l'état est une classe!

[MrFun]

I thought the modern state emerged due to the combined effects of the collapse of feudalism in western Europe, the Black Death, and the Hundred Years' War?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
I thought

That was your first mistake.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, look where it took che. Communism...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That was your first mistake.

[Dracon II]

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.

Actually centralized states worked against the interests of the aristocracy in favour of the Monarch. Modern nation-states meant that Monarchs could field armies independent of the aristocracy, and could thus use them to enforce loyalty among the aristocracy. The aristocracy's power would have been much better served by a continuation of the feudalist state... but historical conditions in Europe tended towards the centralization of power to the nucleus of each national/geographic unit.

The state is not simply a tool of capitalism, as it can be demonstrably be used against capitalism, as was the case in the USSR. The Chinese state is a interesting case, as it is an example of the same state serving an anti-capitalist agenda up until 1976, and a capitalist agenda by 1986. Funnily enough the power of the chinese state has lessened with the growth of capitalism.
If the state serves capitalism it is not merely because capitalists have influence within the state, but because the state recognizes capitalism as a means by which a state can be competitive. Capitalism for the state is an instrument of economic growth. However capitalism weakens the power of the state in many ways...
The state can be an independent force in its own right. This is why capitalists... and capitalist apologists such as Hayek and Friedman were so adament on limiting the power of the state. If the state was nothing but a lackey of capitalism, surely they would wish it to increase in power.
In many ways, the state supports capitalism in the way a farmer fattens up a cow. Capitalism is an engine of growth and thus an engine of revenue growth. It is true that the state can be used by capitalists... but it is an institution that developed separately to capitalism and one whose interests can often contradict those of capital.
I would argue that in some ways the state is an empty shell into which other interests can be poured. The parliament is a good example of this; parties that rely on civil society for power will try and use the state to serve the interests of their non-state constituency. But the institution carries with it its own mechanisms, its own institutions and its own interests that must be seen to also. The fact that capital has had the upper hand for a long time suggests not that the state is a willing lackey... but that its own power is now very much at the mercy of a growing capitalist class... and that it must cede ever more increments of its power to them if it is to develop its own jurisdiction.

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.

The state must be seen to be acting for the common good. If it is not, then it must provide the illusion that it is doing so. That is the source of its legitimacy. I do agree with you re: the oligarchy. Michels demonstrated that even supposedly mass based democratic style parties such as socialist parties, tended to develop an elite core that takes control... he called it the "iron law of oligarchy".

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?

Well, I'm using Marxist terminology.... but not directly taking it from Marx. I was referring to the the source(s) of economic power that a nation-state must rely upon for its upkeep. The Australian Mode of Production, for example, is largely mining and farming. The State actually leases mining and (a lot of) grazing land to mining and farming companies... effectively making Australia's most productive land the property of the state (albeit operated by private enterprise).

[Dracon II]

I thought the modern state emerged due to the combined effects of the collapse of feudalism in western Europe, the Black Death, and the Hundred Years' War?

I'm not well versed on the 100 years war... but the black death most certainly led to the collapse of feudalism. It created a shortage of labour that meant bargaining power fell further into the hands of the workers. I believe it provided much impetus for the extension of the monetary economy.
As for the state, I was under the impression that it was originall developed as a centralized war machine... innovations like the cannon and intensified warfare meant that war became much more expensive to maintain/win... I'm sure other factors also come into play as well...

[Odin]

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

EVERYBODY pushes an agenda, be it intentional or not. Most of the people wanting to "reign in" proffesors tend to be conservatives who don't like people yanking thier head out of the sand.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Actually centralized states worked against the interests of the aristocracy in favour of the Monarch.

In most cases, the aristocracy evolved alongside the evolution of the modern state. While no longer ruling what largely amounted to indpendent countries tied by loyalty to one another, the aristocracy instead shared in the power of the modern state by becoming part of the bureaucracy, led the military, and grew extremely wealthy. In most cases they shared in the decision making as well, as in the Parliament or Etat General.

The state is not simply a tool of capitalism, as it can be demonstrably be used against capitalism, as was the case in the USSR.

