But, I repeat, the relative autonomy of the state, founded on the separation (constantly being transformed) of the economic and political, is inherent in its very structure (the state is a relation) in so far as it is the resultant of contradictions and of the class struggle as expressed, always in their own specific manner, within the state itself- the state which is both shot through and constituted with and by these class contradictions. It is precisely this that enables us exactly to pinpoint the specific role of the bureaucracy which, although it constitutes a specific social category, is not a group standing above, outside or to one side of classes: an elite, but one whose members also have a class situation or membership. To my mind, the implications of this analysis are of great importance.
2 comments:
Does Poulantzas deal with the fact that the "bureaucracy" is largely made up of workers who come from the lower classes, do not see themselves as part of a class called "the bureaucracy," and probably hate "bureaucrats" as much as the next guy?
I am thinking of our beloved public employees here. Who among them thinks of themselves as part of a state system designed to do anything other than the mundane chores of the modern regulatory state? How many of them get up in the morning and think, "well another day of blocking change, stifling the masses, and serving the corporate elite"?
Would be interested in hearing more is Poulantzas (or anyone) does. Or mayhaps I'm way wrong; has happened before.
Poulantzas asks the questions that my diss tries to answer. I agree with everything you say above.
Post a Comment