请将“So, in this book, in offering an outline of Marxist state theory, I integrate some of the existing ideas from post-Marx (not post-Marxist) academic state theory with the insights from Capital 1. In fact, each of the chapters after Chapter 2 (which is a critical review of existing ideas), that constitutes my outline of Marxist state theory, starts from a point that Marx makes in Capital 1 or a question he asks there. Further, while the Leninist legacy (revolutionary Marxism of the 20th century) is ignored and diluted in existing state theory, I critically use that legacy in thinking about the state. This allows me to respond to some of the major theoretical weaknesses in existing state theory as I see them. Each of the chapters after Chapter 2 ends, as well, with a discussion not only on theoretical implications but also on practical implications of the ideas presented: understanding the state is guided by, and must guide, the question of what is to be done with/to the state.
The outline of the Marxist state theory I present here is broadly in line with the Marxist class theory I have presented earlier in the sense that the state is conceptualized at the level of class, capitalism in general, and capitalism as it exists in more or less advanced countries (Das, 2017a). I deal more specifically with the state at the level of class relation as such and in relation to the dialectical totality of capitalism as a form of class relation. I view the relation between the state and class to be much closer than indicated in existing theory. In terms of the analysis of the state from the standpoint of the interests of the exploited classes, my main emphasis is on the working class, but I also pay some attention to small-scale producers who are connected to capitalists, albeit in different ways than workers are. While my focus is on the class-state and on the capitalist state in the abstract with an eye towards the advanced countries (where the more general mechanisms discussed fully play out), I also pay attention to the specificity of the peripheral state, in the context of imperialism, a topic that Marx did not pay much attention to (in part given the time in which he lived) but Lenin and his legacy did. In fact, I take an international approach to capitalism and the state, with the theoretical mechanisms illustrated through empirical examples from the North and the South.
I examine the capitalist form of the state in relation to how it intervenes in support of capitalist economic interests in terms of its defence of capitalist property and commodity exchange and in terms of its support for the production of value. In examining the economic role of the state, I employ Marx’s capital circuit. I then argue that the ways in which the state performs procapitalist functions are shaped by: ‘instrumentalist’ ties between the (members of the) capitalist class and the state; inter-capitalist competition; and the autonomy of officials of the capitalist state who within limits can pursue their own interests. I examine the limits to state’s pro-capitalist economic intervention that exist because of the crisis-ridden nature of capitalism itself which the state cannot resolve; of course, such limits adversely impact the masses. The state can introduce measures on behalf of the masses in response to their struggle and in the longer-term interest of the capitalist class as a whole (or of its dominant factions). But the state is limited in terms of what it can do for the masses too, given that their interests and those of the propertied classes (capitalists and large landowners) are fundamentally antagonistic. The state is also limited because of the crisis-ridden nature of capitalism which puts a brake on economic development and therefore on significant redistribution of income and wealth, and which may dry up state’s resources. What is important in society is not just what the state does (i.e. its functions) but also its form which impacts state’s functions. State forms include its geographical form and bureaucratic form. All the different aspects of state functions and state forms have one major thing in common: the state represents the lack of control over state power by the masses, and this means that until they establish a transitional state under their own popular-democratic control, they cannot begin to resolve their economic- ecological problems (e.g. economic miseries, ecological crisis) and political- cultural problems (e.g. attack on their democratic rights, oppression of women and racialized and religious minorities).
5	An overview of the argument
Any attempted re-articulation and reconstruction of Marxist state theory must be based on a critical recuperative review of the existing ideas about the state that are more or less inspired by Marx. So in Chapter 2, I lay out the various vantage points to the state and then present a series of inter-connected criticisms.
Nearly all of the Marxist state theory has been about capitalist society only (and this partly reflects Euro-centricism in existing theory). But capitalism is only one form of class society. So there is a need to ‘scale up’ the analysis of the state — that is, to analyse the state at the level of class relations as such ‘before’ examining the state at the level of capitalist class relation. In Capital 1, Marx says that unequal distribution of property leads to the appropriation of surplus product from the direct producers, by those who have the monopoly over private property. But without the active assistance of the state, would these types of property owner be able to maintain their monopoly over property and appropriate surplus labour from direct producers? The answer is no. There is an internal relation between the state and class relations. So I begin my own outline of the theory of the state by examining the state at the level of class relation (Chapter 3), which sets the context for the discussion on the different dimensions of the relation between the state and capitalist form of class society (in Chapters 4-11).
In examining the state’s internal relation with class relations, I begin with the claim that the state is influenced by economic relations/conditions. The scope of ‘economic relations’ is expanded to include the structure of class relations, and the state is related to class relations. I focus then on the state and class struggle. To say that the state exists because of class relations and because of class struggle does not explain why it is that the state does not support the exploited class in its struggle against the exploiter class. So I explore the idea that the state and the exploiting class are two arms of the totality of the body of class relations. As forms of class relation change, so do the nature and forms of the class-state. Here I also make some remarks on the state in pre-capitalist societies. I argue against those Marxist scholars who seek to dilute the importance of the relation between the state and property relation. I also make remarks on some under-stressed aspects of the state that have an implication for understanding the state in the transitional post-revolution society, where there can be elements of the capitalist state without the capitalists. In the process, and in part by building on Leon Trotsky, this discussion brings to light a potential source of weakness in Lenin’s theory of the state.
Having explained the nature of the state at the level of class relations, I explore the different dimensions of the capitalist state in Chapter 4 and the remainder of the book. Marx clearly thought that the capitalist state could not eliminate the problems created by capitalist production and exchange based on capitalist private property. Why? One explanation is that the state itself depends on accumulation. This idea appears to be in some of the writings of Marx himself. In more recent times, some scholars have indeed argued that the capitalist state cannot do this or that for the ordinary people because the capitalist class constrains state’s actions. The idea that the state depends on capitalists for taxes, loans, and so on and that capitalist structure, or capitalists as individuals, constrains the state is somewhat true from the standpoint of relatively concrete aspects of capitalist class society. But overall, this is an inadequate view informed by the ontology of external relation according to which the state and the capitalist class (including individual capitalists) exist as separate things, and then they interact.
Another idea is that there are no inherent obstacles to the state being able to make capitalists serve the majority and that therefore the obstacles can be removed by, say, adequate pressure from below. This idea presupposes an external relation between the state and the working class. In other words, the relation between the state and working class is an empirical relation, the strength of which varies across regions/countries and historical periods. The approaches to the state based on the external relation between class and the state must be contested. To contest these ideas requires that we see their relation as an internal one rather than an external one.
So, in Chapter 4, I discuss the relation between the structure of the state and capitalism as an internal relation. I discuss then how the structure of the state operates within a series of limits, some of which are more stringent than others. I conclude by reflecting on the idea of the separation of economic power from political power: I assert that economic power and political power are two sides of the same coin. This chapter contains an overview of the entire theoretical framework for understanding the capitalist state in the book.”翻译为中文