choice and individualism as inviolable truths. 

Of course, it would be foolish to assume that democracy and capitalism are the same thing, they are different concepts concerned with different aspects of human society. A more interesting question, perhaps will be, whether democracy, as a political form, arose before capitalism(or the latter stemming from the former); likewise, whether all democratic societies inevitably assume or necessarily adopt capitalism(or more specifically, the free market) as its economic-base(or whether capitalism will requires democracy as a political precondition).(Fundamentally, they transform to questions of ascendancy, whether one theory ascends over the other.) These are undoubtedly good questions that worth investigating at length; however, in brief for the purposes of this chapter, it should and necessarily be would presumed that democracy ascends over capitalism; as the whole idea of democracy would collapse, if a democratic society lost its ability to self-determine its own economic base(since-the theory, sees as its essence the ability for the constituents to self-determine almost all aspects of society, even the economic aspects). 

Of-course, one would assume that capitalism is the most compatible base for democracy, as it has been suggested by certain economists, and certainly, other economic systems might naturally be incompatible with democracy; but practice has shown that the constituents of democratic society can and have indeed altered their economic systems(or certain aspects of it). Needless to say, this has been largely done in many democratic societies existing today(such as with the introduction of  varying degrees of State-regulation/intervention and mechanisms which hinders the free market: e.g. tariffs, etc.); to the extent, that it is hard to say whether we can still properly label them economically as pure capitalistic societies. Nevertheless, the fact that alterations have been made, is highly suggestive of democracy’s ascendancy over capitalism in society and the possibility for a democratic society, to completely displace capitalism given the adequate societal consensus. 

In a similar fashion, for Miliband there is indeed a close connection between the democratic-government of modern liberal-democracies and capitalism; though his belief largely differs in the sense in that he refutes the idea that democratic governments can displace capitalism and capitalists interests. More precisely, it is his belief that democratic governments in most western societies, are bound and chained up to perpetuating capitalism and serving its interests, despite the fact that perhaps, capitalism has grown to be wholly detrimental to society(or that the constituents are largely in favor of a system change). It seems, in Miliband’s view, the Democratic State has largely been about the consolidation, the maintenance, and the perpetuation of capitalism and capitalist interests seen by the way democratic governments have behaved. Accordingly, the State, is far from an impartial force that serves society, but is rather a partisan servant of certain capitalist interests in society, of which it will seek to protect at the detriment of all others.

(1) He establishes this by firstly claiming that the government has always been occupied and operated by a state-elite(i.e. top personnels of government, top politicians) that either served or were sympathetic to capitalist-interests(the key point lies in the fact that the multiplicity of elite that came to dominate the government were never against these interests); the social composition of this elite has always been constant and the reasons as to why Miliband came to this conclusion was an investigation, he made at length in the previous chapter of his book. Though not the central concern of our overall examination, in summary, his claim is that for numerous reasons(such as qualification, the inequality of education, education in traditional-upper class institutions, the rigorous recruitment process which focuses on upper class individuals, etc. see. Chapter 3), the elite that have come to occupy the government have always been drawn directly from the capitalist class(upper-middle class; or businessmen); whereas if they were drawn from the lower-classes they marked only a minority in the government, whilst most lower-class personnel who actually do rise up in the ranks of government to occupy the positions of the elite unknowingly becomes “part, in every significant sense, of the social class to which their position, income and status gives them access.”(i.e. the upper class). The “importance” of this social composition is alleged to be that it creates very strong presumptions, as to the “general outlook, ideological dispositions and political bias” of the government, the capitalist-elite ceaselessly occupy. 

