Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

i G..... .

Working Notes on Some Problems of State Interventionism (I)

.1 72 5 . '
Bibliograph- Elmar A Zrvarer - Pgul bbcbarla: Zum staatsmonopolistischen Kapitalismus, in: Sozialistische Politik,
ic Informa- Heft 11, Juni 1971 .
Prefaceit “ - Paul Boccara: Ubersicht iiber die Theorie der Uberakkumulationsentwertung des
' Kapitals und die Perspektiven der fortschrittlichen Demokratie, in: Sozialistische
West German researchers interested in the ‘reconstruction’ of the critique of I '
Politik, Heft 16, 18, 19. t y
political economy of present day capitalism have been discussing two main problem + Margaret Wirth: Kapitalismus in der DDR, Frankfurt 1972 (5)
areas in the recent past. The following article by Elmar Altvater (1) has to be seen in
this contextual setting. Elmar Altvater is presently teaching at the political science department of West-
The first problem area is characterized by its focus on analysis of the Marxist Berlin’s Free University. Infuture numbers of KAPITALISTATE contributions by
Altvater and others may be expected, as they are involved in continuous seminar-work
method of research. This discussion, consequently, attempts to ascertain the status of
on the “problems of the empirical analysis of the accumulation cycle in West Germany”
the scientific validity of Marxian work; in other words, the research adresses itself to
the logical status and interrelationship of the various parts of Marx’s non-completed (6). Special focus of that work is the empirical investigation of the influence of state
actions on, for example, the process of concentration and centralization of capital, the
Critique of Political Economy.
rate of surplus extraction, capital intensity, productivity, etc. All presently limited to
This discussion is so diffcult, since comprehending Marx’s method presupposgs
the West German capitalist region.
an understanding of Hegelian logic as well as Marx’s critique of it. The central problems
of this discussion are: t
Notes on:Some Problems of State Interventionism*
1. The difference between the process of research and the analytically determined mode
of presentation (“Darstellungsform”) of the research results.
1. Introduction
2. The relationship between the historical and the logical method of research and
3. the meaning of the concept of “capital in general” in contrast to those concrete, This essay is an attempt to analyze the possibilities and limitations of state inter-
apparent forms derived from it. The latter include forms of ‘self-presentation’ of ventionism (1) which are present inbourgeois-‘capitalist society. However, in order to
capitalism (“Erscheinungsformen”), such as: competition (2), credit, capital in the determine these possibilities and limitations, we must first discuss the functions of the
form of stock companies etc. _ I state in capitalist society in a more general sense. Restricting this analysis to the
The main points of orientation for this discussion are the following works: economic function of state intewentionism would obscure from the outset the
— Jindrich Zelenyz Die Wissenschaftslogik bei Marx und “Das léapital“, Ost-Berlin functional conditions of a capitalist society and state, and the recognition of their
1968 I possibilities and limitations. (2) I
— Roman Rosdolsky: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen “liapital”, 2 Ban- In the following sections we will first attempt to work out roughly the essential
de, Frankfurt, Wien 1968 characteristics of the bourgeois state (I). We will examine in particular the creation of the
— Helmut Reichelt: Zur logischen Struktur desliapitalbegriffs bei Karl Marx, general, materialconditions for production by the bourgeois state (II) and then turn
Frankfurt, Wien 1970 to the attempts at governmental crisis management (III). In this regard the problem
of stagnation will especially interest us (IV). In the concluding section, we will take
The second problem area pertains to an on-going (3) discussion of the role of as an example the question of whether and to what extent the advance of bourgeois
the state in ’late capitalism’. On the one hand this discussion is concerned with science can effect state actions in a capitalist society (V). This set of problems is less
‘revisionist theories’ about the welfare state; on the other hand with importing, the result of a developed, systematic effort to present the problem of the state, than a
developing (and criticizing) the ‘theory of state monopoly capitalism’ (4) as it has been selection of issues according to their present political importance. The first part of this
elaborated especially by marxists from Francepand the German Democratic Republic. article in KAPITALISTATE will deal with problems I andll. The next part will deal.
The most important writings in this context are: with problems III to V. -
— Wolfgang Miiller, Christel Neusiii?>: Die Sozialstaatsillusion und der Widerspruch von I
Lohnarbeit und Kapital, in: Sozialistische Politik, Heft 6/7 (Juni 1970), S. 4 ff.
-— R. Gtindel, H. Heininger, P. Hess, K. Zieschang: Zur Theorie des staatsmonopolisti- 5) Will soon be reviewed in KAPITA LISTATE
6) Cf. the prospectus of a “Seminar: Probleme der empirischen Analyse der Akkumulations~
schen Kapitalismus, Schriften des Instituts fur Wirtschaftswissenschaften der Deut- zyklen in Westdeutschland”,Wintersemester 1972/73, Berlin 1972, Otto Suhr Institut, 72-p.
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Nr. 22, Ost-Berlin 1967 M with 16 p. bibliographyi 1 .
— S. L. Wygodski, Der gegenwartige Kapitalismus, Berl1n,DDR 1972 (auch: Koln The prospectus may be obtained from: Elmar Altvater, D 1 Berlin 12, Knesebeckstr. 16 (it
is in.German though).

r. _
i... I.
II.= i= l.'.§
|-. . * The preface was written by: Rudolf Sinz, Ana Delgado, Stephan Leibfried n * The man participants in the discussion of this essay were Karlheinz Maldaner, Wolfgang
Muller, and Christel Neustiss. This essay is based on work which has evolved from seminars
-. 5 la

1) The article was published first as: “Zu einigen Problemen des Staatsinterventionismus”, 1112
-51': ; I5}:
Probleme des Klassenkampfs no. 3, May 1972. The original version is somewhat more at the Otto Suhr Insitute. .
elaborated than the one reprinted here. I 1) Even the category “state interventionism” is problematic. In its popular conception it
2) Cf. Marx, Marx-Engels Werke, Berlin 1954 pp., p. 335, “Scientific work on the process of implies a disjointed relationship between society, its economic structure, and the state.
competition rests on the condition that the inner nature of capital has been grasped.” This essay is an attempt to criticize this notion. But since other concepts, such as “state
regulati0n”,_“'planned Capitalism”, “crisis management”, and similar ones, are not real u
I 3) The discussion dates from about 1969 on. It is connected with the ‘self-appraisal’ phase of
the West German student movement. _ ' . alternatives, we shall retain the problematic concept of state interventionism.
4) KAPITALISTATE will focus one or two issues on this subject in the near future. People 2) We would agree, in this sense, with Paul Boccara, in “Towards State-Monopoly Capitalism”,
interested should contact: Josef Esser, 7 75 Konstanz, Alter Wall 11, F.R. of Germany; or: -So2_:i.f.zlistische_Politik, J1, p. 11, when he writes that within state-monopoly capitalism, the
Ernst-"Theodor Mohl, 6 Frankfurt Main 50, Ginheimer Str. 189, F.R. of Germany. state can be viewed as one component of a “unified mechanism which combines the power
97- . of fghe state and of monopoly.“ '
7 Kapitrilistate 1
:-g;-ux-II555 I I I E 1 ;
:r.=:i:a;:_=.=.-M‘ == <1

