I wrote:>>I agree with her [Ellen Meiskins (sp?) Wood] on this one. In fact, it's what I think of as the orthodox Marxist position. Under feudalism and other pre-capitalist modes of production (and post-capitalist ones like USSR-type systems), the state is not separated from "the economy." The feudal lord is not only one's political boss, but one's economic boss (and so-called "non-economic" means are used to extort one's surplus-labor). With the rise of capitalism, we see the separation out of a separate "state" sector which monopolizes the use of violence (or gives license to individuals to use violence) and leaves the "private" capitalists as being mostly non-violent in their methods.<<
>CB: One orthodox version of Marxism theorizes a special and somewhat separate institution of repression, standing bodies of armed men specializing outside of production, from the beginning of class exploitative society. The knightly class was something of this in feudalism. In this scheme the state's purpose is to protect the private property of the ruling class, and in that sense the state and the "economy" are united.< Under high feudalism, there wasn't "private property of the ruling class" in that they couldn't sell their fiefs (just like the Queen of England can't sell her country). I guess you could say it was collective property of the self-styled "lords," but it wasn't "private" property. Private property rights involve not only keeping other people from using your possession, but also the ability to sell it. The fact that the knighly class was "something of this" goes with what I said: these "worthies" -- I think of them as thugs -- were not specialized in soldiering or policing but most also had their own fiefs (sub-fiefs of their masters). The feudal era lacked a _centralized_ state apparatus. Its rise -- coinciding with the Absolutist period -- was the flip-side of the decline of feudalism as a social formation. >Maybe here it is said that the "separation" of the state from the bourgeoisie is in part a bourgeois self-congratulatory myth of laissez-faire and libertarianism. The bourgeoisie, as a exploiting ruling class cannot get on without monopoly of the special repressive apparatus. This is a sine qua non of a ruling class. The primitive accumulation of capitalism could not have been carried out without enormous state repression in Europe, and repression by sailor-soldiers from boats and colonial settlements all around the world.< Right. it's only "business as usual" capitalism which allows individual capitalists to focus on non-violent activities. During the establishment of capitalism -- primitive accumulation -- the state vs. economy (violent means vs. trading & producing) distinction was still pretty weak. It also becomes weak when lawnorder breaks down. The "bourgeois self-congratulatory myth" has a material basis, i.e., the existence of a centralized state which allows the capitalists to focus on non-violent activities (exchange, production). But in a larger perspective, it is a myth, in that they are totally dependent on the state's coercive power for their livelihood, their ability to get workers to produce surplus-value and their ability to appropriate it. >On the other hand, within another orthodox version, there is recognition that in the history of capitalism there may be even more integration between the state and the bourgeoisie with the rise of monopoly capitaism with an increase of state-monopoly processes and institutions.< I agree that the state's governing body -- the "government" -- almost always serves the perceived interests of the capitalist class or fragments of that class. But the "state" refers to the organization with a monopoly of violent means within the given geographic territory. That's different from the normal activities of business. >Some of the recently developed state-monopoly processes and institutions are privatization, where the the private sector begins to directly carryout public works for profit. Heavy duty and relatively newly powerful state-monopoly institutions are the FED , the IMF, the World Bank. Also, there seems to be some pattern of specific individual corps becoming almost "the government corps" in a given period , such as Enron, Carlyle Group, George Schultz's company a number of years ago.< Again, there's a distinction between the government and the state. Big corporations are not typically in the business of applying violent means -- except as agents of the state, as with privatized prisons -- while the power of the financial institutions you mention (the Fed, etc.) would be nothing without the state. JD