If we're discussing capitalist states, then yes, the state is simply a tool of capitalism. The USSR, not being a capitalist state, then doesn't enter the discussion. Obviously, the as the point of revolution is to smash the capitalist state and replace it with a workers state, the workers state will not be a tool of capitalism, but it is still a class instrument. In this case, the working class rahter than the capitalist class.

The state is not normally independent of the ruling class. It happens, from time to time, if a conjunction of forces leave the competing classes too weak to assert themselves, as happened in the USSR. In that case, the state is able to operate independently. Here, rather than being an seperate class, the state takes the form of a priveleged caste, but wealth and power are not-transferable to the children of that caste. With the exception of Kim Jong Il, no son or daughter has succeeded their father in a Socialist state.

In cases where the state tries to operate independently against the interests of a strong ruling class, that class will slap the state down hard, either by trashing the economy, as happened in France in 1936, or by bringing in more loyal sectors of the state to deal with the wayward politicians. We've seen this again and again from Spain to Chile and beyond. Even the Fascists and Nazis were subordinate to the capitalist class, despite what Imran might say. Control might take the form of bribes to the right person, but the German capitalist class still ruled Germany.

[Dracon II]

Whilst I do not discount the fact that a state can be an instrument by which one class oppresses another (of course this is a given if the state constitutes a class in itself), I do not believe the functions and interests of the state can be reduced to such.

The state has interests external (and sometimes contradictory) to that of the bourgeoisie, such as giving political expression to national culture, preserving territorial integrity, and a whole body of regulations and operations which do not suggest the state is merely a tool of a class.

In the sense that the state can be commanded by a class, it is true that classes operating in civil society can bend the state to its will. A parliamentary state, for example, is governed by political parties that can (and certainly have) been divided along class lines. But the interests of a state is also defined in its relations to other states, and to the population as a whole... its constituency is not merely one class. At the base level, a state's fundamental interest is its self-preservation which can be (in the case of the French state pre-1789 for example), at the expense of the bourgeoisie.

I am willing to concede on the idea that the state constitutes a class in itself... but I don't see how it is necessarily the sole instrument of a single class, or how its deviations from that state of affairs necessarily constitutes an abberration.

In the case of class, a state can be formed by, or respond to, the interests those classes that are most productive (or extract from and exploit the most productive class); and it is true that in the case of the past 200 hundred years at least this class has been the bourgeoisie. But once in a position whereby one must be responsible for the interests of the nation as a whole, and compete within a system of other states... any class in control of the state comes to adopt interests that are unique to that of the state (at least insofar as it is the unit that must act on those interests).

In many ways, the bourgeoisie is free to exist as it does because of the existence of the state, but the state does not necessarily exist because of the bourgeoisie. As has been demonstrated in the past, the state has the ability to constitute an economic class of its own. Thus a State finds it within its power to either extract surplus from productive (exploitative) classes within its jurisdiction, or engage in productive (exploitative) activity on its own. In this sense, the State can constitute a class of its own, as it has a different position within the relations of production to the other classes within its jurisdiction. Whether or not another class can collude with, or control, the state, is a matter determined by power differentials, and is not a reflection of the essential nature of the state in its given economic milieu.

One thing that seems strange to me, if one takes a vulgar Marxist position, is the opposition of the UK and the USA to Nazi Germany. Many Marxists claim that Fascism is an example of bourgeois totalitarianism; in which capitalists found expression for their true interests in relation to the lower classes in its purest form. If this is so, and if the British and American states were, as Marxists claim, mere instruments of capitalism... then these states, far be it from combatting Fascism to the last dollar, would surely be opening their gates to the Wehrmacht. Clearly, either the fascist or liberal-democratic states were not wholly given to Capital's satanic embrace, or each of the states were acting upon territorial, strategic and cultural imperatives that were more than mere questions of bourgeois exploitation and profit.

In most cases, the aristocracy evolved alongside the evolution of the modern state. While no longer ruling what largely amounted to indpendent countries tied by loyalty to one another, the aristocracy instead shared in the power of the modern state by becoming part of the bureaucracy, led the military, and grew extremely wealthy. In most cases they shared in the decision making as well, as in the Parliament or Etat General.

