Who is the state for? What is the state for?

Originally, back in Anglo-Saxon times in the case of England, I guess that the state grew in response to a need on the part of already powerful individuals to consolidate and project their power. These individuals were backed by ancient, originally tribal tradition, and the increasingly prevalent and powerful dogma of the Church, which endowed the powerful with divine right and divine protection. The growth of Christianity also brought with it a debate about the responsibilities of the powerful towards the weak. The majority of the inhabitants, however, were never consulted: they were regarded more or less as the property of the powerful, and their responsibility to obey their masters was backed with the overwhelming use of force by the powerful, backed by the Church. This was the way at that time. I would say, though, that there were benefits for the majority in the parallel development of a state-sponsored legal system, to some extent influenced by Christian ideals, and the (imperfect) protection this provided against some feudal excesses.

Over the ages, the state became more powerful, and the position of the powerless hardly improved. Most people had no option but to obey, often to sacrifice life and limb for a state whose interests were largely foreign to their own. Most of the time, however, it was preferable to live under a system of law rather than under anarchy, and the people colluded in their own subjection to a great degree.

The Enlightenment should have put paid to the divine right of princes. But the Enlightenment took only partial effect. Most people are unable to enjoy the luxury of living rationally. And reason, in any case, was largely arbitrated by the ruling elite. The power of the state was always there to quell any demand on the part of the majority for a degree of rational equity. A kind of democracy grew in England with the expansion of the franchise. But I would argue that the power of parliaments had always been slight; they had always been packed by the powerful, and, as the franchise expanded, any real power withdrew from elected bodies, and remained in the hands of those who had always ruled, joined by a growing class of those who had become wealthy on the back of industrialization. This is not to say that sometimes, as in 1945 in the United Kingdom, the interests of the majority were not temporarily advanced. But the voice of the powerful, which now enjoys a near-monopoly of the means of mass communication, soon made itself heard, and those advances have progressively been repulsed. Now, democracy is more or less flouted by governments, with an electorate that, disillusioned by its powerlessness to change anything profoundly and effectively, and by the corruption of some politicians, has to a great extent become voluntarily disenfranchised. And, of course, the media always trumpets corruption: it undermines a democracy that the owners of the media do not want, as they themselves are profoundly involved in the exercise of power and the consolidation of the privilege that accompanies wealth and power.

So I would say that the state as at present established is for a powerful elite, as it always has been. It could be somewhat less so, with reforms to the system of election, the financing of political parties, the protection of alternative centres of power such as the trade unions, etc. It is possible for a modern state to operate bearably for the majority of people. It has even happened for periods, even in Europe and on the American continent. But the celebration of unequal wealth, and the subjection of the population to the unregulated power of markets, which comes with the celebration and protection of unequal wealth, has entrenched the power of an unanswerable elite.

And what is the state for? The only defensible answer, I would say, is that it should be for the material, social, and psychological welfare of its population as a whole. We live by a market system, and I don’t see any realistic alternative to that. So there will always be inequalities of wealth. But those inequalities, and the power that goes with them, have to be moderated. A progressive system of taxation of incomes and wealth would appear to be the best way to achieve that, especially if it means that an effective ceiling is imposed on the accumulation of wealth and power. We have to demand that our politicians advance that project - and stop demonizing the powerless, or conniving in their demonization. In the meantime, it means that we must exercise what democratic power we have, and cherish what sparks of democracy still exist.

This is a woefully incomplete, and perhaps highly personal overview of the situation of the state. Many will disagree profoundly, and I would ask them only to respond honestly and rationally. I am no economist, but then economics has always been more a kind of religion than a science, so I don’t apologize.