2. Apparently, we can do much more than “presume” as according to Miliband, “what governments actually do, affords a clear view of what, in large terms, they are about.” and for Miliband, the government in modern liberal-democracies demonstrably shows a commitment to capitalist interests and capitalism. He refutes the idea of genuine pluralism and sees the idea that there is diversity in government thought and body as superficial, as he claims that “in actual fact” there has never been any real disagreements over the foundations of society, which is capitalism. Instead, “it is no more than a matter of plain political history that the governments of these countries have mostly been composed of men who beyond all their political, social, religious, cultural and other differences and diversities, have at least had in common a basic and usually explicit belief in the validity and virtues of the capitalist system..” For this reason, he claims that “politicians are all the same…whatever their political labels or party affiliations, (they) are bourgeois politicians.” This is true even for those who are not “particularly concerned with the system, or even aware that they were helping to run a specific economic system”, they all “shared with their more ideologically aware colleagues or competitors a quite basic and unswerving hostility to any socialist alternative to the system”. Miliband goes further to argue that the “pattern of executive power has remained much more consistent” even with the “alternation in office of governments bearing different labels”, as even when men issued from the working class and formally occupied positions of governmental power “have never posed- and indeed for the most part never wished to pose- a serious challenge to a capitalist system…whose basic framework and feature they have accepted”. 
3. Miliband reinforces his point by stating that there is in fact a consensus(rather than disagreement and difference) between political office-holders(socialist or otherwise) based on “the fact” that the “differences and controversies” between these holders “even at their most intense, have never been allowed by the politicians concerned to bring into question the validity of the ‘free enterprise’ system itself” and that the politics of these societies have largely “been about different conceptions of how to run the same economics and social systems, and not about radically different social systems.” The example he gives(in fact, the only one) for this point is, the different stances, politicians have to ‘State-intervention’ in society; with some believing in a large degree of intervention in economic and social life(e.g. such as the provision of welfare and state social-services) and others who believed in a lesser degree of intervention. Despite the fact that the “quarrel between strong interventionists and their opponents has been a perfectly genuine one.” he claims that in essence intervention is only concerned with maintaining capitalism(since it benefits and is essential to capitalism), and thus the differences and quarrels between politicians and office-holders are never aimed at “eroding- let alone supplanting -the capitalist system, but of ensuring its greater strength and stability.”
4. Establishing this consensus over capitalism(2,3), Miliband points out that the consensus clearly highlights/proves that there are/must be some constant ideological dispositions existent in the governments of modern liberal democracies that make the consensus possible(thus relating to the point he made in (1)). This point is important, because, according to him, it determines how “governments will act in every particular situation.” Particularly, “(t)he fact, that governments accept as beyond question the capitalist context (point made in 2,3) in which they operate is of absolutely fundamental importance in shaping their attitudes, policies and actions in regard to specific issues and problems with which they are confronted, and to the needs and conflicts of civil society”. Hence, Miliband is suggesting here that  rather than scrutinize; the apparently loyal, ideological and practical acceptance and dedication of the governments to capitalism, ensures that governments will not act against capitalism and capitalists interest, even if societal problems arise from capitalism or the unswerving loyalty to capitalists interests. Instead, “the general commitment deeply colors the specific response” they have to certain issues and “affects…the solution envisaged for the particular problem perceived.” It is also this commitment and disposition that prevents them from identifying certain problems faced by the society. 
5. On this issue, he asserts that (thereby) “the governments which manage ‘liberal democracy’ are mostly composed of men who cannot see the system in this guise”,  they are unable to identify problems that may arise out of capitalism and from capitalist classes; which may require the government to act against the underlying economic system and interests. Rather as a result of the dispositions and consensus over capitalism, they “attribute the definicieincies in it…as separate and specific ‘problems’, remediable within its confines- in fact only remediable within its confines.” For this reason, “political office-holders themselves do not see their commitment to capitalist enterprise as involving any element of class partiality.” Instead, they may believe that are “classless” and are all serving “the whole nation, the national interest.”
6. He contends that not only is there a lack of governmental challenge and scrutiny in capitalism and capitalists interests in society, the government may in fact promote and desire to further perpetuate capitalists interests, given their acceptance and commitment of capitalism, as an the underlying economic system in society(perceiving it as something that is good rather than bad). In this way, “national interest is in fact inextricably bound up with the fortunes of capitalist enterprise” so “apparent partiality towards it is not partiality at all.” This is also reinforced by the fact that “their circle of relations, friends, former associates and acquaintances is much more likely to include businessmen than…trade union leaders” thus governments(politicians) might take a more favorable view of business intersts. Though, it is also Miliband’s view, that this does not preclude politicians who are far removed from business and those who take a poor view of business, given that they have “given a fundamental commitment to the system(capitalism) of which businessmen are an instrisic and major part”(as he has established in 2,3) Consequently, because of such commitments and the alleged dispositions they possess, politicians will “naturally seek to help business- and businessmen”. 
7. The establishment of the government’s ‘commitment’ to capitalism is central to Miliband’s overall portrait of the State as being a partisan force; he highlights that the implications that this have is that it enormously limits the freedom of the State “in relation to a multitude of issues and problems”. Particularly, if “the resolution, or at least, the alleviation of a vast range of economic and social problems” that plague democratic society “require the (State’s) fundamental opposition to these interests”. 
