In order to confirm what we finished explaining, about the clasista nature of the DD.HH., not only coarse with distinguishing between dominant the material or economic base and its corresponding superstructure, ideological and political; also it is necessary to distinguish between his respective agents: the bourgeois and the state bureaucrat, including the judges. We said that in the capitalist society the freedom of the patterns prevails. The state bureaucrat represents this freedom of the bourgeoisie as a whole the interior of the capitalist apparatus of State. Its fundamental functionality consists of putting the ideology and the state policy to the service of the general interests of the capitalist class.

Unlike the societies that preceded to him, under Capitalism the State remains separated of the civil society. The bureaucrat like so, acts within the State; he lives on him and for him. This way, for the bureaucrat, the State becomes an aim in itself.

But the political action not only has a content of general class. Also it is the expression of the particular interests that are dissolved in the civil society, where each sector of capitalist class - at level of enterprise and even individual groups they try to make prevail the his own ones. And since of the state institutions the laws of economic and social content emanate, as well as budgetary, fiscal, monetary, customs the policy, etc., etc., are inevitable that the interbourgeois fight is transferred to the interior of the institutions of the capitalist State, where each social group tries to make prevail its convenience. This implies the bureaucrat, ties it with the civil society, the particular interests that are dissolved there. The bureaucrat is, then, the bond between the civil society and the State, between the particular interests of each sector dela bourgeoisie and the general interests or of the bourgeoisie like class.

This bond, whereas fomalmente politician but of economic and mercantile content essentially, turns out to be necessarily contradictory. Like state civil employee, the bureaucrat formally represents the general interests of the bourgeoisie in front of the civil society. But in as much and whatever the essential content of which the bureaucrat represents formally is of economic-mercantile character and, therefore, individual and deprived, the bureaucrat tends to turn its function thing of its property particular and, therefore, negotiable, alienable, object of mercantile contraprestación. Although he must be a faithful servant of each particular bourgeois in his relation with the State, at the same time, the bureaucrat tends to use as certain particular bourgeois for his own personal aims by virtue of the political monopoly of his political-bureaucratic function. In this aspect, the bureaucrat collides with the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole, conforming an antagonistic contradiction even though in last conciliateable instance.

< <... the bureaucracy is considered to itself like the absolutely last aim of the State; and since it turns its "formal" objectives (its functionality) its own content, constantly it hits the real objectives (to serve the bourgeoisie) (...) the objective of the State becomes its own objective, in a hunting of higher positions, in making race > > (K.Marx: "Critical of the hegeliana philosophy of the state right ". Mentioned of Irving Fetscher : "the marxism: its document history ". Between parenthesis he is ours)

This tendency of the bureaucrat to make of the capitalist State own thing by virtue of its position, by effect of the generalization of the mercantile relations turns its functionality merchandise and to the bourgeois clients. One of those forms of clientelism is the bribe in the executive authority, the bribe in the legislative power and the prevarication in the judicial power of the "democracy". However, this function of the bureaucrat is independent of the government forms who adopt the State, but he is accentuated sensibly under the dictatorships.

The word bonapartismo was invented by Marx to explain the outcome of a political situation in which no sector of the bourgeoisie is able to prevail over the others to maintain in balance the relations of dominion of the set of the dominant classes on the set of the subordinate classes. In those cases, the bourgeoisie in block decides to yield the government to the reserve of being able of last instance: the army. It is here where the political superstructure reaches the greater degree of relative independence respect to the material base of the system under the way of capitalist production. And it is here where the tendency of the state bureaucrat to turn the bourgeois State own thing offers the greater possibilities and with greater impunity, to the time that tense in extreme degree the relation between the state bureaucrat and the particular bourgeois (returning it more onerous for this one), and between the particular interests of the totalitarian bureaucracy and the general interest of the bourgeoisie as a whole.

