the state by Devine, James 28 March 2002 17:42 UT
Jim D.: 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. ^^^^ CB: Hello Jim. Here's my take on private property. I would define it likes Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ . It is not defined by it being alienable, or saleable as you put it. That is the definition of bourgeois, or capitalist private property- that it is alienable, alienable in the market. In feudalism, some forms of private property were "inalienable" ( "Inalienable rights" used this analogy in the bourgeois revolution). The lord's and church's lands were inalienable , as you say, but that does not mean they were not private property in the general sense that Engels uses it in the Origin. Private property means having some enforceable powers and control over the property, regardless of whether you can alienate it from yourself for cash. Of course, market sales were a much smaller part of the feudal mode of production in general, than the bourgeois mode. The control and power the feudal lords and bishops had was, of course, the right ! to a portion of the products from the land. My basic point of respectful disagreement is with the idea that private property is defined as being alienable or saleable in a market. Private property , as Marx and Engels use it, is a broader term, extended to the beginning of class exploitative society when said property, especially in land, was not alienable in a market. Markets were peripheral, around the margins, of the economies until capitalism. ^^^^^^^^^ 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). ^^^^^^^ CB: Somebody had to be specialized at soldiering or else the masses could not have been forced to give up a portion of the fruits of their labor. I think we have "all agreed here" :>) that capitalism is different from feudalism and slavery in that the latter two used more direct coercion in extracting surplus labor from the exploited working classes , whereas capitalism uses the famous free , wage-labor- "Free" meaning that they are not directly coerced as much as serfs or slaves were. Well, this implies that somebody had to do the coercing. This was the standing bodies of armed personnel, specialized in repression. These standing bodies were small minorities relative to the whole population, so they had to have fighting skills adn weapons that were "specialized", better than the vast majority of the population. I don't see any other candidates for this beside the knights. I don't think every lord or bishop was a knight too, so the two classes or strata were not identical. ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^^ CB: I agree that the state was not centralized in feudalism, relative to the nation state which arose with capitalism, or the Roman imperial state. But it still consisted of special bodies of armed personnel - people whose fighting skills and weaponry were far superior to the average population such that they could inflict terror and control larger numbers of people than themselves. Each feudal manor needed a few thugs- knights, sherrifs, bailiffs - and that was the state repressive apparatus. ^^^^^^^^^ >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. ^^^^^^^^ CB: I agree. I would think the bishops of the church, and I would think many of the feudal lords were part of the feudal ruling class , but not part of the special bodies of armed men, although, I don't doubt that some knights were lords too. Nonetheless, wasn't Sir Lancelot in a different class than "King" (Lord) Arthur ? ^^^^^^^^ >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. ^^^^^^^^ CB: I can go with that, although I always think of the law as the language of the state, backed up by force and potential force, even in the predominantly non-violent day to day business activities. The government's main interface with business is through law, I think. I'd say social democratic/ Welfare "state"/ Keynesian/Rooseveltian type government economic conduct is the state turning into its opposite even within capitalism and before socialist revolution. This was due to pressures on the bourgeoisie by working class protests, the existence of the Soviet Union,etc. to make concessions to the working class. ^^^^^^^ >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 ^^^^^^^^^ CB: Yes, I agree. I think the " premature-socialist" institutions of social democracy within capitalism were not state functions, not repressive violence, but their opposite, non-violent economic conduct. With privatization, we have regression to private enterprise taking over resources and values that had been amassed within social democratic institutions. This historical background explains the non-force character of these aspects of "state" activities.