8. Interestingly, Miliband supports his portrait of the State, by making an additional mention to the notion of ‘the bias of the system’, a “structural” point, which he used to further depict the inability of government’s to act against(instead act for consolidating) capitalism/capitalist interests. Quoting, Raymond Aron: “it goes without saying that a regime based on the private ownership of the means of production; the measures taken by the legislators and ministers will not be in fundamental conflict with the interests of (private) owners.”  Accordingly, this bias is inherent structural aspect of society and naturally in favor of capitalist interest; therefore difficult to dispel and capable of posing immense policy influences for politicians as well.( “the concept of the bias of the systems, makes it also possible to understand that the measures taken to remedy the derelictions, shortcomings and abuses of capitalism, result ultimately, where successful in the consolidation of the regime. It matters little in this respect that these measures should have been undertaken by men sympathetic or hostile to capitalist interests..”) Though, the extent and the importance of this bias is underplayed as he claims later that “the ‘bias of the system’ may be given a greater or lesser degree of emphasis.” Arguing and emphasizing instead on the constraints imposed by the “ideological dispositions of governments”. 
9. Naturally, Miliband’s assertions raise questions as to instances where the State have actually acted against capitalists interests, and have sought to encroach on these interests with extensive State interventions and regulations(often redistributive in nature) in certain democratic polities. Miliband, anticipates this point, and argues that these State interference are not in reality in “ ‘fundamental opposition’ to the interests of property(capitalism)” instead they are “part of (a) ‘ransom’…which would have to be paid precisely for the purpose of maintaing the rights of property in general”. In a very literal sense, these interventions are made as a way to appease despondent constituents from seriously challenging the system. As it happens, Miliband goes further by holding that State intervention actually helps capitalist interests; he provides the examples of the (a) ‘welfare state’ arguing that “there are no more persistent and successful applicants for public assistance than the proud giants of the private enterprise system.”  And instances where the State have intervened and committed to large-scale measures and operations in society “which always end up by being of the greatest benefit to those who control the levers of command of the production-distribution, sector(the capitalists): when the state cuts tunnels, builds roads, opens up highways or reclaims swamps, it is first of all the owners of the neighboring lands who reap the rewards..”.
10.  Establishing that the governments have never actually made any real attempts to supplant capitalism(9), Miliband delves into an important study of how in many, ‘if not all’, instances, governments, as a result of their ideological dispositions, have never challenged and have instead folded into supporting capitalist interests when the opportunity arises to displace these interests. He offers many examples of such instances. Beginning with (a) Taxation: he claims that, despite the tendencies that capitalism generate towards the growth and enhancement of vast inequalities of income and wealth in liberal democratic societies. “The fact” is that the governments have never attempted  to implement any serious redistributive taxation, even though their powers in this field are not “finally fixed”, in addition to how taxation has affected nothing more deeply than the disparities of the rich and poor, demonstrates their acceptance and dedication of the system and its interests. (b) The same considerations apply with government intervention in ‘industrial relations’. In disputes between between  employers and wage-earners, governments have apparently intervened to secure the interests of the former rather than the latter. Where, the State is involved in any conflict of the two it enters “in the guise of a neutral and independent party, concerned to achieve not the outright defeat of one side or the other but a reasonable settlement. But the state’s intervention in negotiations occurs in the shadow of its known and declared propensity to invoke its powers of coercion, against one of the parties in the dispute rather than the other.” More directly, Miliband states: “On innumerable occasions, in all capitalist countries, governments have played a decisive role in defeating strikes, often by the invocation of the coercive power of the state and the use of naked violence; and the fact that they have done so in the name of the national interest..rather than simply to support the employers, has not made that intervention any the less useful to these employers.”. “Moreover, the state” is one of the “largest of all employers” it is “now able to influence the pattern of industrial relations by the force of its own example and behavior: that influence(really, the lack of exercising that influence) can hardly be said to have created new standards in the employer-employee relationship”.  Altogether, it is gathered that the result of State intervention “with unfailing regularity, is to the detriment of the subordinate classes.” Miliband proclaims that it is clear that “Wage-earners have always had to reckon with a hostile state in their encounter with employers. But now more than ever they have to reckon with its antagonism, in practice, as a direct, pervasive and constant fact of economic life.” (c)  Finally, he argues that this propensity of the State can be seen most evidently in ‘politics’ itself with the government’s relationship with “movements, groupings and parties dedicated to the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones.” Supposedly, the governments have always been extremely antagonistic towards, with Miliband declaring that this “antagonism itself has been a permanent fact in the history of all capitalist (liberal democratic) countries.” “In no field has the underlying consensus between political office-holders of different countries, been more substantial and notable- the leaders of all governmental parties, whether in office or in opposition, and including nominally ‘socialist’ ones, have always been deeply hostile to the socialist and militant left, of whatever denomination, and the governments themselves have in fact been the major protagonists against it, in their role of protectors and saviors of society from the perils of left wing dissidence.” “The fact” is far from taking a “neutral view of socialist (political) competition” governments “do their level best to make it more difficult”. According to Miliband, some countries, such as Federal GErmany, Communist and other left-wing parties and organizations are suppressed altogether, and membership made a crime punishable by law. In the United States, left-wing organizations operate in conditions of harassment. Whereas in countries like France and italy, electoral manipulation is practiced with the purpose of robbing the Communist parties of their parliamentary representation; bias is also engineered by non-left parties in the mass media. With all these practical examples, Miliband thinks it is only logical to conclude that “governments…are deeply concerned, whatever their political coloration, that the democratic process should operate within a framework in which left-wing dissent plays as weak a role as possible”. All these instances, leads Miliband extrapolate that the State have “never been neutral”, and that governments as the  major embodiment of the State have for the most part used State-powers “on the conservative as agaisnt the anti-conservative side…in doing so…they have afforded a most precious element of protection to those classes and interests whose power and privileges socialist dissent is primarily intended to undermine and destroy.”

