From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 10:23:51 EST
Hi Paolo. > To keep it simple consider the question of Taxes/unproductive classes. > This is in itself a whole field of analysis. I guess here Marx is > referring to the unproductive classes employed by the state, i.e., the > army, the legislators, the judges, the civil servants. What seems > interesting to me is that Taxes as far as the unproductive classes > are concerned is a subject matter that is independent of the type > of government that happens to exist: as long as it maintains the > social relations as they are the state has to gather funds to pay for > the government dependent individuals. This presents both a mutual dependence of the state-employed 'unproductive classes' and capitalists and a potential conflict in class interests between the the 'unproductive classes' who are paid out of state revenues and the capitalists who are levied taxes. [E.g. If there is a 'tendency for the "unproductive classes" to increase' (which could, in part, be seen as a dynamic associated with the growth of bureaucracy) and this leads to additional taxation and state borrowing, then the rate of accumulation could be adversely affected by a "crowding-out effect". What's wrong with this reasoning?] > In asking about the relationship between the state and the economy I > had in mind relations that are independent of whether the government > is a committee of the bourgeoisie or whether the government is of the > Bonapartist type. A theory of the state under capitalism, which is part of a larger theory of capitalism, must be general enough that it is able to grasp the forms of government independent of the specific forms that government takes within individual social formations during particular historical periods. The latter would need to be conceptualized at the more concrete level of abstraction where there are conjunctural and class studies. > If we look at the way Marx orders the contents of what was supposed > to be the book on the state it seems that he has in mind these economic > relations. The emphasis appears to be on economic relations, but any non-economic relations which are essential to the grasp of the subject matter need to be explained. E.g. bureaucracy, power, and prestige are not strictly or exclusively economic relations. > You refer to the state as the state-form. Does that come from the Critique > of Hegel? I hadn't been thinking of Marx's critique of Hegel when I wrote the 'state- form'. I don't want to be evasive but I think the discussion might be better if instead of answering your question we *ask* others on the list -- what is the meaning of 'state-form'? Is it synonymous with 'The State' or does it express some other concept and reality? > I was also curious to know what Marx meant by the > "Encroachment of bourgeois society on the State". I interpret this to mean the "encroachment of Civil Society on the State". This leads me to *ask* whether Civil Society "encroaches" on The State? If so, how? What are some examples historically of this 'tendency'? If not, why not? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 00:00:01 EST