Base/superstructure and the State

["Amanda Tattersall" <amandatatts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Before reading the email - I just seek a little clarification.  I seems to
only ever write questions seeking information to this list.  I apoligise for
this, and thank people for their generous responses.  However I am wanting
to ask if such a thing is appropriate - do people mind having to tease
through questions that are probably fairly straight forward and simplistic?

I am happy not to send such questions to the list - it is simply that they
have been a fantastic resource in my studies thus far.

--
And now for a question ....

I am doing some work on Marxist theories of the state, and I am planning to
launch a critique on Marxian visions of the state (ie. Gramsci, Lenin,
Poulantsaz, Hirsch, et al) on the basis that many of these persepctives are
infected by an overemphasis on the base/superstructure metaphor, and as such
their vision of the state tends to separate a vision of the state from civil
society, separate the political from the economic, and have an overarchingly
hegemonic (ie. ideological) appreciation of the state, rather than a
materialist (and class conflict perspective.

I was wondering if people knew of writers, materials that argued that the
base/superstructure metaphor had destorted marxian views of the state?
I have read some critiques, particularly Meskins Woods, but was wondering if
this was a far broader area of discussion considering the large number of
references in materials to the 'rejection' of the base superstructure
metaphor.

Amanda

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.