After its defeat, when saying that "the bayonets can be used for any thing less to seat on them" Napoleón Bonaparte recognized what the Marx and Engels affirmed of the bonapartismo in "the Sagrada Family":

<<... Napoleón continued considering the State as an aim in itself and saw in the bourgeois life only a treasurer and a sobordinate his, that it did not have right to have an own will. And it implement the terrorism , when replacing the permanent revolution by the permanent war. It over and over again satisfied the egoísmo with the French nationality, but it also demanded the sacrifice of the businesses, the benefit, the wealth, etc. of the bourgeoisie, whenever it was necessary to reach the political purposes of the conquest. The political idealismo of its daily practice very despotically did not repress the liberalism of the society bourgeoisie - but without worrying already either about its more substantial material interests, of the commerce, nor of the industry, when these entered collision with their political interests. ( K.Marx-F.Engels: Op.cit.)

More than one hundred years after these facts, during a series of interviews granted at the beginning of 1932 to at that time prestigious German journalist Emil Ludwig, Mussolini accurately defined the profiles of its government:

< < the facist State directs and controls to the patronos, from the fishing to the heavy industry in the Valley of Aosta (...) the capital is not a God, is an instrument > >. (Emil Ludwig: "Conversations with Mussolini")

The other way around of which it happens with the "democracy" in the stage of delayed Capitalism, the dictatorship supposes one produnda political interference of the totalitarian State in the civil society and of the bureaucrat in the life of the bourgeois; as much more despotic accusing at the most is the dictatorship. In order to fight the idea that the marxism is an economic determinism, the Marx and Engels have insisted on which political and economy they are in permanent dialectic interaction, and even though in history the economic factor is the determinant of last instance, are even moments at which the political superstructure can reach certain relative autonomy respect to the economic base of the system. Then, the military Dictatorships and more or less bonapartistas "the democratic" regimes give test of this autonomy and, according to the circumstances, they can take it of its historical posiblilidades to the maximum.

As it shows Berlanga to it in "the national gun" is of general knowledge that under the dictatorship of Franc, the Spanish bourgeoisie had to pass through the box of the pro-Franco bureaucracy in each transaction with the State and other antingentes administrative questions to its businesses. But the great majority of those cases of corruption, never was known nor was investigation object and sentences for justice. One of the main objects of litigation and negotiation between the calls "factual powers of the Francoism" and the oligarchy of parties that happened to him to the front of the Spanish State, consisted indeed of this capacity of the totalitarian bureaucracy to turn to the bourgeois civil society client forced of the State, fixing the conditions of their relation with any fraction of the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, it is necessary to need here something whose knowledge is very little extended, and is that, by virtue of that relative autonomy of the state apparatus respect to the civil society, the fascismo repressed to the working class to reduce the effect of its fights to the minimum organizational expression. And it did it under the determining imperative economic to preserve the freedom of operation of the capitalists, is to say of his general interests like class. But in exchange for the that most essential function, regimentó that freedom, put political conditions to him. The key of the defeat of nazism and the fascismo, like before the one of the First French Empire, was in the lack of freedom that the international bourgeoisie did not tolerate to him to the bureaucracy of Hitler and Mussolini, as before either it did not get to him to tolerate to Napoleón. This he has been the spirit who presided over the judgments of Neürenber after World War II. The others, continue being small mirrors of colors in the typically bourgeois art to change a thing by another one.

Certain it is that in its imperialistic stage, Capitalism takes implicit the tendency to the totalitarización of the economic power. But this does not mean that the system as a whole agrees with her, but who repels it historically. Like all the things of this world, Capitalism is a contradictory reality. The centralization of the economic decisions tends to the cancellation of the competition and the parasitism, which slows down the development of the productive forces. In such conditions the rate of the accumulation and the metabolism of the capital are enlentecen and the increase of the plusvalor still diminishes more threatening causing the collapse of the system. But, on the other hand, the low tendencial of the rate of gain that accompanies the intermittent and spasmodic process by the accumulation, it causes and it stimulates the intercapitalist competition between the great already existing capitals and the medium ones and small that are gotten up to the market, specially during the depresivas phases of each cycle: