Another issue - the statement that state "has historically been controlled by and acted as the agent of the dominant propertied class" is demonstrably false. The easiest counterexamples are the Soviet Russia & its European satellites and Communist China, where the state was anything but controlled by propertied class. Other examples from modern history may include Japan during Meji restoration, Alavardo government in Peru, Ataturk government in Turkey or Nasser Government in Egypt (cf. Ellen Kay Timberger, 1978, *Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan, Turkey, Egypt and Peru*, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books) or for that matter the Juarez and later PRI governments of Mexico, Taiwan, or even the 1930 military government of Brazil explicitly curbing power of landed elites (its fascist sympathies notwithstanding). Another counter example comes from Australia where the liberal (British) government deliberately undercut the growing power of landowners in the 19th century (cf. Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens and John D. Stephens, 1992, *Capitalist Development & Democracy*, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. And then there is pre-capitalist history full of struggles between the crown and landed gentry, of which Sweden can serve as one and good example..
So the idea that state is by definition run by the propertied class is but a Left wing myth that is demonstrably false and does not even deserve to be called "vulgar Marxism" :)
Since it is clear, from historical record, that the state sometimes is controlled by the propertied class and sometimes it is not or even acts against the propertied class - a far more interesting approach, imho, is to investigate the conditions facilitating each of the outcomes instead shutting down any discussion by declaring by definition that state is eveil tool of the propertied class.
I also have issues with your faith in the parliamentary process as a representation of the "vox populi" and counter-weight against evil power of state bureaucracy. That may be true under certain conditions, but under other conditions parliaments are but useless chatterboxes unable to enact any meaningful reforms, and it takes reformist state bureaucracies to enact such reforms - examples: the introduction of welfare reforms in the UK and Sweden (cf. Hugh Heclo, 1974, *Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden*, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
I may add that the main obstacle to the introduction of universal social programs in the US was (ans till is to a large degree) not the capitalist class alone, but the idiotic party system in a symbiotic relation with various propertied and popular interests (e.g. Southern racists.) If it were solely for the Fed and mega-capitalists alone we would probably have a universal public welfare system on a par with that in Europe for a number of reasons, chief of them being companies offloading the cost of benefits on the public sector. It is the sleazy pork-and-barrel congressmen and politics of patronage in which they are engulfed up to their eyeballs that stands in a way of the health reform.
Wojtek
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
> Chris D. writes:
>
> I think the problem here is that Marvin seems to be defining the state as
>> "a tool of repression in the hands of the wealthy."
>>
> ======================================
> This evidently requires elaboration. The state is conventionally defined as
> comprising the executive, legislative, judiciary, bureaucracy, armed
> forces,
> and intelligence services. It has historically been controlled by and acted
> as the agent of the dominant propertied classes. It maintains social order
> and class rule through a mix of force and concessions, ie. naked repression
> and "repressive tolerance". In authoritarian states - sometimes called
> "strong states" -the power exercised over the population is unchecked and
> repression is often brutal. State power is circumscribed in parliamentary
> and republican systems where the people have been able to win the right to
> assemble, speak out, organize, and vote against the ruling class. These
> democratic rights are limited, however, in that their exercise cannot strip
> the ruling class of it's power and property. If it threatens to do so - as,
> say, when economic and physical security breaks down in war and economic
> crisis - these rights are removed, the coercive power of the state is
> strengthened, and popular dissent can now only be expressed illegally,
> leading to violent repression and resistance.
>
> What is the "problem" you, Woj, and perhaps others have with this
> understanding of the state's role?
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>