\* : =. =. 2: E. : 2 2
:e5.»!:~=@z ‘i>:;=-;_£>n"@z§ I-Z fia-'5-'§. '5_I3j1 2='_§5.='.-‘§3:-‘.' -12.1“.
- l =
_7 7 7 1 f 7 ___ _ _ _____ ___ -4- - -77; —_-iii-he-... ,,:WW-.,--v.--L_...» —


2. The “Autonornization” of the State in Bourgeois Society ~

society“ (4), and one which at the same time provides within the undisputed frame-
Under capitalism the state is the instrument of capital’s domination over the work of capital the immanent necessities which capital ignores. As a result of this,
class of wage laborers. This assertion is a fact of political experience, which has been, bourgeois society develops, in the state, a specific form expressing the general interests
and is still being demonstrated again and again in the hitherto existing history of the of capital. (5) The state can thus be conceived neither as a mere political instrument
various capitalist nations. In this essay, we are concerned with only one aspect of the nor as an institution set up by capital, but rather as a special form of the accomplishment
state’s actions, namely, its actions upon the various capital units (“Einzelkapitale”). of the social existence of capital along with and besides competition, as an essential
The decisive questions in this respect for our investigation are: in what way is the moment in the social reproduction process of capital. (6)
actual coordination of a society brought about which is constituted by many capital if the state expresses the general interest of capital, it does not do so in a manner
units, and what is the role of the state in this context? free of contradictions. This is because the concept of the average existence of capital
On the level of “capital in general” (3), as analyzed by Marx, the actual does not do away with (aufheben) the actions and interests of the myriad of capital
existence of capital is by presupposition a total social capital. Total social capital is units, which, as such, stand in contrast to one another. These contrasts are neither abolished
the unified organization in the sense of being the real and general existence of the by the competive market, nor can they be attributed to this competition or to the
various capital units, whose subjective actions, determined by the given conditions, “anarchy of the market , where they appear, nor can the state eliminate these contrasts
cause, as a result, “behind their backs“, these general conditions to be the conditions In this sense the state is therefore never an actual, material, total capitalist, but rather
of total capital (“Gesamtkapital”). The “laws of motion” of the capitalist moraegpf always simply an idealized or fictitious total capitalist. (7) This is the conent of the
production thus relate always to the total social capital, never to the various sin e category of the “autonomization of the state”, of the “double nature” of bourgeois
capital units, which nevertheless, through their actions are the unconscious means by society as society and as state. At this point an important conclusion can be drawn;
which capitalist regularity is achieved. For it is not the “total capital” which transacts the state does not substitute for the competitive arena, but rather is aligned next to it.
(“handelt”), but rather the capital units. In relation to the law of value which conceptually, encompasses the immanent laws of
in their transactions, however, the capital units produce the conditions for the its own execution, this does not imply its substitution or its abolition, but its
existence of total capital: the average conditions for exploitation, the same surplus corresponding modification. Thus the state makes the establishment of a society of
rate, average profit rates. On the conceptual level of “capital in general“, the average disparate, individual interests historically possible by ensuring the foundations for the
conditions and their regular movements are analyzed; that is, the transactions of existence of this society. The state guarantees the existence of the class of wage
capital units are not of interest as such, but only in terms of their results. To be sure, laborers as the object of exploitation, creates the general conditions for production
on the conceptual level of capital in general, the form is developed in which the including legal relations. Capital itself, by contrast, is not able to produce these
general laws (as tendencies) of the capitalist mode of production come to fruition out foundations. Under the pressure of competition capital is forced to utilize all
of and in reaction to the transactions of the capital units. This form is competition, resources maximally, regardless of the social and material consequences: in consequence
in which the immanent, inexorable laws of capitalist production prove themselves. capital tends to destroy its own social foundations. Moreover, the establishment of
Competition, however, is not mere form, which carries out contents indifferent to
itself,-but rather the form of the accomplishment of the immanent laws of capital. 4) plarx and Engels (in the German Ideology), MEW = Marx—Engels—Works, 3, p. 62; Berlin
954 pp. " ' ‘
in a competitive market capital can be produced as total capital only to the 5) The state “is however nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeoisie
extent that the capital units actually relate to one another. They can only do this, necessarily establish both internally and externally to guarantee their property and into-
however, insofar as they are surplus-producing units. Not all social functions, though, rests, the form in which the ruling classes assert their common interests, and the form in
can be performed in this sense by a capitalist society. Either the production of which the entire bourgeois society of an era constitutes itself.“ MEW, 3, p. 62.