The Aristocracy then, used their power to insert themselves into an emerging order... an order that did run contrary to their individual interests... as it took power from their interests as individual feudal landowners, and forced them to cede much of their power to the centralized state. This is an example of a class allowing itself to be absorbed out of necessity and out of a pragmatic desire to preserve at least a fraction of their failing power. It does not suggest to me that they, as a class, created the state as a way to give expression to their interests.

If we're discussing capitalist states, then yes, the state is simply a tool of capitalism.

It is true that capitalists can use the state (and in its current, extreme form, the bourgeosie can use their global use the state-system to practice a form of arbitrage). But the state is not

simplu

a tool of capitalism. This discounts the fact that states can use capitalism as a tool as well. As a productive force, capitalism (with a healthy taxation system) is an excellent source of revenue for the state... it means that money can be made for the state coffers without it actually having to make the investment and engage in the production themselves. States do not go out of their way to attract investment and encourage productive enterprise because they have to, but because it works for them. There is definitely a coincidence of interests between the state and the bourgeoisie... but not necessarily an inter-determination of the will and functions of the two.

Here, rather than being an seperate class, the state takes the form of a priveleged caste, but wealth and power are not-transferable to the children of that caste

What is the difference between a class and a caste? A meritocratic class is still a class, in that it is an body that is defined by interests and power distinct from other classes. I think you're right in that the state can be, at varying degrees, influenced by classes within civil society. But this should discount the fact that the state has its own unique networks, sources of information, and tools of oppression and coercion. That fact that the bourgeoisie is a productive partner to the state in many regards, and can easily (now more than ever), jump ship if the state deviates too far, is more a deterrent to the state's power than its ultimate source. A state may prefer the status quo... but it is not necessarily ruled by it.

In cases where the state tries to operate independently against the interests of a strong ruling class, that class will slap the state down hard, either by trashing the economy, as happened in France in 1936, or by bringing in more loyal sectors of the state to deal with the wayward politicians.

Agreed... but this does not mean the state is necessarily an instrument of another class.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Whilst I do not discount the fact that a state can be an instrument by which one class oppresses another (of course this is a given if the state constitutes a class in itself), I do not believe the functions and interests of the state can be reduced to such.

Then you misunderstand the purpose of the state, ancient or modern. States were created, from the begining, to protect to property and priveleges of the ruling class, whether it be slave owners, feudal land holders, capitalists, etc.

The state has interests external (and sometimes contradictory) to that of the bourgeoisie, such as giving political expression to national culture, preserving territorial integrity, and a whole body of regulations and operations which do not suggest the state is merely a tool of a class.

First of all, you cannot talk about the state as an independent phenomenon. There are capitalist states, feudal states, workers states, etc. Each type of state, while having in common the goal of protecting its ruling class, is different in significant ways. In the feudal state, the ruling class was the state. In modern capitalism, the ruling class hires managers to run the state, just as they hire them to run corporations.

Now, you write as if the capitalist class did not benefit from national culture, i.e., nationalism, secure territories, and regulations. Nationalism was invented by the bourgeoisie, so giving expression to a national culture is exactly what a capitalist state would do.

Why do you think capitalists wouldn't want territorial integrity? How can business function in a place like Somolia, Lebanon, Afganistan, etc.? Law and order within a given area are a necessity. Without a state to protect their interests, they can be plundered or have their property destroyed. When Germany conquered Europe, what happened to the European bourgeoisie? Their property was expropriated by German capitalism. Territorial integrity means you don't have to worry about capitalist banditry.

And regulations, while infuriating to individual capitalists, still serve the capitalist order. You may not want to go to the dentist, but it still serves your best interests to go. The same is true of regulations. They help maintain order, so capitalists have less to worry about from each other (think of Rockerfeller dynamiting rival oil companies--or corporate spying) to keeping the workering classes mollified so they don't revolt. It's no accident that Western Europe created strong welfare states in the face of advancing Communism. It's better to cede a little ground to the masses than lose everything to them in a revolt.

