I don't think that the disagreement between Doug and Brent corresponds
to different theories of the state (though it would be interesting to
see a debate on the nature of the state). IMHO, Doug was instead being
rhetorical, provoking thought and debate, trying to undermine the
common assumption that the US government responds to the will of
the people in the way it's advertised (one person one vote).
It's completely in tune with the usual Marxian
theory of the state to see some of the state's policies as being
in response to pressure from forces outside the state (the working
class, environmentalists, racial minorities, women, etc.)Of course,
if many of these forces are weak organizationally (as at present,
IMHO), then this pressure is weak and capital's influence tends
to dominate.
It's true that *some* Marxists see state policies as *merely*
the result of the dictates or largesse of corporate capital. But
then *some* liberals ignore the preponderance of capital's influence
in the absense of external pressure.
All of this ignores the details of Brent's comments (the good side of
the IMF, for example). I'll keep it short by staying abstract.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