certain material conditions for production yields no profit, or the degree of 6) This is a criticism of-those ideas (as they appear in certain variations of the theory of state-
rrionopoly capitalism) which claim that the state is the tool of the most powerful monop-
generality of many regulations under given conditions is too great for them to be °h1@$, and Whlch, as they are presentedin most bourgeois theories, claim that the state is
performed by capital units with their given special interests. It thus happens that in t eiautonomous subject of this regulation. It can be seen that the theories of statc—monopoly
the capitalist form of production, the capital units constitute themselves as total social capitalism are very divided on this question. On the one hand they maintain that there is a
capital by competition and that this constitution can in no way be ascribed solely to ulprfied mechanism, Wl'l1Cl'|. encompasses the power of the monopolies and of the state, or
t e intermingling of monopohstic power with that of the state. On the other hand, tho
competition. The reason for this hindrance has to do with capital itself; the specific state 1s conceived to be simply the instrument of the monopolistic bourgeoisie”. Take
form of social relations — (commodity exchange and the production of capital) -- as an example Der Imperralzsmus der BRD, Frankfurt, 1971. It cannot be denied that state
does not permit the development of certain social relations. If their production is not and capital have mergedinto a unified mechanism; 1t 1S only a matter of carefully investiga-
ting the functronalcondrtions of this “mechanism”. The theoreticians of state-monopoly
profitable or if their production occurs to a degree and under conditions which endanger capitalism have not answered this question. Compare, for example, the most advanccd
the existence of the entire society (e.g., the destruction of the natural resources of a variation of this theory:_ Paul Boccara, “Ubersicht iiber die Theorie der Uberakkumulation-
society, as an current example). Accordingly, capital cannot produce solely through Epztwferpunlg des Kaprtals und die Perspektiven der fortschrittlichen Demokratie”, Sozialisti-
sc e om , 16, p. _1 ff. For a development of the theory of state-monopoly capitalism, cf.
the actions of the many capital units the necessary social nature of its existence. At Werner Petrowsky in Probleme des Klassenkampfes 1, 1971. _
its base it requires a special institution, one which is not subject to its limitations as 7) Engels, Am‘:-Duhrzng, MEW, Vol. 20, p. 260: “And the modern state is again only the
capital, one whose dealings are thus not determined by the necessity of surplus pro- organization which bourgeois society creates. in order to maintain the general external
duction, one which in this sense is a special institution “outside and above bourgeois conditions of the capitalist mode of production against attack by workers as well as by
glldlyédufil cgpitalists. The mpadern state, whatever its form, is an essential capitalist machine,
mgrle er;-1 go ttotal capitalist. We cannot agree with Engels’ consequent statement: “The
mist p S L;Ck1l/6 powers that the state takes control of, the more 1t becomes the total capi-
_ . _ y a mg over the capltalist production process, the state does indeed become an act
We will not go into the meaning of this category here, but refer to what is still the best capitalist, however not the total capitalist. As a capitalist producer, the state is subject to the
treatmens of this matter, Roman Rosdolsky’s Zur En rsrehungsgeschich re des Marxschen internal contlrcts among the capital units, just as are other large capital units. As will be shou u ll
Kapztal , Frankfurt and Vienna, 1968, pp. 24-124, especially p. 61 ff. fagiirtagptly the establishment of the state as an actual capitalist which is problematic for

. I 1 -. = -:;":_:,a,:;.-.;
. _
_ ii


the social preconditions of capital accumulation is only possible within an organizat]

framework which is not subjected directly to the limitations and restrictions of the The historical tendency of the rate of profit to fall constitutes one aspect of
market. The state performs the functions necessary to maintain capitalist society_ It the reasons why capital is less and less capable of satisfying the demands of the labor
process as a means of the process of the creation of value. The other aspect results
do this precisely because the state, as a special institution, outside and above bourgeo
society, is not subservient to the necessities of surplus production, as are capital units": from the growing level of productive forces, which — generally speaking — explode,
no matter how big. The appropriate form of the state under capitalism is therefore the limited side of capitalist production, the production of future surplus-value.
special existence counterposed to capital units, and not the form as an “instrument ofi Dealing with “tendencies” of capitalist development we must take into
the-monopolies”. (The state becomes this only in a mediated sense.) consideration their cyclical form. Along with the cyclical course of production, the
current share of the state in the social product - which can be taken as a very crude
What, then, are the functions which a state in a capitalist society performs, that indicator of the amount of state intervention — also fluctuates in quasi natural fashion.
capital units cannot perform? There are essentially four areas in which the state is In the treatment of the problem of “stagnation” in the fourth part of this essay this
primarily active:
relationship will become clearer.
1) the creation of the general material conditions of production (“infrastructure”); After this sketch of one of the spheres of state activity, in providing the general
2) the determination and safeguarding of the general legal system i.n which the material conditions of production, let us turn briefly to the other spheres mentioned
relationships of the legal subjects in capitalist society occur; above. '
3) the regulation of the conflict between wage labor and capital, and if necessar (2) While economic relationships in precapitalist modes of production and
political oppression of the working class —» not only by political and military mdggr’; during the transition to capitalism are still constituted partly as unmediated relations
4) assurance and expansion of the total national capital on the capitalist world marketfiil of political force, with the development of industrial capital the direct intervention of
All these functions are, so to speak, general characteristics of the bourgeois stateifit the state is less and less an essential expression of unmediated force. The function of
yet they develop on the historical foundation of the accumulation of capital. the state is now essentially the creation of the general prerequisites for free competition.
(1) Let us deal first with the materialconditions of production. The general including the elimination of frictions through the creation of general legal relationships
conditions of production to be produced by the state depend upon the historical stage 5 and the enforcement of their observance. ( 7) It is for the first time through the regulation
of capital development. Viewed in terms of its material function for the social labor of the sphere of competition, exchange and capitalist property that capital is freed in
process, the functions of the railroad, for example, are the same today as they were a competition to be able to continually fulfill the capitalist process ofappropria tion. (8)
hundred years ago. Yet the railroad was privately operated in the nineteenth century Butnever in bourgeois society did legislation limit itself exclusively to the sphere of
and was a profitable form of capital investment, whereas today the railroad is competition. “The other essential part of the law of bourgeois society directly organizes
definitely an unprofitable business for capital and thus represents an appropriate relationships of domination, such as in penal law, labor law and so on.“ (9) Thus the
sphere of action for the bourgeois state. This is one example of the concrete historical bourgeois state codifies in law not only the general conditions of commerce between
determination of state activities in the creation of the general conditions of production) owners of commodities, but also the general conditions of labor, production and so on.
All that can be said on a general level is that the necessary productive processes taken I (10) This activity of the state has its origins directly in competition, which forces
over or at least regulated by the state must increasebecause of the historical tendency I different capital formations, as private capital relationships. The state, as the institution
of the rate ofprofit to fall. The effect-of this tendency is that more and more which is not subject to this competition, is alone capable of this regulatory activity. Its
processes of production become unprofitable to capital units and will thus be y necessity and the specific functions indicated here result directly from the fact that
abandoned or cut back, thereby disappearing from the sphere of competing capital. the state, as an organ of the ruling class, and unlike private capital units, is not subject
A full understanding of this process requires comprehension of the dual nature to the compulsion to create value, and can thus orient itself to the general interest of
of the capitalist production process, as both a labor process and one producing value
(on the level of society as a whole). Capital units can provide a part of the material 7a) “The interest in the functioning of the flow of commodities and the use of labor products
conditions of production demanded by any given unit. T on the market leads to a legal system and the creation of political or state power. Coercion
_ Some capital units produce the prerequisites for production for others. This
.:%:. . . .
.'§.i§'1E::: has to emerge . . . as a coercion emanating from an abstract, collective person which is not "
exercised in the interest of the individual who actually enforces it . . . but in the interest
relationship is produced by market competition as a process of the social division of . ._%
of all who participate in the system of laws. The power of one man over another is
labor of various capital units. But another part of the material conditions of production new
transformed in reality into the power of law, that is the power of an objective, non-partisan
cannot be produced by these capital units, because their production is unprofitable. \~.
norm.“ From Wolf Rosenbaum, “Zum Rechtsbegriff bei Stucka und Pasukanis”, in [Criti-
The result is that demands are made by the social labor process which cannot be sche Jastiz, Februrary 1971, p. I56. The primary quote in the text comes from