But the interests of a state is also defined in its relations to other states, and to the population as a whole... its constituency is not merely one class. At the base level, a state's fundamental interest is its self-preservation which can be (in the case of the French state pre-1789 for example), at the expense of the bourgeoisie.

None of which means it is not the instrument of a ruling class nor an independent entity. If the purpose of a state is to protect the interests of the ruling class, it has to do so internationally as well as domestically. What good is it to keep your workers down if you allow the capitalists of other nations to plunder you? What matters if you keep foreign theives at bay if you can't keep your own house in order? You seem to be laboring under the idea that the ruling class can't be subtle or flexible, that its needs and goals and methods must be naked and direct.

As for the state trying to preserve itself, of course. If it falls, it can't do its job. Every human institution tries to preserve itself. That's because as human beings, we are free to attach importance to things, regardless of whether or not their are important. Why would a feudal state try to preserve itself against the rising bourgeoisie? Well, look at what happened to the aristocracy of France? They lost all their property and many their lives. They had a very material interest in ensuring they maintained power. The new bourgeois state had no interest in protecting the aristocracy, and allowed them to be plundered, raped, and murdered.

But once in a position whereby one must be responsible for the interests of the nation as a whole, and compete within a system of other states... any class in control of the state comes to adopt interests that are unique to that of the state (at least insofar as it is the unit that must act on those interests).

You are putting the cart before the horse. The interests of the state are the interests of the ruling class. It should therefore be unsurprising that they look the same. Your mistake is in not seeing the interests of the ruling class as being much broader than simple greed.

One thing that seems strange to me, if one takes a vulgar Marxist position, is the opposition of the UK and the USA to Nazi Germany. Many Marxists claim that Fascism is an example of bourgeois totalitarianism; in which capitalists found expression for their true interests in relation to the lower classes in its purest form. If this is so, and if the British and American states were, as Marxists claim, mere instruments of capitalism... then these states, far be it from combatting Fascism to the last dollar, would surely be opening their gates to the Wehrmacht.

What happened to the territories conquered by the Nazis? How well did French, Czech, and Polish capitalists do under the Nazi boot? Why would British capitalists want to open themselves to plundering? Why would American capitalists? A large part of the reason for the war was the fact that much of Polish and Czech capital was owned by France and Britain. Simply allowing the Nazis to plunder Eastern Europe would have been like allowing Germany to take their African colonies.

As to why Mosely didn't take power in Great Britain, he didn't need to, or rather, the British bourgeoisie had no need of fascism. The working class in Britain was hardly combative. Nor was British capitalism suffering a crisis of profit. In America, during the 1930s, while there was 25% unemployment, there was also massive profitability. The bourgeoisie does not resort to fascism except as a last resort, when no other way to restore profit can be made.

Oh, and "vulgar" Marxism isn't Marxism, but is a characture created by a non-dialectical understanding of Marxism. It comes from not understanding the dynamic character or history, of seeing Marxism as simply pronouncements from on high rather than as a method of analysis. It suited the bureaucrats of the 2nd Interntional, because the teleological statements of Marx for propagandistic purposes became immutable laws. There was no need to struggle for socialism since it was inevitable. It became a tool in the hands of Stalin as ideological justiifcation for his criminal rule. It was a whip in the hands of the Western Marxists (under whose wing you seem to be harboring) for their retreat from class struggle, dialectics, and materialism. We see the results of their thinking today in post modernism.

I recommend the following books: Anti-Durhing by Engles, Materialism and Empiocriticsim by Lenin, and The ABCs of Marxism by Trotsky. Remeber that Marx was a major fan of Darwin. Would a Darwinian tell you that the only human was homo sapiens sapiens and that we could understand humanity without looking at our evolution?

The Aristocracy then, used their power to insert themselves into an emerging order... an order that did run contrary to their individual interests... as it took power from their interests as individual feudal landowners, and forced them to cede much of their power to the centralized state.

