F"uchtner, l-1 a.

ns , 1972 , “Die brasilianischen Arbeitergewerkschaften, ihre Organisation und “The State in Post-Colonial Societies -— Pakistan and Bangladesh”
ihre politische Funktion”, Frankfurt a. M. “
ggin’ Wolfgang, Georg ggmgms, . - Heinz- Rudolf Sonnltag, Konragfgpgiez, 1 1972,
_ ._ A u t ono . - Comments on Harnza Alavi (New Left Review No. 74, July/August 1972, pp. 59-—~8l)
mie undPenetrat1on Venezuelas ,_t_11'lpLll)l1§ 6 P313913 _ . ' H _ _
Hirsch, Joachim, 1969, “Zur politischen Okonomie des politt1schenMSystems in G1SelE1 Sherry Girlirig *
Kress, Dieter Senghaas, Politikwissenschschaft, Frank urtfl. ._ d . If , hes S p
Hirsch Joachim, 1970, 1‘Wissenschaftlichtechnischer Fortschritt un poi lSC Y
stem” 3 Frankfurt a. M. as , _ _ _ ,, .
' '
iunne, Gerd, Salua Nour, 1972, Zur Analyse ’ifl;IeIflfl30nE19££lg%?1ng1g 6‘ en , “Mn
k t 3 B I -
Hamza Alavi’s article, “The State in\Post-Colonial Societies ~~ Pakistan and Bangladesh”
Ma8d@fl,HflfI‘Y.1969=“The Age 01° ““Pe“a“Sm * ""”~ O‘ ‘E 9» 1 Social” L11’! Ub- presents us with a provocative claim: a new theory of the state’s relative autonomy in
post-colonial societies. As will be discussed later, Alavi’s the'o‘r"yi is not so novel as it claims
Mieres, Francisco, 1971, “Una Decada de Estancamiento conomico- J P
lished paper, Caracas. _ 1' S _ 7’ N Y k . to be, however, it has the virtue of being a concrete historical study that presents us with
Miiiband 5 Ralph a 1969, “The State
“ in Capitaist
_ ociety ,.. ew _0fav : D_ t S h 3
an excellent opportunity to reconsider the role of the state in dependent societies. Alavi’s
Miilleia-Plantenberg, Urs, 1972, Technologie und 1§lt?l'l8;[l’lg1%l;6l'[ , gn35—i3e5egr eng aas analysis is flawed by an apparent theoretical confusion about the concept of social class
lmperialismus und strukturelle Gewfllt, FY1111 l1Y_fl- -, PP- ‘ -St t ,5 in_ as applied to the analysis of concrete situations.
Murray, Robin, 1971, “The internationalization of Capital and the N&t101’1 E1 6 , - .- According to Alavi, the post-colonial state (pcs) is not the instrument of a single
New Left Review 67/ 1971, pp. 84-»l0(). t kt Zur Anal Se Spétkapitw ruling class, as formulated by classical I"‘arxist theory. The pcs is distinctive from the
early bourgeois state (analyzed in Marx’s') 18th Brumaire) because
Qffe= Claus’ 1969’ “polmsche Herrschéft -mid glassalgs ru olimigi Sen haasyPolitikwissen-
listischer Gesellschaftssysteme , in. Gisela ress, 1e g 1 1 l) it mediates among three propertied classes in contrast to the classical bourgeois state
.M. which mediates among fractions of a single hegemonic class. 1
Offe Claf:i(shzlf97l;r“S11flaktt3rprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates”, Frankfurt a. M. 2) The pcs has an economic role unparalleled by the classical bourgeois state.
Ortaj Celio S., 1970, “Ensayo acerca del desarrollo agricola Pilrenetzolanas dgrzante el peri- As a result the pcs develops a type of relative autonomy which is different from that
odo l950-»l969”, in: Economia y Ciencias Soc1aleS,P Q. 2,PP1- — - ascribed to the state by classical Marxists.