Pasulcanis, Allgerneine Rechtslehre and Marxismus, Frankfurt, 1966, p. 123, f. 8-Cf. Grand-
fulfilled under capitalist conditions, which unite the labor and value-forming processes. .4
risse, p. 542 ff. Here it is expressed as “. . . the production founded on capital finds its
What _aPP6ars from the perspective of capital units as a prerequisite for production of

adequate forms to the exteiit that free competition develops, for it is the free development
this kind, appears from the viewpoint of the labor process as a sphere ignored by capital : II->5,‘
of its conditions and its constantly reproducing processes which are this condition. It is
not individuals who are emancipated in free competition, but capital . ._ . ” pl 543, f.

it represents a kind of “vacuum” which the state must necessarily fill because in I zz'§»

9) Wolf Rosenbaum, op. cit. p.159. While it is basically correct to assert that not only the
contrast to the capital units, the state is not subject to the necessity of creating value: pi ~»~\

sphere of exchange, but also the process of production is defined as a realm of the rule of
Those parts of the social production of value which are taken in and allocated by the Y capital, reservations must be expressed about the equation of penal, inheritance and labor
state are, in its hands, not capital. For this reason,state functions of this kind always cg law. For it is surely no accident that labor law as such HIOS6 only very late, and actually
come out of ao given social fund of capital, thereby limiting the capital accumulation for the first time under Italian fascism, and thereby in conjunction with a state defined as
of Private capital units. This is an effective limit to state intervention: it cannot become “corporate”. In the German civil code, the regulation of the labor contract plays only the
most minimal role. That there is no labor code to go with the civil and commercial codes
so extensive that through it, private capital accumulation is exhausted. This limit is a -
is directly related to the fact that capital is in the labor process “the master of the factors
direct result of the fact that the state is a non-capitalist in a capitalist society; were it, 01111 it I I of production”, and allows itself to be tread upon only in exceptional cases.
the other hand, a capitalist in its own right, were the expenditures for production of a‘
10) See Capital, Vol. I, Ch. 8, in which Marx describes the establishment of the ten-hour day.
Wolfgang Miiller and Christel Neusiiss address themselves in exemplary fashion to this

a capitalist character, then it would be impossible to understand how the contradictions,if‘*""*"i‘*


problem in “The Illusion of the Social State and the Labor-Capital Conflict", in PR OKLA,

of capitalist society are sharpened by the increasing activity of the state. /

/’\" Special Issue No. 1, and SOPO 6/7.
’ .
--. ._..:,,y..,:==--
- -\~. .<~*‘a::
_ . ._--\/...--==.-
. %s=:2