It is for all these reasons that Miliband comes to the ultimate conclusion that the democratic government, thus the nature of the State, in modern liberal democracies has largely been about unremittingly maintaining capitalism and serving capitalists interests, despite the potentiality that this may be against the interests and preferences of the constituents/society.

(To reiterate, he came to this conclusion by arguing that (1)the democratic government has always been occupied by a state-elite that is ‘capitalist’ in nature(i.e. their social origin/class), (2) this is not disproved by the fact that there are a multiplicity of political parties with different affiliations, which he argues are in fact all the same, as they have all accepted rather than rejected the ‘capitalist’ system; together this creates strong presumptions that that the governments have ideological dispositions that are pro-capitalists. (3) Even the actual and perceptible dispute and differences between political parties, are in essence quarrels over how to run and improve the same economic system, rather than challenge it; seen by the example of state-intervention which ‘actually’ benefits capitalism. (1,2,3)Together, there is thus/must be an unceasing  consensus over capitalism between all politicians. (5) This consensus must be possible because of existing ideological dispositions. Since, ideological dispositions exist, they will and must naturally, influence policy implications, specific governmental responses, actions and the perception of problems. As a result of the consensus which is highly indicative of the general existing dispositions, governments naturally will not act against capitalist interests in society or ever see capitalism as  a system a problem. (5) As a result of this consensus, as well as their dispositions,  and their inability to see/consider capitalism as a problem, governments do not feel that they are partial to capitalism or capitalistic interests at all. (6) Given their lack of challenge, their continuous acceptance of capitalism(rather than their perception of it as a problem) and their circle of relations which are established as being mostly businessmen/capitalist-class, governments may instead seek to promote capitalism and capitalistic interests; and see this as national interests. (7) All these considerations(1,2,3,4,5,6) point to the fact the democratic governments in western society have an obvious commitment towards maintaining and promoting capitalism and capitalistic interests, which is detrimental, as it means that the governments will not be able to identify and resolve many of the economic and the social problems that are associated with capitalism(9) Even when it appears, that governments have utilized State-powers against capitalistic interests, they were not in essence acting agaisnt capitalistic interests. In the example of State-intervention, it is utilized as a form of ransom to appease the despondent part of society to maintain capitalism; whereas in actual fact those that benefit most, are the capitalist class. (10) As a result of their evident ideological dispositions, democratic governments have never acted against the capitalistic interest but rather for them in various actual examples. Interesntingly, (8)Miliband does make a point justifying the democratic government’s commitment, by claiming that structural bias may arise with capitalism being an economic system of society, though he gives little weight to this consideration.)

The of  acceptance of Miliband’s representation of the Democratic State presents dire ramifications for one’s understanding of the State, firstly, if one were to accept Miliband’s representations, one would accept that: (a) the Democratic State is wholly incapable of acting against capitalism and capitalistic interests even when capitalistic interests are clearly against the functions of the Democratic State(i.e. serve the best interests/reflect the democratic-preferences of constituents- such as when the maintenance of capitalism is against the interest or preference of the constituents). Since, (b) the State in democratic society no longer holds true to its definitional functions(of being a centralized force that serves the interests of society and democracy); the existence of the State itself in democratic society, is no longer justified, instead it becomes a coercive and imposing force. The conventionally preached idea and justification for the State, as a general concept, becomes entirely morphed, adding to further confusion, to achieving an exact definition of the State. It is thus imperative to the study of the State itself, more specifically, the Democratic State that we evaluate the validity of Miliband’s representations. 

Critical Assessment of the Bourgeois Creature

When analyzed adequately, Miliband’s polemical representation of the State as some form of Bourgeois Creature falls apart. This is because the arguments made by Miliband does not fully support the absolutist and reductionist depiction he was attempting to construct. In fact, if we view certain points made by Miliband on the democratic governments of modern liberal democracies, we will see that his points equally fall within and sustain the definitional framework of the Democratic State we have established earlier in this discourse. The following chapter will be divided in two parts, I will firstly consider the cogency of Miliband’s arguments individually and chronologically(with the exception of aspects of several arguments and argument (10)); I will then present my a coherent picture of how Miliband’s argument can actually be reconciled within the definition of the Democratic State(along with the other arguments that have been deferred to this part).

Firstly, the argument that (1) that there exists a capitalists-State-elite is debatable. It is immediately, questionable whether all the State-elite that have come to occupy the democratic governments, in all western societies, can be properly classed as being capitalist or pro-capitalists. That is indeed a hard conclusion to subsume, as it would immediately displace all the empirical studies conducted on ‘political-pluralism’ throughout the centuries. Fortunately, if we actually consider Miliband’s argument it is incredibly contentious whether this is indeed true. First of all, the social class, the social origin and the social education of an individual does not necessarily bind an individual to a the particular ideological disposition and outlook of that social class. Indeed, in most cases, they are factors that are highly indicative of the potential ideological dispositions or outlooks of an individual on certain matters;  but the fact is that they are not conclusive. To argue that they are conclusive is to argue that one of the largest facts of life is that an individual has no control over his personal, ideological and cognitive development; and that an individual is inescapably determined by his environment. This is ofcourse not true, an individual’s outlook is constantly changing, and it is determined largely by other factors and are not limited to such. Thus, it is possible for an individuals who are born of the upper class, to profess socialist and anti-capitalist convictions; indeed many notable academics would come to mind(e.g. Freidrich Engels, the co-writer of the Manifesto, whose father was a rich factory owner). The recruitment process that favors, individuals from traditionally upper-class institutions such as Oxford or Cambridge, does not inevitably condemn individuals to process pro-capitalist ideologies; in fact many are indeed critical of such ideologies. The latter points made on the metamorphosis of the lower-classes through their accession in position is also challengeable, in the basic sense, that accession in ranks, does not guarantee in every case and point that lower-classed individuals will automatically adopt capitalistic interests. Furthermore,  assuming even that if certain political personnels are professedly capitalistic; it is hard to conclude that all other personnels that make up the state-elite share the exact same consensus of views to form a coherent disposition and outlook over certain manners, after all, it is now unknown that political life is fraught with endless disagreement and competition.  