You suffer from an Aristotelian view of the world. Things must be a certain way or they are no longer those things. Things are either A or not A and cannot be both A and not A. This, of course, is untrue. The rise of the modern nation-state, while being detrimental to nobles as individuals, was very important to them as a class. Internal warfare ended. They no longer had to spend their own money on defence. They grew exceedingly wealthy and their ties of obligation to the lower classes was largely severed.

You no longer see the local baron running around with a troop of knights, but all the land is no his and the peasants are forced to work more and more for the lord. The number of days the peasant was obligated to work for his lord increased dramatically, if he was lucky. He could also be expelled from his land so the lord could start farming sheep to sell the wool.

I suggest reading Man's Worldly Goods by Leo Huberman, for a much deeper and more dynamic understanding of the evolution of feudalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie.

What is the difference between a class and a caste? A meritocratic class is still a class.

A meritocratic class is not a class at all. Classes are defined by the transfer of property between generations. Meritcratic "classes A) do not own the productive property and B) do not reproduce themselves. Bureaucrats are caste-workers, like the Mamluks and Janissaries were caste-slaves. They were renewed not by having their own children take their places, but by new people taking their places. George Bush Sr. did not hand off the Presidency of the United States to his son. It's not his to give.

[Dracon II]

At a casual glance.... a decent defence of the Marxist conception of the state.

I'm a bit tired... and beer'ed out to give a fitting response to your efforts... but I will attempt to in the morning.

I don't claim to be an expert in these matters (despite politics being my degree)... so I'll probably end up accepting much of your point of view. That will depend on re-reading what I actually said (I write quickly and don't usually edit) and you response.

Most likely I will have made mistakes that you have answered... and from there I can form a better proposition. Feels kinda bad suspecting that one has been rebutted, but that's dialectics.

Or maybe someone can understand my position better than I and provide a better defense

Rest assured I will continue until I have determined the limits to my understanding (if Che has not demonstrated them already ).

I hate being conciliatory... I hate being compromising... I hate conceding my mistakes... but what I hate even more is being perceived of as a stubborn git who can't integrate a good critique.

[chequita guevara]

I think your problem isn't so much with Marxism as with what you think Marxism is. A large part of that problem is from people who call themselves Marxist, who have only a simple and mechanistic understanding of Marx. A lot of Marx's criticis also suffer from that problem. Partly its the fault of Marx and Engels, who argued strenuously for their view that economics was the primary force in human society. They concentrated so much on the economic aspect of humanity that they left other aspects of society largely unanalyzed, leading some to conclude that only economics was important, rather than seeing that they felt that econmoics was so important they needed to get it fully understood before moving on. Unfortunately, Marx died before he could finish. Engels, and other Marxists, did analyze other aspects of society, but those parts of their work are largely dismissed or forgotten.

Dialectics, in the Hegelian sense, is really hard to wrap ones noodle around. It's very difficult to understnad something which is in the process of change. Marxism, being a Hegelian philosphy, says the whole world is in flux, and that's how we need to study it. Just as you can't understand a man by only looking at him in his 20th year (and then expecting him to stay that way for the rest of his life), you cannot understand human society by looking at a snapshot, in this case, the modern era, without understanding how it developed.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Dialectics, in the Hegelian sense, is really hard to wrap ones noodle around.

Isn't Hegelianism mostly the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis concept? That doesn't seem that hard too me. A lot of things in modern thought are a result of a synthesis of 2 opposing ideas.

[chequita guevara]

That's an extremely simplistic model of Hegelian dialectics. It was meant as a derrision of Hegel's philosophy. It can, however, be used to illustrate a point when the correct model is used.

For example:
thesis = baby
antithesis = time
synthesis = adult

In this case, antithesis doesn't mean the opposite of the thesis, but rather some force or process acting upon the thesis which creates something that is both of the thesis but also beyond the thesis, i.e., the synthesis.

A better way of understanding Hegelian dialectics would be to imagine a piece of paper foldered over many times, so that one word is visible on the top. As you unfold the paper, new words appear, adding meaning and understanding to the first word, until when the paper is finally unfolded, you have a complete development of the idea expressed in the first word. Reading Hegel is like watching oragmai being made or a crystal formaton developing.

