From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 12:42:17 EST
Thanks Jerry for your helpful insights. I am also interested in other people´s opinions even though yours was sufficient to accupy someone for a decade. Paulo "Gerald A. Levy" wrote: > 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