Secondly,  the argument that (2) there is an extensive consensus between different political office-holders over capitalism is again debatable. The fact that this consensus is substantially deduced from a general lack of disagreement and challenge to capitalism as a foundation of society and the general wide-spread hostility to a socialist alternative is disputable. It is very unconvincing to hold that an overt lack of disagreement and challenge towards a certain subject-matter is wholly indicative that the subject-matter is genuinely accepted, favored and appreciated. An overt lack of action or behavior, whether political or personal, does not mean that there is no covert and actual feelings of resentment or dissatisfaction. Disagreement and challenge could be expressed in differing ways, particularly, in the political spheres, with the implementation of various subtle policies; rather than the mass implementation of blatant political policies. This would be particularly devastating, for the political party concerned, if the implementation was aimed at effectively at supplanting a system that has been part of society. Of course the inability to do so, is indicative of some existing factors in society, of which we will consider in the next chapter. For now, it is safe to say, that we can consider though we cannot conclude that a lack of disagreement illustrates true consensus, in the sense that all political officeholders, (particularly socialist parties) in most western liberal-democracies are the same and have accepted capitalism; unless, actual extensive research has been conducted on the actual views and policies of all these political parties and office-holders. Similarly, a hostility to socialist alternatives, is persuasive suggestion of a preference for capitalism; since both systems occupy the opposing ends of the spectrum of economic systems, but a hostility to socialism as an economic system might stem from a variety of reasons, not limited to an admiration or acceptance of capitalism; such as, for example, the social implications posed by economic ‘socialism’, amongst other endless possibilities. Again, under these considerations, it is questionable whether, we can conclude with the arguments adopted by Miliband, that all politicians are ‘bourgeois politicians’.

Thirdly, the (3) differences and disagreements that actually occurs in politics between different political office-holders and politicians alike are hugely underplayed by Miliband. Other than ‘State-intervention’, politicians are often engaged in heated debates about other aspects of governance and State-affairs; they may include certain policies, legislations, and decisions; that are all potentially hostile to capitalistic interests. For examples, debates about further socialization of aspects of society are often met with vehement opposition from conservative parties in most polities; similarly, debates over whether a State should commit to an international effort that could be potentially detrimental to the State’s economy. The differences are thus not limited to “state intervention”. Though it is also the point, that state-intervention does not only benefit capitalist interests, certain State-intervention, such as welfare and social services and provisions instituted by the State undoubtedly benefit a lot of individuals who are drawn largely from the lower-classes. It is interesting, that even though, Miliband spoke differences as being merely delusive, the only example he provided was that of ‘State-intervention’, despite the fact, that the differences between different politicians and political parties, is what ‘drives the waves of politics’. 

Fourthly, the (4) argument he makes about ideological-dispositions of all political office-holders is feeble, since it has been shown so far that the consensus which he holds as undeniable evidence is largely insubstantial. Even ignoring this consensus, for the purposes of analysis, in actuality democratic governments of various western liberal-democracies have often identified certain problems and sought to remedy certain problems associated with aspects of capitalism. For example, most western liberal-democratic-societies have realized the problems and dangers posed by unrestrained capitalism and have sought to remedy this through the introduction of State-regulation. Likewise, the social and economic problems posed by capitalism(and private ownership) have been acknowledged by the introduction of social and economic state-provisions: such as social housing, social pension, etc. Of course, when these instances are presented to Miliband, they would expectedly be challenged(as they have) as being the true identification and resolution of the problems inherent in capitalism, despite the fact that from a very practical viewpoint; they are indeed what they are intended to be. As might be expected, from a reading of Miliband’s overall argument, true identification would probably be the identification of capitalism as the exclusive problem with the resolution as being the overthrow of the system. With the exception of several polities, this has never really happened with modern western liberal-democratic-societies.Whether the reasons for this involve, partial and pro-capitalist ideological dispositions is questionable; it will be considered further in the next chapter. 

Fifthly, the (5) claim that politicians are unable to see the system for its guise is dubious in the sense that it is vastly similar to the point made in (4). To add, it is hard to hold as a resolute fact, that this is the case, given that political office-holders(particularly, socialists ones) are often elected for their ability to identify the certain problems posed by capitalism; along with the practice of employing certain experts(e.g. economic experts) to assist in policy planning, we cannot completely affirm that all politicians who succeed in democratic government in capitalistic systems are blind. The latter claims made, on the alleviation of the problems associated with capitalism within the system and the politician’s lack of expressed and experienced partiality, will be explored in turn in the next chapter.

Sixthly, Miliband’s claim in (6) is actually partly correct, though partly erroneous. It is partially correct in the sense that, it is logical and even predictable, to expect that a society which have accepted and assumed a specific economic-system, will strive to achieve economic-prosperity by fulfilling and proliferating the specific preconditions for such prosperity in the system itself. Therefore, if such an economic-system was based on a free-market and private-ownerships as a means of production; a government may be inclined to omit from interposing in the market, further, protect and grant the ownership rights to certain individuals. It is accurate to say that these actions, would not involve any degree of apparent class-partiality and may be desired since they are indeed properly tied to the pursuit of national-interests(properly national-economic-interests). Though, it does not mean that democratic governments will attempt to perpetuate capitalistic interests and satisfy all the preconditions of economic-prosperity obdurately to ridiculous ends. Contrary to this, there are certainly occasions, where democratic governments may actually act against economic-interests: such as those mentioned earlier, where the government has identified the ills associated with unregulated capitalism; similarly, where the pursuit of certain economic ventures would pose a threat to the environment, etc. Once more, to reckon that governments will act fervently and blindly for the pursuit of economics and the national interests in economic-prosperity would be a false characterization of governments, as they are actually more rational than they are given credit for. To assert that the circle of relations of political officeholders, are in most cases restricted to businessmen as opposed to trade union leaders is both an overstatement and an understatement. It is an overstatement in the sense, that in most western liberal-democratic societies, almost every individual is involved in some form of business, thus the term ‘businessmen’ is quite confusing. However, to assert that the latter is precluded is an understatement, in that many political office-holders(particularly, socialist-parties) do in fact hold some form of close-formal relationship with major union-leaders. Notwithstanding this, the close relations and friends of political office-holders do not necessarily mean that the government will naturally assist capitalistic interests in their governance of society(particularly, when duties of governance call for them to go agaisnt these interests).

