Marv: "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.
>
> [WS:] I guess it boils down to the meaning of the phrase "relative
> autonomy." I do not think anyone would seriously argue for "absolute
> autonomy" but that indeed depends of the historical circumstances....I am
> having difficulty
> finding a real historical example of the state being totally subservient to
> the interests of a single class.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the US Congress, executive branch, judiciary, Federal Reserve, and regulatory agencies first and foremost defend and advance the interests of the major US corporations and wealthy private investors, and concern themselves with the general welfare only insofar as it doesn't upset the existing system of power and property relations. It's not inappropriate therefore to describe such states as "capitalist" states, and to distinguish them from the pre-capitalist states based on the landed aristocracy and feudal property relations as well as the 20th century states where large scale private ownership was abolished. It's interesting to speculate whether the latter should have been called "state capitalist" or "workers" states, but that need not concern us here.
Is the state "totally" subservient to a single class? It is subservient, but to what degree - how relatively autonomous it is from the hegemonic class it represents - is, as we've both acknowledged, contingent on historical circumstance. We'd have to apply such understanding to particular states in particular historical periods and at different stages of development, and might well come to different conclusions.
That classes are internally divided is not in contradiction to the state's role as representative of the dominant class interest. The state is often forced to choose between contending factions and industries within the corporate sector which will inevitably leave some in the ruling class at odds with the state. However, on the fundamental issues relating to the integrity of the system as a whole, the ruling class and the state are, as Mao used to say,"as close as the lips and the teeth.
Finally, there are often instances when the interests of the dominant wing of the ruling class coincide with the needs of the masses, creating the misleading impression that the state is an independent actor. The recognition of trade union rights and extension of social benefits under the New Deal, designed to revive mass purchasing power and restore social order, is one example. If the liberal bourgeoisie and the Democratic administration did not consider these reforms to be in the interest of the system, they would have opted for repression rather than reform. As it was, the reforms were drafted and legislated with the needs of the corporations rather than the workers' and popular organisations uppermost in mind. The same considerations have guided the health care, environmental, financial reform, and other initiatives of the Obama administration. The evidence is clear that, when forced to choose between the competing demands of the activists pressing for reforms in these areas and the corporate lobbies, the administration has been mainly responsible to the latter in crafting legislation. The same subordination of the governing parties to the corporate sector is, of course, also true of the other capitalist countries.
> The difference between me and Marxists (or perhaps some of them) is that
> while I do not think that class is typically a sufficient explanation of
> historical outcomes, I also think that it is possible that in certain
> circumstances class is the major predictor of outcome and I am perfectly
> happy to accept this if the evidence supports is. The Marxists, otoh, (or
> at least some of them) think that the class is major predictor of any
> outcome, are unwilling to accept a claim that under some circumstances it
> is not, and dismiss any evidence that supports it.
>
Is this really so? I'm not familiar with any Marxist thinkers, past and present, who would not accept that "under some circumstances class is not a major predictor of any outcome and would dismiss any evidence that supports" the claim. Who would you identify as subscribing to this dogma?