all particular capital units. This characteristic of the state enables it to create and oversee
the observance of the laws, rules of competition expressed in such phenomena as state stantly result for capital, and what tactical consequences are to be drawn by the work-
offices of weights and measures, testing laboratories or patent offices and so forth it ing~class movement.
also oversees the observance of the labor contract, which is no longerasimply a ques-ti The state as a form capitalist social relations which exists outside civil society must
of commercial exchange among possessors of commodities, but one of the process ofon appear to capital units as the negative limit of value-forrnation: it employs labor power to
production as a process of exploitation of wage-labor by capital. _ create the general material conditions of production, for the maintaiiance of the legal
(3) We now move to a brief sketch of the function of the state in the regulation‘. system, for police and military repression, realms which therefore are no longer at the
of the conflict between wage labor and capital The general problem lies most directl disposal of capital as objects of exploitation (though from the viewpoint of the worker
in that the capital relation appears on the leveliof the market to be in fact a relationlslhj his work situation is the same as that of the workers employed by private capital) (14).
among basically -
equal subjects,
but is, essentially
a relation
of domination
ex tloita p The state also sets external barriers to capital’s drive to create value through the lirnitatioii
tion. Since capitalist society is a class society, because of constant class conflict 8.ll)1Cl the of the working day or legal restrictions, etc. On the surface the negative barriers to the
necessity of its containment for the preservation of the basis of that society, the state creation of value set up by the state appear to capital units as taxes, social burdens, etc.
ilhlSeOr';E~1l;€1!:,1tqp fupctions involving the creation of the general conditions of exploitati n, providing for “community services” which limit the individual consumption and/or
d g n o wage rates and. the suppression of class struggles. This functional production of surplus-value. Just as the natural boundary of the working day was, prior
omain of state actions 1S likewise the result of historical developments, namely the to labor legislation, the limit of capital in its drive for surplus-value, so after such
d‘irec t resul t_of the counter _ strategies
- of the ruling
. class which
. arose with
, the ClBV6lOpme_nt _ legislation the limit was established universally by the state.
of the working-class movements and their conscious struggles. Since in the case of class When the state is thus defined as an institution of capitalist society standing over
struggles the bourgeois class is always affected or even threatened as a whole capital units and outside it, appearing simultaneously as grounded within that society and as a negative
cannot individually take over the functions of appeasement and repression; (1 1) this restraint on value-formation, then it becomes clear that the historical functions of the
becomes more and more a realm of action for the “committee which handles the general state are not originally inherent within it, but rnustbe the results of crises of social pro-
interests of the ruling class.“ duction, mediated by class struggles and conflicts between fractions of the ruling class. No
(4). As the nation state, the state also encompasses all capital units within any given capital can voluntarily submit to specific, objectively perceived necessities; the pressure of
pgrplpttéynén opppsition tq other nation-states on the world market. In this realm state competition will restrain it. Thus, no capital formation will agree to the growth of external,
d . ' can e most cearly seen as such‘: from the maintenance of domestic currency, state-imposed limits on the realization of capital without external cause; it becomes
an ‘pOl11Z1CEll relations with foreign countries extending to military support of private disposed to such measures only when faced with catastrophes, conflicts and struggles. But
Ciiplllal accumulation and expansion in the era of imperialism. (12) The evolution of the this also means that class struggles have an important function in the maintenance of
giftcigtgrqjiictzvity winch the state rnust assume iseven determined in regular fashion by capitalist society, in that they aid in the emergence of objective historical necessities
through the agency of the state. "
I as 3 $3 1°11*3lale, that ts, by competition and struggle among nation—states.
(13) If we have discussed the functions of the state in successive isolation it was of Thus the growth of the state’s share of the social product (as a crude indication of
leatistlirfili ngt \;./Ezlll the idea that they could really be separated from each other in this the state’s functions in society), in the wake of the class struggle as in the wake of the
. n e contrary, the character of the state as a bourgeois state permeates all its First World War, and prior to and during the preparations for the great catastrophes of
functions; they serve in the final analysis to preserve and consolidate the capital world history, the world wars can be taken as an empirical confirmation of this thesis.
R?-zlatgopship as a relationship of domination and exploitation against the working class. (- Even if Adolph Wagner speaks quite generally and with little basis of the “law of
. o a s raction can be made of that function. The problem which interests us here is increasing state activity”, and thereby expresses what is more a supposition than a
the question of the extent to which the very maintenance of these functions produces we11~grounded tendential observation (15) the fact cannot be denied that the German
contradictions, to what limitations the state is thus subject what problems thus con- state’s share of the social product has grown in this century from around fifteen to forty
percent. It is also noteworthy that the expenditures of the state “in a phase of sustained
economic growth expand less than in periods of more meager growth, except when
11) Here an important modification must be kept in mind. For large capital units also regularly there is a depression and a negative growth rate of the social product. In the latter case,
giipgain repressive apparatuses in the form of company guards, whose function is obviously
pression of class struggles at the factory level. The examples of the attacks of such . there is a sharp increase in the proportion of state expeiiditures.“ (16) This means that
company police on demonstrating or protesting workers is an unequivocal proof of their the activity of the state, insofar as it is tied to costs, is subject to the conditions of capit-
Eharacter as a private army of capital. Cf. for example the presentation of Maurice Dobb,
1];g1éKapit1aj1spius zwischen den Kriegen” in his Organisierter Kapitalismus, Frankfurt,
, pp. 6 124, on the actions of the big American corporations against striking work- 14) This does not mean that labor conditions and salaries are identical in state and private se c-
ers, working-class functionaries and trade unions, which unmasked the idyllic appearance tors. It is on the contrary more often the case that workers and functionaries in the public
of the New Deal, of left-wing Keysianism and the “welfare state” as the impoverished sector are the most poorly pa‘-id or work under the worst conditions. This is the case in lrlnglanrl
window dressing that it was. Cf. in addition the murder of Comrade Auverney by the and France, but also in the Federal Republic. Cf._ Detlev Albers, Werner Goldschmidt, Paul
Eompany guard at the Parisian Renault works in February, 1972, and the multiple Oehlke, Klassenkrimpfe in Westeuropa, rororo-aktuell, Reinbek, 1971. This is a confirma-
emergency” maneuvers of West-German private guards which came to light up 1968 tion of the Marxist thesis, that unproductive laborers (civil servants, state functionaries and
especially during the movement against the national emergency laws, but which were aable workers employed by the state) maintained as a rule by the value product of productive
Er; continue thereafter in the obscurity of a tolerated illegality. This furthermore shows how workers, are thus financed for the most part from surplus~value and find the limits of their
e sphere of the state and salaries in the amount of existing surplus-value. The limits of state activity thus express
_ of private capital cannot be sim p 1 y and sharply differentiated, b t themselves for individual state employees in lower salaries and inferior working conditions.
on the contrary overlap in many domains. u
12) “Military investments can be seen as long-range complimentar inv st t th ' 15) Cf. Adolph Wagner, “Das Gesetz der zunehmenden Staattatigkeit”, an experpt from
ments whichfirst of all ma k e o - bl th . _ Y ‘E3 me? 5= at. 15 as 11’1V@.5l" _ W _ “Staat in nationalokonomische Hinsicht”, in Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften,
any external threat. Of C0mseI115:1SpiCta6ClZX531ns1i:;1u0f$lg:S<I:1q1me1st1C (£J_I1V31ie‘)‘ ecOnOI1’lY'WlthOut Vol. 7, 1911: reprinted in Finanztheorze, op, en‘. p_p. 241. Interpreted in terms of national
h 011111111
- - M it . ,, - P PP 111 Ema 19113 _h°1"_fl0 . _ _. economy, thislaw-means absolutely and even relatively the growing extension of public
Horst C Hg/15k . . . W1 1helm Weber, Wachstumeffekte der Staatsausgaben as , in Ftnanztheorte, _ /4 and more particularly of state-run forms of collective organization a long side and in place
. ec tenwald, ed. Koln-Berlin 1969, p. 311. - f - f - 6|’.
13) Cf_ as Wen N .. B1 k Al
,, _ _ _ __
eu5"55/ an el ll‘/filer, K3p1l£&llS'£1S@h@I Weltmarkt und Weltwahrungskrise ,
_ ” .
e 16)
o private ornis in the economy. _ _ “ H ‘ _
Horst Claus Reckteriwald Ftnanztheorze, op, ct t. Erganzung zur Wirksamkeit des Wag-
"a*’ta.i * ‘t"“* in Pro bl eine des Klassenkampfs. 1, 1971,_particularly
' p. 11.2 ff. 103 Herschel», Gesetzesn- p_ 246_

_ ' -. -.=.-..4.<.7.=-
: -- :;-aw.
s _ _

39% I1.';=:- '- 1 -- - .==.I'>*”*=z:E

-. ";_; '2_=_i_ -5 ;_: 1.1 1- 5 5.


alist production. i -1 production processes do not have a direct commodity character (qualifications, research
results (18) ). Or it could be that the market (the socialized demand) is too small, in

Thus the state is to some extent complimentary to capital units within the
framework of capitalist society, where by the “complimentary” nature of thevstate is absolute terms, for profitable production, i.e.,for the realization of the invested
always defined historically. This is clearly expressed even in the theories of “s ate capital value plus the surplus value. It could also be that capital is not satisfied with a
interventionism” developed in different eras and countrys. If Adam Smith, and in :': §"' less than average rate of profit, even if it is still a postive one, when more profitable
modified form Ricardo, limited the functions of the state more or less to the maintenance investment spheres exist, e.g., in foreign countries.
of military, police, educational and judicial institutions and left everything else to the The longer the labor time and the more‘ long-term the capital returns, and the
“natural” economic development of private capital itself, then the nineteenth-century larger the actual capital outlay, the more uncertain is the achievement of an average rate
German theoreticians of finance (A. Schaeffle, L. von Stein, A. Wagner) ascribed an of profit. Further it happens that the result of the productive process for such capital is
active role to the state in the development and the accumulation of capital. This theoret- if
another type of commodities; since the use of astreet, for example, can be or must be
free to everyone, such investments cannot be operated on a capitalist basis, When the