Seventhly, in a similar vein to (4),  the belief that (7) the ‘commitment’ to capitalism entail the inability of governments to recognize and resolve the problems associated to capitalism is flimsy, on the basis that it is hard to prove that there has been an interminable  ‘commitment’ to capitalism, given that the government has identified and acted against capitalistic interests, in an attempt to remedy the faults arising from capitalism.(refer to arguments made on (4).)Unless, what is being referred to is recognition and resolution of capitalism as an entire economic system, which will be considered in the next chapter; it is accurate to say that governments have constantly modified capitalism and capitalist societies to improve its rationality. (Aside from the integral aspects of capitalism, many characteristics of capitalism/capitalist society have been modified that would unsurprisingly confound its early pioneers(particularly, the amount and extent of state-regulation and intervention today).

Eighthly, of all points made in the entirety of his argument in the text considered, it is this claim (8) that is potentially most reasonable and sensible. Namely, it is the idea that the structural constraints posed by capitalism as an underlying economic system in democratic society, that ensures that capitalistic interests will not be undermined. We have considered this to a degree on (6), and it is a far better alternative to the argument, that the ideological dispositions,that arise from class-origins produces, made throughout the text. It is submitted that it is indeed much more accurate to attribute any ‘partiality’ of the State to this ‘structural’ bias, and due to the ingenuity of this concept, it will be considered later in the next chapter in proper detail. For now, it is disappointing to highlight, that unfortunately this concept was did not play an important part in Miliband’s overall argument; where he later argues that the structural bias of the system can be emphasized to a greater or lesser degree; whereas it is the ideological dispositions that make governments accept any constraints placed upon them. 

Ninthly, the (9) State interventions and  impingement of capitalist interests is greatly controverted by Miliband. He professes that they serve capitalists interests, in a direct manner; where they actually benefit capitalists. The two examples, he employ are the welfare-state of such societies, of which largest beneficiary is allegedly the capitalists class, similarly where state’s intervene and publicly finance national projects to build roads, open highways and reclaim swamps , it ultimately alleged that it is first of all the owners of the neighboring lands who reap the rewards. Though, they are true, as it was earlier established on (3), these measures also benefit a multiplicity of actors and individuals in society, that are not necessarily part of the capitalist class; indeed welfare and social provisions(e.g. social housing) also benefit(perhaps even more) the lower-classes. His other allegation that these measures intervene in the sense that they acts as some form of ransom which maintains the legitimacy of capitalism, is an interesting point that is worth considering in the next chapter.

All things considered hitherto, it is seriously doubted whether the majority of Miliband’s arguments fully support his projected image of the Democratic State as being an iniquitous and coercive machinery that is commanded by a Capitalist elite. In his reasoning, Miliband has simply overlooked many aspects of democracy, the democratic government itself, the political process, polarized political forces and ultimately the nature of the State. Although, it may be true that the Democratic State may have, on many occasions, “benefited” capitalism, but as outlined above, this does not preclude the occasions in which it has postiveily acted against capitalism. Though, in general Miliband has not accepted these occurrences and has constructed the image of the partisan state, substantially based on “the fact” that these occurrences have not extend to the threshold of actually challenging and suggestively replaciun capitalism as a system at its core. Thus, suggestively(from his frequent mentions) what is being implied is that a State is only neutral and legitimate on the basis that it will consider and even successfully implement a socialist economic system as an alternative. Regardless, of whether we can really construct a Bourgeois Creature from the reasoning employed, is highly questionable, though it shall be proven in the following chapter that the Democratic States refusal to fundamentally challenge capitalism does not necessarily involve any class partiality, dispositions; rather, in total contrast to Miliband’s perception, their refusal is entirely legitimate.

The only persuasive and reasonable arguments made by Miliband involves certain instances in which the Democratic States have apparently utilized its monopoly of force to suppress any challenge to capitalism(10) and the observation, that perhaps, the bias of the State is structural. These views will now be considered, along with the other unexamined views above.

Concluding Analysis

The ultimate contention that remains to be resolved is whether the State can be legitimized in democratic society, given that (a) despite the rationality of the State(established in the previous chapter), the ‘observable fact’ remains the power has never been used to supplant or substantially alter Capitalism(i.e. fundamentally challenge it), this is problematic given that studies have shown that capitalism has been prone to create vast inequalities in society but even more so where,(b) when State-power has been used, it has been used (10) against non-capitalists class and crush-forces that are antagonistic to capitalistic interests, in seemingly every situation. Thus, it is claimed that the State appears no more than a Bourgeois Creature that seeks to maintain and perpetuate, capitalism at all cause. Agreeably, this may seem so, though, under a careful analyze of the relevant foundations of the State and society, it seems possible to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable behavior of the State, within the definitional framework of a legitimate Democratic State. 