If you want to give it a try, I suggest Hegel's Philosophy of Right (which, ironcically enough, is topical, as it is Hegel's thesis on the state), which was compiled from his lecture notes after his death. It's probably the easiest Hegel to read and understand. That book blew my mind, not because of its conclusions, but because of the way he developed his argument. Capital was a snap to read after that, because suddenly I could understand the way Marx was making his argument.

[Dracon II]

First of all Che, thanks for the book recommendations. I've quite a few books to plough through during my study break but I'll see if I can give them some attention. I should say that I'm not positing these discussion points in full confidence of what I am arguing. My mind is a veritable mess, full of competing ideas and a rather unorganised jumble of different points of view. Thus, I welcome any attempt made on anyone's part to clarify my own untidiness for me I have a nasty habit of keeping a terribly eclectic taste in intellectual inputs... which means I often attain superficial knowledge of a many things, but lack the depth of understanding to truly understand the intricacies of those things I talk about. I'm hoping that postgraduate studies will afford me an opportunity to deepen my competence in a particular field... but I still don't know what field to tackle. Any input from apolytoners with regard to solving this dilemma would be truly appreciated. After all, it could have profound implications for the direction that the rest of my life takes.

I'll answer your later post first. I will, as you have, largely limit my points to that of the capitalist state.... as this was the state-form with which Marx was concerned... and by bringing up other state-forms I confused the discussion somewhat.

Are you laughing with me, or at me? 'Cause if you're laughing at me

I think your problem isn't so much with Marxism as with what you think Marxism is. A large part of that problem is from people who call themselves Marxist, who have only a simple and mechanistic understanding of Marx. A lot of Marx's criticis also suffer from that problem. Partly its the fault of Marx and Engels, who argued strenuously for their view that economics was the primary force in human society. They concentrated so much on the economic aspect of humanity that they left other aspects of society largely unanalyzed, leading some to conclude that only economics was important, rather than seeing that they felt that econmoics was so important they needed to get it fully understood before moving on. Unfortunately, Marx died before he could finish. Engels, and other Marxists, did analyze other aspects of society, but those parts of their work are largely dismissed or forgotten.

Understood... although I don't generally take a purely mechanistic view of Marx.... in fact I'm far more interested (and probably better equipped) in Marxist sociology than Marxist economics. For the same subject whose lecturer I dedicated this thread to I wrote my final essay on how Marxist theory could be used to explain the sociological phenomenon of postmodernism and contemporary consumerism.

I suppose that my problems with advancing this, contrary point of view, is more due to my hitherto Marxist education on the nature of the state and my trouble formulating a different conceptualization. The title of the thread is somewhat misleading as to how I really feel about the subject. I don't believe that there are any separate and discrete units in society, there is always interpenetration and determination... and the power of the ruling class does put them in a position to organise to create ruling institutions... historically speaking that's a no-brainer I guess. My mistake was straying into formalism... separating the narrow interests of the bourgeoisie as an economic class from their interests as a political class... by simply referring to the institutional and functional separation between the bourgeoisie and the state. It is true, then, that if the Bourgeoisie had no state, it would be necessary for them to build one I was arguing however that the state did not need the bourgeoisie... but then I was committing the error of talking about the state as an abstract concept, and not recognizing the existence of different states... and different ruling classes. Had I been more rigorous and less hasty in writing my arguments I would no doubt have come to these conclusions myself... but Che has kindly beat me to it and has given me a prompt and well deserved kick up the arse.

Dialectics, in the Hegelian sense, is really hard to wrap ones noodle around. It's very difficult to understnad something which is in the process of change. Marxism, being a Hegelian philosphy, says the whole world is in flux, and that's how we need to study it. Just as you can't understand a man by only looking at him in his 20th year (and then expecting him to stay that way for the rest of his life), you cannot understand human society by looking at a snapshot, in this case, the modern era, without understanding how it developed.