ical differentiation expresses exactly the different situations of England and Germany
in the accumulation of capital and world-market competition during the nineteenth cent- necessity for extending the “infrastructure” becomes pressing enough to demand special
ury. It also domonstrates that social functions always first arise as state functions when -ti expenditures, then capital throws this upon the shoulders of the state. Or, if the state
they are not or cannot be provided by private capital. The autonornization of the state ill
still has a traditionally superior position, it still has the privilege and the will to force
is thus grounded in the “nature” of capital relations, but the evolutionof the real r
the the totality of capital units to put a part of their revenue, not their capital, into
state constantly progresses in the particular historical conditions of a country in av given E
such generally useful work. These expenditures appear at the same time to be the
period," the decision as to what general conditions of production are “general” in the general conditions of production and thus not the particular condition for any single
sense that they must be dealt with by the state and which “general” conditions can still vi
capitalist. As long as capitaldoes not take the form of a corporation, it seeks only the
be handled by private capital is first and foremost, a question of the existing historical vi particular conditions of its own utilization and pushes the more general conditions onto
situation. We will deal with this problem more thoroughly in the following section in the country as nationalnecessities. Capital undertakes only what it considers lucrative
developing the example of the general material conditions of production. ventures.“ (19)
in order to avoid misunderstandings,Iwe have to speak of the production and
3. The Creation of the General Material Conditions of Production by the State zzl
operation of infrastructural institutions. It is clear that the production of a bridge is
just as “productive”, i.e., profitable, as the production of a machine or a suit. All three
We have seen that the reason for the autonomization of the state lies above all in ' I!
of these products are produced as commodities and exchanged on the market, though
the creation of the general conditions of production. It is now necessary to look into the form of each is, of course, different. The clothing manufacturer produces for a
the prerequisites of material production and to ask why they are provided by the state mass market; and when .a buyer has bought a suit, the capitalist has recovered his in-

and not by private capital."*If we start from a general relationship of interpendence vestment plus made a profit, and the buyer haspurchased a consumer item by spending

within a society, then the criteria dwindle for differentiating between general and revenue. The suit is of no interest to us in terms of value from this point on, but only

particular conditions of production, and between general conditions of production Fdj

as use value for the buyer. The use value is unimportant in economic analysis, as long as
produced by the state and those produced by capital. (17) Those functions which have J it is itself not form-determining — and this is the case after the exchange is completed.
ceased to be or are not yet performed by capital include, (at least as far as the material ':'i?=
The machine producer, on the other hand, produces for an order by the machine buyer. F
side is concerned): the establishment of a communication system (streets, canals, tele- But this is no way changes the fact that he still produces for exchange, for a market that
graph and postal services); the development of an adequate qualification structure for ii
is relatively unknown to him, and that with the transformation of the machine into
the productive forces (the educational system); maintaining the capacities of the work money he completes an act of the circulation of his capital. In this sense he is in no way
force (public health service); the water supply; the disposal of sewage and garbage; etc. different from the producer of clothes. Of course, the case of the buyer of clothes is
There are a number of different reasons why it is not profitable to operate these proces- quite different from that of the buyer of machines. He buys the machines not with his
ses on a capitalist basis. T T
income but with the money-capital he advances in order to start or continue a production
But these reasons have nothing to do with their material characteristics. But it -'3‘-'>=\.' process. The machine 1S therefore transformed into a part of productive capital; it is
could, though, have to do with the fact that the capital investment is too large for a a means of production in the form of capital and will continue to circulate as capital. Let
capital unit, and that the elapsed profit time (“Umschlagzeit”) (labor time, production us now turn to the producer of bridges (for example, a -construction firm). Here as well
time, or circulation time) is too long.”Another possible reason is that the results of these a commodity of a specific character is produced (by commission, prepaid, etc.) and in
its sale, the producer realizes his invested value and surplus value, without which he would
' ave foregone production. But he does not exchange that production for capital put forth l
17) The question of the relationship of interdependence plays a large role in the bourgeois .

growth theory. The most advanced direction of this theory is that of “balanced growth”,
ii in the form of money as was the case in the purchase of machinery, or for the income of
whose major representative, P. N. Rosenstein-Rodan, writes: “Complementarity makes to -¢;:
an individual buyer for his -consumption, but against revenue spent by the state. The state
some extent all industries ‘basic’ 3’ (Problem of Industrialization of Eastern and South- receives this revenue through taxes, tolls, and so forth in order to spend them for the
Eastern Europe, in A.N. Agarwala and S.P. Singh, The Economics of Underdevelopmen t, creation of general conditions of production. The building of the bridge is thus thorough-
New York, 1963, p. 252). In regard to our problem, this thesis implies the assumption L25

that first, every production creates the general conditions of production, and second, that
due to the general interdependence, no further differentiation need be made between state \_<. -a:=.a'- \.'"~-—<=_~-x»"—-.'=:E.§
l8) Research resultsacquire the character of a commodity: only when they are monopolized
and private capital. Walter Wittmann presents a different, less naive argument based on by the commodity owner in the form of a patent, and when only that person who has
this thesis of interdependence in Staatliche Aktivitiit, wirtschaftliche Entwicklung, und 5,.
ii bought them as a commodity can use them. If the possibility of obtaining a patent exists
Preisniveau, Zurich, 1965, p. 22: “It is first of all clear that private investments, which then research results will also be produced on a capitalist basis. Let it just be mentioned
iii S
l 3;.
create additional production capacities, are by themselves insufficient to assure long-term that this problem plays an important role in Schumpeter’s theory of business cycles, be-