Palloix, Christian, 1971, “L’économie rriondlflle Cflpltflllslfi 1, BY?» _ V3 S-O18 Historically, the pcs is viewed as having a unique process of formation. Basically,
the state, in the form of its military and bureaucratic apparatus, is created by the colonial
Poulantzas’ Nicosj 1971,
Quijano, Anibal, 1971, “Pole
“POUVOH p(')hal1(1iuel?:[
margin c1aSSeS'SOeCtmiifai1i
_ e f’>f>0n9T1‘11@_ ” "d?;1ffvrevmarginalisée” ’ in power prior, to the struggle for independence. The struggle for independence itself is
Anouar Abdel-Malek, Sociologie de 1 irnper1e11SIT1@ , E312» PP-1§,01F“"ii’Et-_urt a M characterised by an absence of either an anti-imperialist or a national democraticthrust
Senghaas, Dieter (Ed.), 1972,““Irnper1al1smus undastrukttlige et We , Y -A - on the part of the indigenous bourgeoisie. Moreover, the antagonistic contradictions
Somitag,Heinz Rudolf, 1972, Revolution in Chlle ,FY21B ];"1_a- - which existed between the national bourgeoisie and feudal landowners in European coun-
Statistisches Jahrbuch fiir das Deutsche Reich, l880el9 eI“(t1I1- tn in. Anouar Abdel“ tries are non-existent in the emerging post-colonial state, for the state was created by the
Varas, Augusto, 1971, “Chil1—— Un)1'r10f1e <16 PT9duCl191"1 9139110 an = - imperialist power independent of either the national bourgeoisie or the feudal landed
Malek, Sociologie de l’imperial1sme_, P3115, PP- _243""3O N t_ State_ a COm_ class.
Warren, Bill, 1971, “The Internationalization of Capital and t e a ion . .In post-colonial society, Alavi identifies three propertied classes — feudal land-
ment”, in New Left Review 69. pp- 33-88- owners, indigenous bourgeoisie and the metropolitan bourgeoisie —* as competing for con-
trol of the state’s military-bureaucratic apparatus. Competition among the three classes is
not antagonistic, but instead an unequal and hierarchical collaboration.
“The concept of collaboration implies and describes the fact of their separateness and hierarchy
implies a degree of conflict between their interests and a tension which underlies their relation-
ship.” (p. 75) '

’ y _. _ The absence of antagonistic contradictions between landowners and the national bourgeoi- 1
sie and between the metropolitan and national bourgeoisie is explained as follows:
1. The feudal landowner class is integrated into the capitalist economy. Alavi describes
the growth of capitalist farming ‘within the context of the Green Revolution. Large
scale farming yielding an agricultural surplus needed to sustain industrialization and
Issue One of 1973 has just appeared. Please Qmet V531 urbanization as well as to expand the domestic market for manufactures goods (p. 74).
He also notes that many large landowning families are engaged in the process of
diversifying their assets by investing in the industrial sector. Finally, because of their
control of political parties which are based predominantly on rural support, the land-

lllfiWlE l.lZ1 lillllll llMlSflZlfilfi£lE Sherry Girling works at SIDEC, School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. 94305,
>|<
M % QW S S
U. S. A. At present her principal area of work is education in the dependent capitalist state. This
Postfach 1 work,‘ however, fallswithin a more general area of interest in the role of the state in dependent
SOCl6lZ1€S in maintaining, managing and transforming class relations. To date, her work has been
A-1916 Wien focused on the West Indies.
4 Kapitalistate No. 2 '

‘T""' - 11
 Producllvft 3}/Stem but they were instrumental in s '
owners are needed by the military-bureaucratic state for local control and legitimiza- ’ 139115911118, Strengthening andlegitimat-
FOSSficlgigt]ilgslggtggggureaucratic state dependent on the international capitalist class in the
tion.
