Social Democracy and the Balance of Political Power

Under capitalism, the objective political conditions at any moment in time are the sum of the balance of power between the capitalist ruling class and the working class. 

The entire economy, and the political system from which it sprouts, is put into motion by the circulation of capital. The capitalist, seeking to increase their share of the total capital within the economy, buys commodities in order to make more commodities. Specifically, the capitalist buys raw materials, factories, equipment, etc. — which we call ‘constant capital’ due to its tendency to be consumed at a constant rate. This inert, mostly immobile constant capital is brought to life by labor power — variable capital which is consumed at a variable rate — which the capitalist also purchases. The combination of these two types of commodities results in a third, the products which stock our store shelves and are sold to businesses or consumers. The economy then, is simply the movement of investment capital with the aim of increasing commodity production, to in turn increase investment capital.

In practice however, the flow of capital cannot be the sole determinant of wages, investments, or production. The flow of capital is constrained by the limitations of labor-power. Put another way – the direction of investment capital is constrained by the limitations of variable (and constant) capital – this becomes almost a tautology. Commodity production is, of course, the application of variable capital to constant capital.

However, the economic becomes political because variable capital is determined by more than just physical realities – i.e. how much a worker can lift, how many hours they can remain awake, etc. The internal motivation of the worker – their opinions about wages, treatment, tasks – is also a constraint on what workers will and won’t do. Labor-power is therefore a commodity which has its own point of view. 

All policies which are of interest to the bourgeoisie – imperialist assaults on countries in the global south, dismantling the social safety net, terrorism against migrant workers, high rents, low wages – are limited by the willingness of labor-power to enact or tolerate those policies. On any political matter of significance, the interests and objective power of the bourgeoisie is balanced against the interests and objective power of the working class. The sum total of this balance of power determines the objective political conditions at any given moment in time.

Politicians within the bourgeois political system enact policy within, and only within, objective political conditions. In order to carry out an agenda, politicians and political administrators must put into motion funds, the monopoly on violence, and/or labor-power. Policy is therefore determined not by politicians but by the needs of capital flow moderated by the objective balance of power.

Any policy enacted for the betterment of the working class is the result of a tilt in this balance towards the workers. Strikes, civil unrest, and other forms of class struggle alter the balance and change the sum total of policy. Legislation follows which (temporarily) codifies these changes. Elected officials pay you in your own coin and call it progress. 

Democratic socialism – the attempt to implement workers control via institutions of bourgeois democracy – is consequently a form of elaborate theater. It is the performance of the struggle between capital and labor without being the thing itself. Not only is the combat an elaborate ritual, but as in the case of theater, this ritualized combat takes place on a platform which is also a construction – a stage which is safely removed from the arena of actual political struggle. 

The democratic socialists know this – and we should cease insulting ourselves by extending excessive credulity – and, as a consequence, must be motivated primarily by the preservation of the status quo (and perhaps in small part to quiet the conscience). The sheer quantities of funds required to win high office by necessity guarantees favorable relations with the bourgeoisie. Countless meetings attended, assurances given, bureaucracy negotiated, and favors granted, mark the roadposts between political obscurity and electoral victory. 

The democratic socialists, through the process of coming into “power”, and through the exercise thereof – which creates and recreates bourgeois political theater, are thereby married to capital and carry out its interests.

What does capital gain in the bargain?

This is where we return to the internal motivation of labor. Labor power, as the only commodity which possesses self-awareness, inevitably exercises its will over the course of production (economic or political). The question then becomes where and how this will be expressed. If the will of the proletariat is expressed on the shop floor, the result would be the immediate cardiac arrest of capital circulation. A death-sentence for the bourgeoisie. But if expressed through the theater of bourgeois elections and administration, the will of the proletariat is safely quarantined, the circulation of capital flows uninterrupted and the apparatus of imperial violence functions without friction.   

This is what the bourgeoisie gains from the democratic socialists – at least in times of acute crisis. Democratic socialists are no different from motor oil lubricating the gears of a conveyor belt. They are the means by which recalcitrant variable capital is put into motion by the bourgeoisie.

The Mamdanis (or Sanders, or Acasio-Cortezs, or Corbins) will do nothing to change the material conditions of the working class because (1) they can’t and (2) they don’t want to. The objective of their relationship with the working class is, and always has been, to confuse, mislead, and above all, to drive it back into a state of productivity in service to capital.