development . . . In order to avoid bottlenecks in the economic development, it is cause tlie motivated entrepreneur begins to produce precisely because of the technologi-
necessary that investments into the social capital (i.e., the genera]. material conditions of 1
2 cal advantage assured by patents. M
E production) keep pace with the total development . . . ” 19) Grundrisse, p. 430.
3.1‘2£S_‘3“<'N \¥§ 'K\f/7€=v". -jam. _.
ly profitable for capital, but not its use. (No capitalist would advance his capital for the directly from the income of the country). On the other hand, capital will be put on its
building of a bridge .) Thus it is decisive, in determining whether or not specific conditions i
guard if the state takes over production processes which do in fact appear profitable
of production are to be assumed by the state, if, first of all, an advance of capital is going to capital from its momentary and particular perspectives. For this would first of all
to pay off in capitalist terms, and, secondly, if the actual conditions of production are mean an increase in labor that is unproductive from a capitalist viewpoint, and secondly
really necessary from the viewpoint of the social labor process. (it has already been l the creation of a competitor who does not need to strive for maximum value formation
mentioned that this necessity is recognized not only from insight but also governed by I I from a capital investment.
struggles, conflicts, catastrophes and crises.) General material conditions ofproduction That this is also expressed in regulations is no longer surprising. The West German
canitsthus be created quite east!y, but canno t b e profitably managed by tndnadual capital municipal laws state that 1) the economic activity of the municipalities must be
an . justified by a public purpose; 2) that the municipal financial economy must not be
in the educational sector, one finds a different situation. What holds true for endangered; 3) that the expenditures must be in direct relation to the anticipated need
the above-mentioned bridge also holds true, in its material aspects, for this domain: and 4) that municipal activity presupposes that the economic objective cannot be
school buildings, teaching materials, etc. can be produced by capitalist means. But achieved as well or as economically by private enterprise.
the production of qualifications, to a greater extent, is a far different matter. They are The annual statement of the Council of Economic Experts in 1971, states
already produced in state institutions, whereas they are put to use as a material element similarly: “The cardinal point of almost all economic-political considerations concerning
of vanable capital by individual capital units. As an integral element in the formation the medium-range development of the economy as a whole is the demand of the state
of labor power, qualifications are exchanged on the labor market generally to the for a greater portion of the production potential. This demand is widely accepted, even
detriment of capital. (20) This difference between the transportation system (as well F though the problem of the quantity of such an expansion of its portion is viewed
as school construction) etc., on one hand, and the educational system, on the other, differently, since each expansion must only be made on the condition that the state
raises serious questions. The state takes all infrastructural expenditures from the extends its scope meaningfully and in any case does not merely deprive private business
income of the country, which are thus at least partially subtracted from that part I of its activities, but supplements and aids them . . . ” (23)
of the surplus-value capable of stimulating new accumulation. But expenditures for Of course we should not view all the processes as if they were detached from
bridges or school construction flow to other capital units, which are thus put in a historical development. What in some cases seems profitable to capital in a certain
position to use their capital, insofar as the circulation of capital value is successful.
historical situation does not seem so in another situation. When certain sectors of
Expenditures for the production of qualifications, and thus especially for teachers, I industry become unprofitable, there are first always state subsidies (24); and then ~
do not however flow to individual capital units; they moreover make possible the ti when these do not help — these sectors are taken over by the state (coal mining in
existence of a stratum which removes a given amount of social labor time from England after 1945). Conversely, the opposite tendency also exists to once again make
exploitation by capital. This is particularly true for students in secondary and l an industry private when the work can be productively exploited, (e.g. the Volkswagen
university education, who, perform no productive labor during the time of their company).
studies and who are thus temporarily removed from the direct rule of capital, but who, In other words it becomes more apparent and simultaneously more concrete than
after their studies, with the higher educational costs related to them, can only confront stated in the previous section that the state’s function in the capitalist production pro-
‘M4’—- “~- .‘¢?2£E-


capital with a higher value of labor power, without the decisive emergence of any >,.
cess is not only regulatory; as a consequence of its function based on its particular form
elevated value-forming labor potential. (21) Expenditures for the educational sector of existence; it in fact helps capital to achieve its average existence as total capital. The


thus not only subtract from the surplus value of capital, but in the case of their increase state ensures the general conditions of production by taking over all those material
also raise the value of labor power, thereby diminishing the rate of surplus value in

processes which cannot be operated on a capitalist basis. Its function as a capitalist state
otherwise stable conditions. But, on the other hand, the teacher produces through 2 I
which ensures the basis of the exploitation of wage-labor consists of taking over non-
his labor general qualifications as a condition making possible the general labor capitalist production processes, and regulating the conditions which actually effect the

<*¢é»(i)S?i5. process as a means in the process of value formation, as well as capitalist production entire capital class and beyond that the entire society (legal relations, ete.), and of i
and the reproduction of the capital relationship. Only because of this aspect of the . maintaining a power apparatus directed both internally and externally. Only in this
teacher’s activity is capital willing to maintain the educational sector. The economic manner can the state do justice to its function within the framework of a capitalist
functions of the individual “infrastructural realms” are thus to be sharply distinguished . ‘r
society. To expressit more clearly: when we speak of the unified mechanism which
from each other not merely in their material aspect, but also by virtue of their position encompasses state and monopoly, then .we can only describe its mode of functioning

in the process of capitalist reproduction. (22) O §_155"§;' by saying that the state, because of the demands of the productive forces of the labor
p Since capital, for the reasons described, thus involves itself either not at all or process, has to create the conditions of production, which, because of the narrowness
madequately in this sphere, the state has to take over the production of infrastructural
institutions, since it is not forced to produce by capitalist methods (its funds come 23) Jahresgutachten, 1971“, Fig. 327: “Allin all" the natural conclusion is that growing investment
by state capital can weaken thewillingness of private investors.“ Even Wilhelm Weber
20) We will not go into the problematic of productive and unproductive labor. Cf. the -:-gt
differentiates “between branches which have been abandoned by private investors due to
discussion in Sozialistische Politik 6/ 7 and 8. 1970. if
" Ii?-‘J . their unprofitable nature, and those in which the state competes with private investors.“ In
21) The problem of the value—forming potential of labor will not be pursued any further here. the latter case, “state economic activities might at least inhibit the inclinations of private
Cf. the contribution to the “reduction problem” in Altvater and Huisken, Materlalien zur ._>;. investors . . . ” (op. cit. p. 315) It here,becomes apparent that the state cannot become a
politischen Oekonomie des Ausbtldangssektors, Erlangen 1971. :"1;i>2:- real total capitalist in the course of a quasi~unrestrained development. Because in these
22) In bourgeois economics all infrastructural realms are ranged indifferently underthe concept :. ii’
branches, in which capital can be used profitably, it is precisely private capital units which
of “social capital”. Expenditures for “transportation systems, energy sources, water systems, rt.
move in. If the state were to become active in this realm, it would be setting itself in
education, justice, police and administration” are in our conception . . . complimentary in- opposition to the total interests of capitalist society, by reason of the fact that it would
vestments . . . ” Wilhelm Weber, op. cit. p. 306, Jacques Stohler, “On the Rational Planning be acting as a capital unit.
of the Infrastructure” in Konjunktarpolttik, 1965, and most other authors. A completely ' 24) As a rule subsidies have the character of being surplus distributed by the state and no longer
meaningless concept of capital complements an even more meaningless concept of invest- by competition. They ensure the maintenance of an average rate of profit by every capital
ment, which subsumes all expenditures without the slightest conceptual distinction and J
unit. Naturally, subsidies can come from the revenue created by wage-laborers, in which case
moreover without reflecting their varied economic character. éi
they lower the living conditions of the working class to the benefit of capital units.


