请将“Thus, rather than developing all the elements of the general theory and the particular theory of the CMP, he merely invokes the general theory of modes of production extracted from Marx’s Capital by Althusser et al. in Reading Capital and argues that Capital itself presents the particular theory of the CMP and the regional theory of its economic level. This leaves him free to concentrate on the general theory of the state, social classes, and power and the regional theory of the state within the CMP. Even here there is no attempt systematically to construct the concepts but instead they are gradually introduced on the basis of his reading of the political writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Gramsci. This method of argument and presentation has definite effects on Poulantzas’s work and we shall refer to these in subsequent substantive and methodological criticism.

Poulantzas argues that the political region is concerned with the institutionalised power of the state as a particular structural ensemble and that political practice has as its specific object the maintenance or transformation of the ‘present moment’ (or conjuncture) through control over state power. In presenting this general argument he abstracts from particular modes of production and thus from the differential forms of labour process (‘real appropriation’ or ‘possession’) and appropriation of surplus labour (‘property relation’ or ‘economic ownership’) and their corresponding matrices of economic, political, and ideological regions. This gives his general theory of the state and politics a ‘class-theoretical’ and functionalist cast. Thus Poulantzas argues that the state is defined by its general function as the factor of cohesion or unity in a class- divided social formation rather than by specific institutions: the precise place of the state, its particular form, its institutional structure, and its boundaries depend on the nature of the (dominant) mode of production and social formation. This does not mean that actual states can perform no functions beyond maintaining cohesion - merely that this is the general, constitutive function of all states, that other functions vary according to the (dominant) mode of production and social formation, and that any such functions are overdetermined by the general function. At the same time Poulantzas analyses the state in ‘class-theoretical’ rather than ‘capital-theoretical’ (or analogous) terms: for a general theory must abstract from particular modes of production and is obliged to adopt a ‘class- theoretical’ approach. In this context he argues that the state reflects and condenses all the contradictions in a class-divided social formation, that political practices are always class practices, and that state power is always the power of a definite class to whose interests the state corresponds.

This does not mean that the state should be seen as a mere instrument of the dominant class. Rather it implies that, to the extent that the state successfully performs its general function in managing class contradictions and thereby securing cohesion, it maintains the political conditions necessary for the reproduction of the (dominant; mode of production (cf. 1968, pp. 54, 137). Moreover, in arguing that the state can be understood neither as a simple instrument oz ‘thing’ nor as a sovereign, free-willed subject, Poulantzas suggests that it is best seen as a form-determined field of social relations in which the regional structure of the political has definite effects on the political class struggle (1968, p. 103; 1974, pp. 26, 98; 1976a, p. 74; 1976c, pp. 38-39; 1978, pp. 128129, 158). At this point, however, we reach the limits of the general theory of the state. To progress further Poulantzas must move from a functionalist, ‘class- theoretical’ account to a form-determined, ‘capital-theoretical’ analysis. It remains to be seen how this is achieved. (For the general theory, see Poulantzas, 1968, pp. 37, 40-54, 99-100, 115-117; also, 1969, pp. 68, 73-77; 1970, pp. 303, 304; 1974, pp. 24-28, 78, 98, 156, 164, 169; 1976a, pp. 72-74, 79-81; 1976c, pp. 31-32, 38-39; 1978, pp. 14-17, 19-21, 38-44.)

In considering the particular theory of the CMP, Poulantzas first contrasts the relations of production in capitalist and pre-capitalist modes of exploitation. He argues that the latter were characterised by the immediate access of the direct producers to the means of production and their ability to set these to work without the intervention of the exploiting class of owners; and that this meant that the owners had to employ extra-economic compulsion to control the use of the means of production and to appropriate surplus-labour. In contrast the CMP involves the separation or dispossession of the direct producers (as individuals and as a collective labourer) from the means of production and the effective coincidence (or ‘homology’) of the twin economic powers of possession (effective control over the labour process) and ownership (legal control over the goals of production and the appropriation of surplus-labour) in the hands of the exploiting class. Thus exploitation now takes the form of exchange owing to the embodiment of surplus-labour in commodities and compulsion is not required within the relations of production - instead coercion is confined to maintaining the ‘external’ conditions of such exploitation (see 1968, pp. 27, 28, 29-32, 126-127, 129, 227228; 1974, pp. 19, 32, 63, 94, 116; 1976c, pp. 32-33; 1978, pp. 18-19, 26, 35; cf. 1965c, pp. 870-876). Thus the CMP involves a distinctive autonomy of the economic and political regions. For the economic region is now freed from direct political control - it operates through distinct economic apparatuses (enterprises) and under the dominance of sui generis economic laws (mediated via market forces and ultimately determined by the circuit of productive capital). Likewise the political region is able to monopolies and constitutionalise the use of coercion and to specialise for the first time in the global political function of maintaining cohesion rather than being directly implicated in the organisation of the labour process and the appropriation of surplus-labour (1968, pp. 21, 29, 32, 46, 48n, 127, 129, 143n, 226-227; 1970, p. 304; 1974, pp. 32, 64, 92, 94, 96; 1978, pp. 18, 50-51, 53, 82; cf 1965c, pp. 879-880).