This final analysis must begin with a recapitulation of the definitions of the State. A State is the term used to describe the ubiquitous existence of a body of different institutions(and indeed, personnels operating within them)in society that embodies and reflects a certain centrality of power over and above a territorially demarcated area, in which it exercises a monopoly of ‘administrative authority’ and a monopoly of ‘physical force’. Functionally speaking, it is an authorized centrality of power that serves the overall interests of society which lay in centralizing power, in all types of polities(whether democratic or not), these settled interests are: (individual-)security and (societal-)order. In democratic society, the existence of the State is potentially/partially contradictory to democracy itself and thus according to liberal-tradition, the State is authorized/legitimized by the additional functions of ‘realizing democratic preference’ and important democratic-ideals such as freedom(individual-autonomy), individual rights, self-determinacy(personal & political),etc.(; obviously along with the general functions of the State).( Such ideals are guarded and targeted by the Democratic State, largely because together the represent aspects of the idealized democratic society.) In this sense, several of the conflicts can actually be resolved, when studied carefully.

To begin with, as previously mentioned, the nature of capitalism is such that; it shares ideological common grounds with democracy itself; so much so that it has often been claimed to be most compatible with democracy(vice-versa), as a result, most liberal-democratic societies are economically capitalists ones. The reasons are understandable as aforementioned but expanding on it here; the concepts of “individual-freedom”(autonomy), “individual-rights” and “self-determinacy” which mark as some of the highest ideals of democracy, define the very nature of democracy/democratic society, analogously are also similar to the ideals of capitalism. In many ways, they are truly indistinguishable. Thus, the Democratic State’s fundamental acceptance and it’s opposition to any attempts to supplant capitalism(which is a system that embodies most if not all of these democratic ideals) or it’s fundamental aspects(which too are analogous) such as “the free market”, “private-ownerships” and “laissez-faire economics”  is understandable. It’s acceptance and protection of these principal aspects of capitalism is merely, related to the commitment of the Democratic State to protecting and realizing the democratic-ideals/interests in democratic society. This would partially, though to a very great extent, explain, why socialist alternatives are never considered(10); the economic principles and features of socialism as an economic system are entirely antagonistic to democratic ideals(primarily: “planned economy”, “state-ownership”, “collective-rights”.) Of course, it is imaginable and even clearly observable  from instances in history, that the State can actually assume socialism as an economic alternative to capitalism. It is not an impossibility, though such instances are often limited to States of socialist societies. Easily, such States would be able to overcome the democratic “constraints” and considerations involved, essentially because it would be a State that was not drawn from a society that was rooted in democratic thought; thus such ‘democratic’ ideals are violable and in fact they should and would inevitably be treated with upmost opposition. In a total contrast to our situation, it is not hard to foresee and actually see that in Socialist-States, ‘capitalists-parties’ and capitalism itself as an economic alternative would be met with total but equal hostility. 

The point that is being established here, is that ultimately, it should not be expected that a State of a democratic society will effortlessly eradicate an economic system that shares much similarity with the idea of democracy itself.  Needless, to say that eradication is not an impossibility, in fact there are two instances in which it could occur. Firstly, the majority preference of the democratic polity could change and choose to supplant, through the democratic process of which the State inevitably functions under, the capitalist system. In fact, this is largely, happening as aspects of capitalism are constantly being altered and “socialized”. Though, the extent to which there would be an overthrow of the entire system of capitalism, is questionable for a society rooted in democracy(in the sense that individuals are not willing to accept alternatives to democratic governance), since the both systems share incredibly analogous ideals. If this were to happen, we can effectively anticipate that fundamental changes are occurring in the political thought and nature of society; however, for most “democratic societies” today, this would be a near impossibility, given that democracy and these ideals have been revered by most constituents. 

Secondly, in total contrast, the State could effectively supplant any societally-favored economic system(against the preferences of society) or in fact impose certain societal-standards upon society; it could do so indefensibly under the direction of the despotic elite(s), though such States are in essence illegitimate and are maintained under a regime of fear and repression. Thus, if the State in democratic state were to really supplant capitalism under the impulsive and bold directions of  Socialist elites which came into power as Miliband would have it; ultimately ‘that’ State would constitute more of an unjustified force in society than the current socialist parties that are willing to “work the system”Viewed in this light, when the Democratic States act to remedy specific aspects of the capitalist system, they are indeed acting in the long term of the system; it highlights the constituent’s prime acceptance of the system, and their minor recognition that there are indeed problems associated with unregulated capitalism/democracy. Most importantly, it highlights that State’s fullfillment of their role in democratic society,  the fact that succeeding governments have accepted capitalism in the sense, Miliband suggested, is a good sign, as it indicates that all governments are similar to the extent that they recognize the democratic ideals of “individual-autonomy”, “individual-rights” and “self-determinacy” as inviolable truths, but similarly at the same time, they are aware of the problems associated with unregulated ‘freedom’; and thus politicians are individuals with ingenius but different ways of solving the issue without encroaching on the essence of democracy.

However, despite the claims made of how the Democratic State adheres to its democratic functions and its ‘ideals, the behavior that Miliband has pointed out (10) where the State has resorted to forcibly crushing disputes in industrial relations and denying the political socialist may completely rebut any rational understanding of the State as being impartial and a democratically justifiable/understandable.Once more, when we glimpse past the superficial face-value of these acts and attempt to understand them in context we will see that the acts are far from being irrational and illicit. 

