> no. i wanted a pithy way to describe everything your wrote. if you
> read "anti-government / pro-state Tea Partiers" [or whomever] would
> you understand my intended meaning in an essay that makes it clear I'm
> coming from a Marxist perspective?
>
> if you read that phrasing, as a Leftist reading a Left academic
> journal, would you say, "but but but... that's not it." ?
I can see the distinction you're getting at, but I reckon 'state' and 'government' have different meanings in state theory, at least within the marxist tradition I'm familiar with - Miliband, Poulantzas etc. 'State' would be the the whole set of public administration institutions - from the legislature to to courts, police, schools, welfare offices, etc, etc. 'Government' would be 'the government of the day': the dominant party (or coaltion) in the legislature and the executive (cabinet). If you wanted to get more abstract you could broaden your definition of 'state' to refer to a functional position or complex of positions within the social whole, rather than actually-existing institutions as they are. But generally, the 'government' is more of an agency, while the 'state' is more of a field or institutional structure, though the government is also a structure and various branches of the state act as agents, in more or less co-ordinated ways.
Mike Beggs