The Doctrine of the Neutral State
The Doctrine of the Neutral State
Appeals to a “just” state are based on the idea that the bourgeois state is just a blank sheet of paper that must be described by those in power – this is false.
Why the bourgeois state needs inequality both internally and externally to continue functioning, and why social injustice can never be solved through “better” politics within this state.
Reminder: The words highlighted in red are links leading to corresponding critique articles.
We also recommend the following articles on the topic of the bourgeois state:
“The God of Bourgeoisie” – About “the market” and the logic of recurring crises.
“The Basic Law; Property and Democracy” – 75 years of Basic Law, 200 years of the same structures.
“Hegemony in Crisis” – About the response of the bourgeois state to the contradiction between the people and authority.
In Germany, there are around 3.6 million self-employed people, of whom nearly 10 percent are pseudo-self-employed – which amounts to 4.5% of the total German population.
Beyond these self-employed, there are layers within the working population where one could argue that they may not own means of production themselves but exist in a buffer zone between the two main classes through management roles, etc.
On the other end of this gray area are petty bourgeois self-employed; small shop owners, storekeepers, market stall holders, booksellers, and others who are often subject to the machinations of large capitalists within impoverished and family-based contexts, but who are not workers themselves since they do not sell their labor directly.
The remaining 90% are workers and the poor.
About 46 million working people live here, along with 19 million retirees.
Approximately 3 million are unemployed, half of whom are quite clearly poor.
In total, around 18 million people in Germany are threatened by poverty or social exclusion, with about 29% living in “poverty or extreme poverty.”
These active workers possess about 3% of the total wealth, another 20% own no wealth at all, and 9% have negative wealth, meaning they are in debt to those who hold 97% of the total wealth.
Well, Germany has a growing wealth inequality, which is among the highest in Europe—the gap between rich and poor—this is no surprise.
There are many measures and instruments that could improve the lives of workers and the poor here.
Obvious ones, like increasing the minimum wage, which would at least minimally improve the standard of living for about 7 million people in Germany—that is, one-fifth of all employed.
A wealth tax, which according to the Hans Böckler Foundation “could generate ten to twenty billion euros annually,” and whose revenue could be used for social purposes.
With that revenue, one could fund a basic unconditional income of a few hundred euros, or even a few thousand euros if tied to certain income brackets.
The State as a Blank Sheet of Paper
“The more fairly income is distributed, the less correction is needed through tax policy. For this, the SPD will work hand in hand with the trade unions.”
The fact that income distribution in Germany, like in any other bourgeois state, is unfair, is recognized even by the SPD, at least in their programmatic stance.
For left-liberal forces, it is clear that the state theoretically has the power to mitigate or eliminate inequality and its consequences in Germany.
The state is the comprehensive institution where offices, authorities, fiscal policy, and taxes come together, thus allowing control over these aspects.
In short; the state, with its tasks, is a blank sheet of paper that can be labeled in various ways.
“The state must ensure diverse property structures and promote fair distribution” (the Greens)
But there is a fundamental misunderstanding here; the state may need to act, but it cannot.
Contrary to bourgeois ideas, the state is not a neutral instrument that politics can influence in any way.
The state is not something that simply exists and waits for instructions from the current government, acting on behalf of bourgeois democracy.
The task of the state is solely to secure the interests of German and allied capital.
This is not just rhetoric; it is reality.
Why does the bourgeois state measure its success by gross domestic product (GDP)? What does that have to do with 90% of the people in Germany?
The total value of goods and services is irrelevant to the living conditions of the people in this country, at least for the working class.
Some might say that the social budget also depends on taxes, subsidies, and economic cycles— but why? What is the actual connection here?
The bourgeois understanding of the state and its functions suggests that if Germany does well, the people in Germany do well.
But there is no exchange rate between GDP and living standards—quite the opposite.
Since the 1970s, Germany’s labor productivity level has diverged from workers’ income; that is, Germany’s productivity (measured by GDP) increases, while real wages stagnate.
The conclusion is not that “bad policies” have been implemented since the 1970s, but that a high standard of living—or one that matches productivity—is not in this state’s interest.
Important: This state, not the rulers.
The rulers are the ones who convey the interests of the state, i.e., of the accumulated capitalists and property owners, to the population, not the other way around.
Inequality as a Necessity
The state needs the relative poverty of large parts of the population because who else would do the work needed by corporations to maximize profits and thereby increase GDP.
A society where wages increase evenly with productivity would not be a functioning capitalism.
The reproduction of labor power only works if wage workers are compelled to sell their labor power in sufficient quantities to maintain or improve a relative standard of living.
If wages had grown relatively with productivity since the 1970s—who would be at the checkout? On the assembly line? Who would sit in offices or behind counters earning minimum wage?
The euphemism “Germany as a capital location” also means that wage earners here are still willing to sell their labor at prices profitable for each company.
It is completely against the interests of the bourgeois state to invest against inequalities and injustices, because without these inequalities it would not be able to perform its role as guardian of capital.
Of course, bourgeois politics influence where investments are made, but always within the context of the state’s wishes.
Because if a party acts entirely against these interests, it ceases to exist.
“Parties participate in the political shaping of the people’s will. Their formation is free. (…) Parties that aim, according to their goals or the behavior of their supporters, to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order or threaten the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany are unconstitutional.” (Art. 21 (1,2))
Thus, German citizens are free to choose from a pool of parties that the state has previously “cleansed” for them.
Just a reminder: Even the DKP (German Communist Party) is only allowed because, according to the Constitutional Court, it is not “important enough.”
So if someone is truly dissatisfied with this state, they have no serious electoral alternative (!), which seeks a non-bourgeois system—if there were such a thing, it would be banned under Article 21.
The push for higher social spending is obviously progressive because it is based on the recognition that things are unjust.
Supporting a “more just” bourgeois state in the sense of agitation is not wrong per se, but at its core, the argument is not genuinely correct.
Moreover, advocating for a just bourgeois state forgets the vast majority of people who work and suffer for the preservation of this state in the interests of German imperialism.
Thus, the call for a “more just” state is completely disconnected from the immense suffering that, even through this concept of justice (less inequality, etc.), remains unchanged.
Suppose this idea of a just bourgeois state were possible (which it isn’t, see above)—what difference would it make for people in the Global South, who continue to suffer for the interests of German capital?
The relative suffering of many workers and the poor in Germany is nothing more than a crumb compared to the suffering of parts of the world’s population that are truly exploited and sacrificed for capitalist expansion from Germany.
The welfare state and its improvement are tactics for maintaining social peace.
Even if the situation of workers in Germany were to reach complete prosperity, it would not change the plight of workers and poor elsewhere—because German capital, like any other developed capital, primarily draws resources from other countries to maximize profits.
Quite the opposite; if German capital truly allowed the prosperity of workers here (which it does not, see above), it would be directly related to increased aggressiveness abroad, forcing it to relocate the missing workforce abroad.
Child laborers in Congo don’t benefit from the German welfare state when they mine lithium and cobalt for VW’s electric cars.
What do workers in Latin America gain from the German welfare state when they pick coffee, cocoa, and bananas for German supermarket chains?
And what do workers in Pakistan and Bangladesh gain when sewing T-shirts for German textile monopolies?
The standard of living of people in Germany is intolerable when you look at the development of productivity levels.
But the answer isn’t to advocate for improvements outside agitation for a better bourgeois welfare state—because the suffering caused by capitalism is global.
The answer, as often, is Socialism.