I understand dialectics enough to know that you're spot on. Although in my post where I said "but that's dialectics" I wasn't referring to dialectical-idealism or materialism, but to the process of argument, whereby I make an argument, you make a counter-argument and then I use your argument to correct my argument

Although I would not say that dialectics is a black and white process; political institutions are not merely determined by class, they also determine politics themselves. There is a process of interdetermination. The bourgeoisie rose successfully in Europe not simply because they themselves set up the institutions that empowered them so much... but because the process of legal-political-technological-economic innovation evolved in Europe in such a way that fostered the growth of the bourgeoisie before they became a politically powerful class. Of course, once they were powerful, they were able to extend the process in a way that detracted from the original class beneficiaries of the system. A powerful bourgeoisie creates the conditions whereby demands for a state that functions well for the bourgeoisie arise... but it is also true that the rise of a such a state also creates conditions whereby a bourgeoisie can rise. China is an interesting case that warrants further discussion however... although maybe not especially exceptional... the bourgeoisie benefits not merely from liberal-democratic states but from authoritarian ones also.
I believe that Marx was alluding to this process when he said the ruling class creates the conditions by which they can be overthrown. I agree with this assessment. It is not teleological, of course... the industrial capitalism under which the proletariat was supposed to have achieved political power has been superseded (at least in the west) by a new breed of capitalism... though this perhaps means what globalization suggests; the internationalization of the class system and class struggle writ large (in a far more advanced form than the imperialism of old).
If I am to salvage any of my argument, I guess I will have to note that the state does have its own powerbase. Whether or not it can, or is willing to, use it against the dominant economic class is dubious, however. The formal separation of the state from the bourgeoisie, with its (formal at least) legislative, institutional and coercive power, does give the state an independent power base that, while severely handicapped in the event of bourgeois sabotage, is still able to operate on its own. The extent to which the state can command loyalty from the masses (waning), command the loyalty of the military (not absolute) and legislate effectively independent of special interest groups and with efficient implementation by the public sector (differs from nation to nation), is the extent to which it is independent of the bourgeoisie. Of course, there must be also a perception of the state's separation from the private sector, and a will to make it so. It is not so difficult to recast private sector influence on the state as corruption, and thus as a form of deviance. Ridding oneself of it is difficult of course... as China and the US know all too well. Perhaps this is an example of where a creature of the bourgeoisie can develop into a creature that can be detrimental to the bourgeoisie (like how the state in England evolved from that which served the aristocracy to one that which served the bourgeoisie). I believe Marx may have been a tad bit too dismissive on the bourgeoisie depends upon the state... which is why, I guess, they are so adament on controlling it. It is not merely a class automaton however.

First of all, you cannot talk about the state as an independent phenomenon. There are capitalist states, feudal states, workers states, etc.

Duly noted. In fact, I was reading Nietzsche's "Truth and lies in a non-moral sense" recently... in which he notes man's tendency to subsume every varying and unique manifestation of an object under a single concept (e.g. leaf). I seem to have done exactly this in my treatment of the state. You were arguing about the capitalist state in particular, and I countered by abstracting the state as a concept in itself (at least in some of what I said). The state is an historically, culturally, socially and economically contingent phenomenon... states fail and succeed because of this fact.

Then you misunderstand the purpose of the state, ancient or modern. States were created, from the begining, to protect to property and priveleges of the ruling class, whether it be slave owners, feudal land holders, capitalists, etc.

The modern liberal-democratic state, whilst being far from pluralist, is able to articulate contradictions within society, and not merely the overriding interests of the ruling class. The state will not necessarily resolve the contradiction in capital's favour, but will of course take national interest into account. Of course you could argue that a class compromise , such as within corporatist states, serves the bourgeoisie as it preserves their existence, but it means that far from oppressing the lower classes in favour of the bourgeoisie, it also has the power to promote the interests of the lower classes against the bourgeoisie. This may be, as you say due to a if a "conjunction of forces leave the competing classes too weak to assert themselves"... but I'll leave it for further discussion (I'm sure you have a good explanation and I'd like to hear it. I'm learning quite a lot today).

Nationalism was invented by the bourgeoisie, so giving expression to a national culture is exactly what a capitalist state would do.

