请将“Thirdly, in the light of the foregoing discussion on the state in relation to the capital circuit, it might be useful to reflect on the idea of state capitalism.35 People use the term ‘state capitalism’ without making clear just what they mean by that. State railroads are state capitalism. On the basis of state subsidies, certain industries are said to represent state capitalism. Post-colonial state-led capitalist development is often called state capitalism. ‘And the entire nationalized and plan-directed Soviet economy is supposedly also state capitalism [no matter that it was “the result of a revolution”]’ (Trotsky, 1979: 340).
The term ‘state capitalism’ originally arose to designate all the phenomena which arise when a bourgeois state takes direct charge of the means of transport or of industrial enterprises. The very necessity of such measures is one of the signs that the productive forces have outgrown capitalism and are bringing it to a partial self-negation in practice.
(Trotsky, 1991: 208)
As indicated already, capitalism itself creates conditions for state’s economic involvement:
Monopoly capitalism has long since outgrown the private ownership of the means of production and the boundaries of the national state. Paralyzed, however, by its own organizations, the working class was unable to free in time the productive forces of society from their capitalist fetters. Hence arises the protracted epoch of economic and political convulsions. The productive forces pound against the barriers of private property and of national boundaries [that are defended by the state]. The bourgeois governments are obliged to pacify the mutiny of their own productive forces with a police club. This is what constitutes the so-called planned economy. Insofar as the state attempts to harness and discipline capitalist anarchy, it may be called conditionally ‘state capitalism.’
(Trotsky, 1933)
[U]nder state capitalism, in the strict sense of the word, we must understand the management of industrial and other enterprises by the bourgeois state on its own account, or the ‘regulating’ intervention of the bourgeois state into the workings of private capitalist enterprises.
(ibid.)
One has to adequately distinguish between state capitalism and state-ism, from the standpoint of property relations or class relations.
There are undoubtedly points of contact between state capitalism and ‘state-ism’, but taken as systems they are opposite rather than identical. State capitalism means the substitution of state property for private property, and for that very reason remains partial in character. State-ism . . . means state intervention on the basis of private property, and with the goal of preserving it. Whatever be the programs of the government, stateism inevitably leads to a transfer of the damages of the decaying system from strong shoulders to weak.
It ‘rescues’ the small proprietor from complete ruin only to the extent that his existence is necessary for the preservation of big property. The planned measures of stateism are dictated not by the demands of a development of the productive forces, but by a concern for the preservation of private property at the expense of the productive forces, which are in revolt against it. State-ism means applying brakes to the development of technique, supporting unviable enterprises, perpetuating parasitic social strata. In a word, state-ism is completely reactionary in character.
(Trotsky, 1991: 209)
Thus, the capitalist state can acquire attributes of ‘state-capitalists’, with state-managers effectively acting like capitalists.36
Fourthly, the state under neoliberalism is fundamentally capitalist in character. Given the usual portrayal of the state as neoliberal state in many circles, it is difficult to believe that the state is so closely linked to the businesses. Neo-liberalism is the modern form of laissez-faire economy. And ‘laissez-faire too is a form of state “regulation”, introduced and maintained by legislative and coercive means. It is a deliberate policy, conscious of its own ends, and not the spontaneous, automatic expression of economic facts’ (Gramsci, 1971: 160). The neoliberal form of the state, just like the state as such, is connected to each phase of the capitalist circuit.
Fifthly, the capitalist state is a contradiction-ridden personification of illusory common interests. About the capitalist, Marx says, ‘[H]e is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital’ (Marx, 1887: 163). ‘As the conscious representative of this movement [advancing money to make more money], the possessor of money becomes a capitalist’ (ibid.: 107). And the capitalist sees labour as a personification as well: from the standpoint of capital, ‘The worker is here nothing more than personified labour-time’ (ibid.: 168). Even labour has developed a habit of seeing things this way. And the state, the personification of illusory interests, supports both forms of personification, capital’s as well as labour’s. These forms are contradictory: capital wants people to work longer while labour wants to work shorter hours. That contradiction is represented in the heart of the state, which is partly represented in state legislation to shorten the working day under pressure from workers. Excessively long working days ‘called forth a control on the part of Society which legally limits, regulates, and makes uniform the working-day and its pauses’ (ibid.: 194). But state legislation makes numerous concessions to capital. The state sometimes prolongs the working day and sometimes restricts it.
The freely exchanged commodities are produced by workers who do not receive the full value of what they produce. The money with which the commodity labour power is bought today is, ultimately, the form of unpaid labour appropriated from workers yesterday, and therefore it properly belongs to workers. The equality and freedom that the capitalist state ‘protects’ (the idea that all commodity owners are equal and that workers are free to work for whoever they wish to) are the capitalist form of equality and freedom within the sphere of exchange relations. Such equality and freedom are transformed into their opposites, i.e. inequality and unfreedom, within the sphere of property relations and production relations. In fact, and as mentioned earlier, even in exchange relations, there are inequality and unfreedom. This is because: (a) workers are not free not to work for the capitalist class as a whole, a fact which the state as the state of the capitalist class as a whole absolutely cannot do anything about, and (b) often millions of workers do not get a wage that conforms to the value of labour power, and millions are not free to work for whoever they wish to, the facts which the state can do something but often fails to, because it works in the interests of specific capitalists who may be politically and/or economically important and who benefit from such a regime of low wages and unfreedom.
A legal system that corresponds to social relations where there are equal com-modity producers can only support inequalities or injustice under capitalism: workers lack control over production and over the fruits of their labour. The state becomes a contradictory entity because the world of equality and freedom contradicts the world of unfreedom and inequality. While labour and capital are commodity owners, equal and free in the eyes of law, it is the case that underlying the freedom and equality in commodity exchange is the appropriation of unpaid labour from sellers-cum-owners of commodity labour power. The state 
supports such an unjust system. The state ensures conditions that produce sub-stantial inequality (one between capital and labour, and between big business and small-scale producers). Given the exploitative nature of capitalist property rights defended by the state, it is futile to think about social justice, in the Proudhon style, on the basis of merely ‘the juridical relations that correspond to the production of commodities’ (Marx, 1887: 64) and on the basis of the idea that ‘the production of commodities [by small-scale producers] is a form of production as everlasting as justice’ (ibid.).
Sixthly, the state plays an immense role in the reproduction of capitalism, and yet the state in capitalism is not the main cause of people’s economic and other problems or indeed of the class relations as such. Marx (1847) says:
[I]f the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, ‘maintaining injustice in property relations’, it is not creating it. The ‘injustice in property relations’ which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws.
Engels presented two views (Marxist and anarchist). Theoretically speaking, the anarchist view (e.g. Bakunin) is that ‘it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by favour of the state’, while in the Marxist view, ‘state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists have provided themselves in order to protect their social prerogatives’ (in Marx and Engels, 1975: 257). In the Marxist view, as we have seen, capitalism does not exist because of the capitalist state but the capitalist state exists because of capitalism, which then makes use of it.
As often is the case, these contrasting theoretical views are translated into contrasting political differences. This is the case even if Marxism and anarchism are united in that they hope to see a society without class and the state. For anarchism, Engels continues, ‘the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to hell of itself ’ (in Marx and Engels, 1975: 257). But Marxists think differently. Engels speaks for Marxists when says:”翻译为中文