Re: Base/superstructure and the State

["Amanda Tattersall" <amandatatts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I don't recall reading Lenin on "base/superstructure" or similar things
>about the state. Could you detail just how you came to the conclusion that
>Lenin's view are similar to those of the others you write about?
>
>José

In refering to Lenin theories on the state, I am arguing that his conception
of the bourgeoise state tends to rely on the conception of the state as
simply a "committee of the ruling class."  To me, that seems to be an
expression of the base/superstructure metaphor that holds the state not
simply produced or determined by economic relations (or say, class
conflict), but determined directly by the ruling class.  Such a perception
of the state, I would argue, does not allow an analysis of the State as an
institution produced by class relations, but as an institution controlled
simply by the ruling class.  I would argue that the same criticisms noted by
Clarke et al in relation to the limits of Milliband's theory of the state,
could be argued against Lenin's concption of the state (in State and
Revolution).

It is not so much that Lenin talked about how he wrote about
base/superstructure, but that such an conclusion can be made from his work
on the state.

Consequently I do not take the group of people that I am refering to (eg
Gramsci, Milliband, Poulantsaz etc) as having similar theories on the state
(because clearly their work is very different), but rather I argue that
their work can all be discussed in terms of the different ways their works
relate to the base/superstucture metaphor.

Amanda


>From: "Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Base/superstructure and the State
>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:00:45 -0400
>

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