Please explain. Do you mean that by the development of the bourgeoisie within the nation-state, formerly parochial markets were combined and integrated into national markets, thus raising the people's consciousness (interdependency) to the national level?
National culture, however, does not necessarily work in capital's favour. In England, of course... the vestiges of the feudal system manifest themselves in a (waning) deference to one's social "betters"... which aids the bourgeoisie, but in France, the revolutionary culture (began of course, by a bourgeois revolution) actually works against the bourgeoisie.
I would argue that the Bourgeoisie has moved beyond nationalism and has (as Marx predicted) begun to unite the markets of the world and develop a cosmopolitan culture... that contradicts nationalism. Nationalism seems to me to work against the new, international bourgeoisie... as it is too easily articulated into protectionist demands.

I would say that while a state-system does serve bourgeois interests (it divides political power while at the same time concentrating economic power globally... thus allowing the bourgeoisie to practice their little game of arbitrage). A system of belligerent states certainly doesn't... unless you're a member of the arms bourgeoisie. The existence of widespread global security since WW2 has enabled the bourgeoisie to globalize.... and the globalization of the bourgeoisie in turn discourages states from becoming belligerent. This is not part of the argument... but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the international system and globalization. I'm very curious because IPE is one of my interest areas (unfortunately I've neglected the state).

Oh, and "vulgar" Marxism isn't Marxism, but is a characture created by a non-dialectical understanding of Marxism. It comes from not understanding the dynamic character or history, of seeing Marxism as simply pronouncements from on high rather than as a method of analysis.

You're right. I misused the term... apologies.

My argument re: the Nazis was especially weak. Simplistic commie-baiting from a person who professes to be a commie himself. How sad...

You seem to be laboring under the idea that the ruling class can't be subtle or flexible, that its needs and goals and methods must be naked and direct.

I don't personally hold that idea. Personally I enjoy critical theory, because it talks about the "soft" domination of capital... that seduces and manipulates rather than openly oppresses. Very suitable to a Marxist critique of western society. What are your thoughts on the Frankfurt School... or Frederic Jameson, Terry Eagleton and David Harvey?

You suffer from an Aristotelian view of the world. Things must be a certain way or they are no longer those things. Things are either A or not A and cannot be both A and not A. This, of course, is untrue. The rise of the modern nation-state, while being detrimental to nobles as individuals, was very important to them as a class. Internal warfare ended. They no longer had to spend their own money on defence. They grew exceedingly wealthy and their ties of obligation to the lower classes was largely severed.

True. Whilst the development of the nation-state was certainly at the expense of their personal power as semi-distinct political units.... it absorbed the costs they once incurred fielding personal armies... creating a centralized security system that meant they could either idle on their estates or become part of the administration. The French state was certainly more aristocratic than meritocratic. In a system where offices tended to be sold... the rich aristocracy certainly benefitted.
I'm not as familiar with aristotle as I'd like to be... so I'll take your word for it that I was being aristotelian.

A meritocratic class is not a class at all. Classes are defined by the transfer of property between generations. Meritcratic "classes A) do not own the productive property and B) do not reproduce themselves. Bureaucrats are caste-workers, like the Mamluks and Janissaries were caste-slaves. They were renewed not by having their own children take their places, but by new people taking their places. George Bush Sr. did not hand off the Presidency of the United States to his son. It's not his to give.

Sorry... I was a little confused by your semantic separation of "caste" and "class". The Hindu class system is commonly referred to as the "caste" system... which is a system of inherited privelige (by cause of its racial nature).
My dictionary of political thought does exclude "group, role or office" from class... so I think you've got me on that one.... although it does include "caste" so maybe you should find a different word to describe it.

It was a whip in the hands of the Western Marxists (under whose wing you seem to be harboring) for their retreat from class struggle, dialectics, and materialism. We see the results of their thinking today in post modernism.

I'm certainly not under the wing of postmodernism.

Well... I couldn't be bothered reading over my response here... but if there are creases that need ironing... point them out. I long gave up on trying to be right... atm I'm just trying to learn