On 2013-11-13, at 7:14 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "The Marxist theory of the state or military - or any theory - has to
> be vindicated on its own terms. But where Marxist organizers were
> successful at organizing the military, you would expect some relationship
> between theory and practice. Even where revolutions did not succeed, more
> often than not, I still find Marxist explanations pointing to the decisive
> failure of the military to split along class lines very persuasive."
>
> [WS:] I do not think that many scholars outside this list would agree.
> AFAIK, even Marxist historians like Rueschemeyer or Brenner moved away
> from reductionist perspective of class analysis and focused on institutions
> instead. This of course is not to say that class does not matter - it
> certainly does, - but is not sufficient to explain historical outcomes. If
> you look at the debates between neo-Marxists and neo-Weberians during the
> past 30 or so years you see that those two positions became virtually
> indistinguishable - they all accept the importance of class as well as that
> state - or rather its different parts - are social actors in their own
> right, pursuing their interests that may or may not align with particular
> class interests. You really need to look into specific historical
> circumstances to look how these different interests are configured and
> played out, instead of applying the straitjacket of the lower/upper class
> struggle.
We could not fully understand the great events of the twentieth century - the Russian Revolution and its subsequent bureaucratization, the triumph of fascism in Germany, even the US New Deal - without taking into account the relative autonomy of the state. But the operative word here is "relative"; I don't regard the state or the military or other institutions as "absolutely" autonomous of class. You tip your hat to class, but you've demonstrated on many occasions that you see these institutions as functioning independently and above social classes, and have made it a personal mission to polemicize against those who see a relationship between them. This seems to me to have been the source of our disagreements, though I'm sure you would say otherwise.