>It's been a long time since I read those observations (and I don't even
>remember which work they occur in), but I'm pretty sure the reason Marx
>gave was that the U.S. and England (_at that time_) did not have an
>entrenched bureaucracy. Hence there was no need to "smash" the state,
>which instead, perhaps, could be simply taken over and used for
>socialist ends.
I read Marx's "good words" about the States in a collection, The Marx-Engels Reader (can't remember the editor right now), but I found the full text in the MIA at this address:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864iwma/1872-d.htm
"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to whcih we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor. "
Karl Marx Excerpted from: The First International Working Men's Association
LA LIBERTE SPEECH
Karl Marx speech delivered September 8, 1872, in Amsterdam.
Printed September 15, 1872, in La Liberte.
Also printed in Dutch, Belgian and German papers.
Todd