The maintenance of security(to the individual) and order(in civil society) are undoubtedly the alleged twin foundations of all types of States in all types of society. In accordance with various State theorists, the origin and the creation of the State in almost all civil society lay in the sole capability of State in achieving security and order for society. Indeed, it was deeply embedded in classical liberal thought, that a stateless society was one where, life was naturally “poor, nasty, brutish and short”. The reason being that in the stateless society, power was formerly gathered in the individual, to the extent that each individual had his own monopoly over his own power and physical force, to safeguard his own interests and pursue his own “objectives”. Since, undoubtedly, every individual is different, often possessing and pursuing conflicting interests/objectives; life was inevitably in a state of chaos and conflict. The creation of the State, where power was transferred and concentrated in its institutions, was seen as a necessary means of ensuring that society remains civil/orderly and that the individual can be safe from the unpredictability that came when each individual were able to apply “justice” and pursue after his interests where he saw fit. Other variants of the theory which existed, were similar to the extent that a central authority in society guaranteed much more security and order. Thus, one of the central functions of the State and indeed governance itself, has always been ensuring the security and order of society. 

 It is for these reasons, that the State will naturally act to forcibly end strikes. The reason being that normally strikes are often seen as being an usurpation to order. Though not all most are violent in nature,  in the sense that they are often physical  (where they are not violent, when left unregulated have the potential to become violent and cause civil unrest) but regardless the nature and effectiveness of industrial strikes lies in the fact that they can effectively disrupt the order/functioning of society(in the worker’s context, they immediately disrupt working-relations and important services/sectors operating in society: e.g. when certain employees occupying important sectors decide to strike and furthermore). Similarly, active demonstrations may effectively be a nuisance and disturbance to the peace enjoyed by others who do not share the activist-passion of the strikers.  The intervention of the State here, is thus required and evoked by its natural functions of keeping order. Indeed, it is hard to say whether repressing these strikes instigated by the workers, which is obviously at a detriment to workers  is at a detriment to all members of the society. In fact the very instigation of the strike itself may be detrimental to many members of society, particularly in the context of industrial-relations(e.g. where transportation-workers go on strike and halt public-transportation services). It is no wonder, although there is an evident political consensus held by trade-unions, this consensus is not shared by a majority of the public; where it is, it has been elected by preference, with the voting into power of socialists and labour political parties. Though, in general, the consensus is lacking.

This raises the next issue, in which it is claimed that true socialists, communists and militant-left parties are entirely excluded from the political process. This finding is both true and false . It is false in the sense, that there are a variety of socialists parties in many modern-western liberal-democracies and they have come to power occasionally with sweeping reforms. Though,  it is true in the sense that many genuine communists and militant left parties have indeed been excluded from the political life of many democratic societies. However, their exclusion from the political process, is often limited but where they are excluded, it is understandable in sense that the State might have been motivated and legitimized by the maintenance of security. This is a sensitive issue, particularly when the communist and the militant left, have often proudly professed on the dissolution of the State, as their major objective and the radical alteration of fundamental aspects of society.  It is for these reasons indeed, that other extremists and uncompromising parties such as fascists parties have also been excluded in most political processes, due to the fact that the threat they pose to society as a whole outweigh the rhetorical benefits they claim. It is also for these reasons, that support for these parties are also lacking in general.

Unavoidably, the points made here might lead one to conclude that the maintenance of these functions: order and security, inevitably benefits capitalism/capitalistic interests; since it seems to secure it rather than challenge it. This is not true, for the Democratic States can and will also act against capitalism and capitalistic interests in order to maintain order and security. It will do so, perhaps in instances as mentioned by Miliband, where there is uncontrollable industrial unrest and actual “ransoms” have to be made in the form of policies that may be detrimental to the system. Though most particularly, where the particular State responds to international threats from other States. For example in outright international conflicts that genuinely threaten the national security, (i.e. wars, e.g. Second World War), which have proven to be  financially draining for the capitalist economy of the State involved.

Whether one accepts these arguments outlined above does not really matter, for ultimately doubts are raised over Miliband’s major conceptions of the State as being unjustifiably and rigidly committed to capitalism; particularly, his view that this commitment is based on the ideological dispositions of a certain Capitalist state-elite that occupy the State. 

In total contrast, as it is submitted in this discourse, it is suggested that the State is not unjustifiably committed to capitalism and that the apparent commitment is based  on the Democratic State’s official commitment to the performance of its functions:- most particularly, its commitment to its democratic functions. It is purely, because the State is raised over a democratic-society, and the attachment of this particular type-of-society with the economic system of capitalism, that makes the State predominantly incapable of fundamentally challenging the system(8); rather committed to improving it and ensuring its longevity. Thus to really expect that the State to act against capitalism, and assume an alternative, lets say socialism, an attempt will have to be made to attack the very foundations of democratic society itself rather than the State. For the State, is often reflective of the society that it is based in. Particularly in the context of modern-western Liberal-democratic-societies, a very strong attempt will have to be made to convince the constituents of society to surrender and discard certain democratic principles and ideals that they have come to hold as natural preconditions to basic human life(specifically, those that are closely associated with capitalistic-ideals).