must organise and restrict capital in such a way that problems to the detriment of capital are solved or avoided'. Such problems include pollution and city deinvestment, which arise if capital is not restrained in any way. These problems may mount up to such an extent that the dominant class may be threatened. The state plays the role of organising capital so that such problems are avoided. This helps to sustain the capitalist society. The above set of theses is a good spread of how modern Marxist scholars have tried to explain the relation between state and society in a way that is consistent with Marxist doctrine. All of them have to deal with some fundamental questions of the state, usually starting with: Can the state be independent or autonomous? Marx's own work on the Bonapartist regime in France shows that this is possible. Yet the basis of Marxist doctrine on the state claims that the state acts in the interests of the dominant class. So the question that naturally follows is: Why does an autonomous state still act in the interests of the dominant class? Each of the scholars above attempt to explain why this is so, and therefore find a defensible version of the Marxist theory of the state. Non-Marxists, however, do not have to try and reconcile an autonomous state with a dominant class. Adam Przeworski puts forward a thesis which claims that the actions of the state are the result of a compromise between the leaders