l'état est une classe!

[Dracon II]

I bring this up because I was just remembering my lecturer last year (dyed to the core red, I might add) was trying to promote to us the Marxist idea of the state as simply a tool of the bourgeoisie, an "executive for ordering the affairs of the bourgeoisie" or something like that.

I was sceptical about the idea at the time (more receptive to the Kaustkyite idea that the state could be used by the left through the universalization of the franchise)... but I did fall short of believing in pluralist ideas.

I think a useful way of seeing the state is to think of it in terms of the Marxist concept of a class; that being a group that with interests determined by their mode of production, and their position in the relations of production. If you think about it... the state is a class in itself. It's "property" is its revenue base and it's mode of production is the means by which it gains revenue. It is not simply a hollow shell for another class to fill... it has its own interests that it pursues in competition with other states. If it supports the bourgeoisie more than beggars, this is because the bourgeoisie creates more revenue and employs more taxpayers than beggars.

This is supported by the fact that the modern state wasn't innovated by business... but by European Monarchs wishing to improve their ability to raise revenue, and to increase the effectiveness of their armies. The modern-state was thus created in a competitive process between states, and had little to do with the bourgeoisie (to begin with)... whether they benefitted from the state or not.

I'm not sure as whether or not the state is best seen as analogous to a class... or to a firm. Probably the latter is more applicable.

Discuss...

[BeBMan]

Marx was certainly influenced by the state of his time, esp. in England where the bourgeoisie had its role. It could actually be debated if your monarchies belong to what we call today a modern state - I'd see those "enlightened monarchies" more as a time of transition to this modern state.

[DAVOUT]

Civil servants could be considered as a classe, but the state is a collection of institutions which are able to serve the interests of one or several classes, or even of all people in democracy.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by BeBro
Marx was certainly influenced by the state of his time, esp. in England where the bourgeoisie had its role. It could actually be debated if your monarchies belong to what we call today a modern state - I'd see those "enlightened monarchies" more as a time of transition to this modern state.

True... but it demonstrates that the transition was separate from the development and the interests of the bourgeoisie, and came about through competition between states themselves.

Civil servants could be considered as a classe, but the state is a collection of institutions which are able to serve the interests of one or several classes, or even of all people in democracy.

The state serves the interests of the state, or of the "national interest". It is not wholly influenced by any one class or interest group. It can be used to serve special interest groups, but overall it is dedicated to the development of the national mode of production as a whole. It's power, functions, and constituency are greater and more diverse than any one producer/interest group and thus has an existence, a power, and a functionality, that is independent of these groups... yet not beyond their influence.

Perhaps it is more useful to see the state as a firm than a class... but I'll leave that to more discussion.

[BeBMan]

Newer guys like Bordieu would say that the state today has the common good as normative idea in the background, but in reality often enough it works completely different, not (mainly) because the state is hijacked by some economical interest group, but because the political elite is - even in a modern representative democracy - always under threat of becoming an oligarchy-style thing, which rather acts according to its own interests even when claiming to act in duty of the common good. So - if you believe him - the state is not a class in Marx' sense (although that Bordieu guy is influenced by Marx himself), but the political field and its actors are something which runs the risk to separate itself more and more from the rest of the society due to several reasons like professionalization, the need for special knowledge in that field etc. Similar developments he sees in the bureaucratic or judicial fields as sub-systems of the state.

Of course he is wise enough to see that a) the normative idea of the state acting for the common good as such is an achievement which provides orientation, and that b) the tendency to become an oligarchy-style elite is limited by the fact that today the voters can vote down a certain gov. But even then you just change the guys within the political elite.....he argues that any state would work in a similar way, so there's no way around it, unless you get rid of the state, which is not his goal, the key for him seems to be to open the political arena for more influences from outside of the political elite.

I'm not sure sure what you mean by "national mode of production as a whole" when you say the state is dedicated to it - is that from Marx?

[DanS]

I think the universities should be cleared of the red lecturers pushing their agenda in the classroom.

[BeBMan]

He (if you mean Bordieu) isn't pushing an agenda (at least not more than any other scholar would defend his theories), actually he's quite critical to Marx. Nobody here forces anyone to agree or to disagree with him. And that "red lecturers" thing is a bit of a simplistic reaction when dealing with certain arguments from another political side.....

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah they've already purged the blue ones long ago.

[BeBMan]

Who are the blue ones?

[chequita guevara]

Re: l'état est une classe!

Originally posted by Dracon II
This is supported by the fact that the modern state wasn't innovated by business... but by European Monarchs wishing to improve their ability to raise revenue, and to increase the effectiveness of their armies.

So, in the feudal era, the class that the state served would be . . . the aristocracy. The fact that the state predate capitalism doesn't mean it isn't an organ of class society anymore than the fact that religion predates both capitalism and feudalism means it hasn't willing served both.

The job of the state in a capitalist society is to protect capitalism. If they do that by bending to the will of the working classes in order to keep things stable, fine. If they do it by hiring a section of the working class to beat the blopdy Jesus out of the rest of the working class, that works too. Most states use a combination.

[Spiffor]

The State, like any organization, ends up having a life of its own and interests of its own. I don't know if you can call the State a classe (the bureaucrats can be considered both homogenous and heterogeneous, depending how you look at it), but it is definitely an organization that ends up having a specific agenda, no matter what its masters are.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
I think the universities should be cleared of the red lecturers pushing their agenda in the classroom.

Purging repugs

[BeBMan]

Why do you hate Teh Holy State?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
Why do you hate Teh Holy State?

Language habit. I always capitalize institutions when they're a singular noun (the State, the Church, the School). I've learned to do this long ago, to distinguish the abstract institution form the common word.

[BeBMan]

I thought its "Germanization" I often do the same, due to our "capitalize all nouns" craziness