But this institutional separation and functional specialisation do not mean that the economic and political regions have become completely autonomous and self-sufficient. For the economic region has definite political conditions of exist-ence and the political region performs economic functions under the dominance of its global cohesive function. Nonetheless it is still possible to develop a theory of the political region of capitalism without resorting to crude economic reductionism of a ‘capital logic’ kind. Indeed, as the capitalist state represents the global political interests of the power bloc rather than the immediate economic interests of its various class (fraction) constituents, one must start from sui generis political concepts rather than the economic categories of capital accumulation (1968, pp. 17, 50-51, 53-56, 130-131, 190, 282; 1970, pp. 20-21, 311, 313; 1974, pp. 21, 81, 99-101, 165-168; 1976a, pp. 78-79; 1978, pp. 17-19, 38, 168-169; and, for a critique of ‘capital logic’, see: 1978 pp. 51-52).

In this context Poulantzas argues that the capitalist state must be related to the structural matrix of the CMP and to the field of class relations. Moreover, although the structural matrix receives priority in his order of exposition (since classes are seen as an effect of this matrix in the field of social relations), it is class relations that are accorded the principal role as the motor force of history. Thus, while the place of the capitalist state in the CMP, its unique organisational form as a national-popular representative state, its precise boundaries, and its specific functions in capitalist reproduction depend on the distinctive matrix of the CMP and its transformation according to the stages and phases of capital accumulation, they are nonetheless modified within these basic structural limits by the changing conjunctures of class struggle in the various regions of capitalist society and their overdetermination by the political class struggle in its global sense (see Poulantzas, 1968, pp. 38, 57, 63-64, 99, 125-137, 143, 148151, 157, 309; 1970, pp. 16, 24, 40-42, 53, 70, 310-311; 1974, pp. 27-28, 97-98, 156, 161n; 1976a, pp. 71-72, 74; 1976b, pp 21, 82, 90-92; 1976c, pp. 32-33, 37; 1978, pp. 123-124, 204

Thus, having derived the distinctive institutional separation of the political region and its functional specialisation as the factor of cohesion from the matrix of the CMP, Poulantzas proceeds to examine the nature of the capitalist state in terms of its distinctive relation to the field of class struggles. His starting point is not found among the economic categories of the capital relation but comes instead for the political region itself. For Poulantzas first introduces the concept of the ‘isolation effect’ and then traces its implications for the form and functions of the capitalist state. This approach differs fundamentally from Staatsableitung and we must now consider it in greater detail.

ON PRIVATE INDIVIDUATION AND PUBLIC UNITY

Poulantzas ascribes a crucial role to the capitalist state in the structural matrix of the CMP in securing the specific external conditions of existence of the economic region as well as its general precondition of social cohesion. He also argues that the state has specific effects on the economic and political class struggles. In this section we shall ignore state intervention in the relations of production (see below, pp. 173-177) and concentrate instead on its role in the class struggle. Here Poulantzas notes that the specific autonomy of the different regions in the CMP entails a distinctive separation of the different fields of the class struggle and poses definite problems of class unity for dominant and dominated classes alike. This structural effect is reinforced by the ‘isolation effect’ created through specific juridico-political and ideological practices mediated through the state. Together these effects condition the complex terrain of class struggles in capitalist societies and permit the development of the capitalist type of state as a state characterised by hegemonic class leadership (1968, pp. 89, 91-92, 130-141, 190191).”翻译为中文