_' El .

of capitalist relations of production, cannot be created by private capital The state The Abolition of Market Control and the Erobl-em of Legitimacy (D
ensures the capital relation in that it acts in a non-capitalist manner; that is by the
general conditions of production created by the state, “capital” does not even enter
gEiFe1l£1Et?alfil;l1.1I€g Itt is therscfore inexact to speak of‘:‘state capital” without
—-.,_-q._. _-~_.-\_.3
Bib liograph-
ic Informa-
Clare Offe‘ . 1/as
to Claim‘ “Thee 1; Vgpgiig grpzsguctutral otutlayi ans profitable cap1tal”(25) and false 1
tion The prerequisite for the conversion of ever larger quantities of labor power into tire l
immedia-te Sphere gf the State ascpn ron s no oily workers and employees in the _ 2 , commodity form inherent to the wage-labor relation was, from the emergence of capital-
_ . capitalist . . . (26) If the state acts as a capitalist, ist society, the organization of a part of labor power within a non-commodity form, that
then this can be explained only through the particular history and particular conditions is, the existence of the ”bureaucratic worker“. (1)
o a country. This activity as a capitalist may occur in exceptional situations, such as Two questions thumanse: (1) is it justified to exclude labor power organized in
the First World War in Germany (the term “state capitalism” has its origins in this the state apparatus. from the category of wage-labor‘? I (2) What justifies the argument that
period), in partial form in German fascism and in Italy and France after the Second the process of capital expansion depends on the contribution of labor power which is not
World War. Thae capitalist mode of production is in no way abolished or surpassed directly ”productive“ in capitalist terms, that is, which does not assume the commodity
( aufgehoben ), even if the increase in production processes operated directly by the form?
state 1S'&1'1 unequivocal indipation of theidisintegration of advanced capitalism, of its As to the first question: any attempt which would focus attention solely on the
stagnation and the lacking private” investment opportunities. (27) technical quality of labor activity as the distinctive attribute tends to be misleading. The
The state acts indeed »— aside from the above mentioned historical exceptions — distinction between productive and unproductive labor is applicable only with reference
as 1:;-1. nonl-papitalist and as such limits the realm of private capital accumulation and reprod to the "relations of production and domination within which labor is incorporated and to
uc ion. the state were ‘itself capitalist, then it would expand t_he sphere of capital produc
which it is subordinated. Productive labor is that portion of total labor power which is
tion and express everything but the disintegration of bourgeois society The theory of
hired for the purpose of surplus-value production and that will be fired either as soon as it
state monopoly capitalism is itself contradictory in that, on one hand, it asserts that the
stops to produce surplus-value or when the surplus-value cannot be realized. Only this
r t '
seatetitself . as a CI:1p1.'[EllISll,‘l)lll,
fpnctions . . . speaks of the general mani-.
on the other side,
type of labor is a commodity in the sense that the specific individuality of the worker as
s a ions o the downfall of imperialism. (We deny the first assertion, not the latter.)
well as the specific quality of the labor process and its product are subordinated to the
—(to be cont1nued)— _ , 1
criterion of surplus-value production. (2)
On the other side, the form of the social utilization of the work of civil servants is
considered ”unproductive“, because it is work unconnected with the commodity form,
i.e., surplus-value production. The same is true of much work in the service sector. (3)
The works of officials and employees in the civil service "manifests itself as the social
utilization of labor in the form of use-value, for consumption having a detemiinate
purpose and thereby as the social utilization of value-absorbing labor. . . The services
performed by the bureaucratic worker are based in a social relation in which value
l expansion through surplus-value production does not take place . . . and are directly
wx xwza
absorbed by social consumption. They have no market“. (4) This means that the condi-
tions under which such labor power is socially put to use are not determined by the

criterion of the production and realization of surplus-value. Such labor is concrete, not


”abstract“, it is not a commodity and produces no commodities. The social utilization of

this kind of labor is determined by its concrete result; it is deployed with regard to its


- - ;._rJ53’i_a.-;._“. -.
use-value and to the use-value of its performance and not, as is the case of abstract labor,
a with regard to its exchange-value, where use-value is not the primary factor, but only a
necessary by-product. A I
*€ r

21 POVERTY GF THE STATE *) Claus Offe works with some colleagues on a project dealing with the constraints and contingen-
cies of statednterventionism, i.e. political crisis management. A research report on this project
62 will be publishedin one of the next issues of KAPITALISTATE. The group works in the
LANGUAGE AND Max-Planck-Institut Z1l1"EIf0]fSCl‘lL11’1g der Lebensbedingungcn der wissenschaftlich-tochnischen
!'$"-47—~_-=._'=- '-

/.| Welt, 831 Starnberg/Germany, Riemerschmidstrafie 7.

3 IMAGERY OF fAPH'A§D The essay reprinted here is a shortened version of “Tauschverhiiltnis und politischc Steuerung.

ELE GERAS Zur Aktualitiit des Legitimationsproblems“. in: Strukturproblcmc des Kapitalistischen Staates.
;-‘g ...»
Aufsiitze zur Politischcn Soziologie, Frankfurt ( Suhrkamp) l9'l2, pp. 189, pp. 27 - 63. This
collection of essays will be reviewed in one of the future issues of KAPITA LISTATE.
1) The possible objection that a large potential in ”residual“ labor power existed in all phases of
,.;4 .

the development of capitalism is per se justified, but in the present context it misses the point;

for while such ”residual“ labor power functioned socially either via the family system or as
"reserve army“ (and thus as the commodity “labor power“, temporarily not functioning on the

labor market), the organizational modes are no longer available in advanced capitalist industrial
25) Cf., Paul Boccara, Ubersicht, op. cit. p.'3 £53Bkkw;
>"*“"'P-="‘;@e>‘., Q2-
societies, inter alia in view of the structural changes and loss of function the family system has
. 26) The Imperialism of West Germany, 1971, p. 366. It must be emphasized that this thesis does undergone.
no ll run uniformly through this book; this is characteristic in generalof the definite lack of ll:
$ 2) llior similar conclusions, see M. Maukc: Die Klassentheoric von Marx und Engels. I-‘rankfurt a. M.
precision which one usually finds in the “reference works”. '!ll
fl 970, p. 103.

tli’ag/1l6ll\t/l.attick, “Gcmischte Oekonomie und ihrc Grenzen“, Soziale Revolution, No. 2, 1971, 3) Cf. A. Touraine: The Post Industrial Society. New York 1971, p. l7 f.

. lO8

at lO9 4) In this respect the way in which the educational bureaucracy is, as a matter of course, expected
-ri to handle the problem of the rising quota in objectors to military service, is a case in point.