2. The relationship between the metropolitan bourgeoisie and the indigenous bourgeoisie
expands its activities from industries of relatively low technology to those requiring militag/lisurgglfigjatlilfi Etgailefl0326€hgLltES(;[gt[)£O\;V(iRl;lalit-Iggfilstt to Alavi’s analysis: Even if the
high technology for which they must turn to the metropolitan bourgeoisie in a process propertied classes ._ how is the concrete nature of the mehiaffdh dftfiigiffrjlmuffsgmbhdii?
of collaboration (pp. 74---75). 1 q
Within this collaborative context of three propertied classes in post-colonial society, the
state develops a distinctive mediatory role. Thus, Alavi’s reformulation of the classical
Marxist theory of the state’s relative autonomy hinges upon his class analysis of the
“llffiiaitfii .t.1i%:2":.$;.t;*;r
-iiiiiiiiéiiiiitiiiiti so at to
;i.“§‘iZ§ii.1‘1§’§if..‘iZ‘?ifi§i1iiii‘;i‘i‘
post-colonial society. To evaluate this reformulation it is necessary to examine the class . . _ u on-
analysis he presents and a sub-set of issues which arise within this analysis.
Essentially, the question is, “are there really three distinct propertied classes com-
fs’L"@i”s1"tiZ’§§@E§§f311316111316 i.l1iC1‘1§°§‘$’?1 lpfiillilidiiiZ°§.1i‘“f§Z.11ii1i1“““}°‘}Sgs
does not preclude theoretical revisions when history departs from acceptedythfdiryl/I ‘floral:
peting within the pcs? ” Paradoxically, Alavi seems to present us with the historical facts ever, Alavi’s
for the case against his three class analysis of pcs. First, consider his analysis of the _ _ analysis of the . state in post-colonial
A ' societies
' ' doe
such a revision. S not appeal to Warrant
relationship between the indigenous bourgeoisie and the “feudal landowning class” in the
these two “classes” by reference to the Green Revolution and the colonial development of
the bourgeois state. Although both these historical phenomena play an important and
distinctive role in the post-colonial situation the reason that there is no antagonism
between the landowners and the bourgeoisie is that the landowning class was never
feudal. Here we see Alavi’s confusion between the concrete historical formation of a
particular society and a higher theoretical level of abstraction.
Theoretically, the antagonisms which exist between social classes within a given
mode of production are not reversible. They are derived from the structural opposition of "
groups within the relations of production. Until those relations of production are
changed, the antagonistic contradictions between social classes will not be eliminated. In
other words, a social class is defined theoretically .-and practically by its opposition to
another social class -- the negation of this opposition - or antagonistic contradic-
tion --implies the negation of the classes opposed. The same concept applies to the “Q “km P9"Peciive committed to
relationship between classes of two historically and structurally different modes of ‘he struggle for human liberation--1
production, capitalism and feudalism for example. The negation of the theoretical and
historical opposition between the nascent European bourgeoisie and feudal landowners Volume Ill, Number 4
was actualized by the defeat of feudalism and the establishment of the bourgeois capital- ACCEDENTS, SCANDALS AND .
ist state .
Alav'i tries to convince us that the p cs case is different from the European case . His
RESOURCES FOR msusornr l5\(E)TUHTCl)NDE(S)l_Q(_;Y
assumption is correct, but’ he gives the wrong reasons. Landowners in colonial and post- if Molotch 8, L95-fer
colonial societies did not constitute a feudal class as in the European case. Colonial and
post-colonial landlords were not part of a feudal mode of production and were long SOCIOLOGY AND THE RULING CLASS
involved in the extraction of surplus value; even slavery falls well within the realm of an Freiberg
earlier phase of capitalist production. Alavi €XplE1lI1S quite clearly that they are deriving
their incomes from profits both in agriculture and industry in the pcs, not from rents. CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS AND EVERYDAY
me»x-v9s _
Hence the theoretical ground for a class opposition between landowners and a nascent WORLD IN THE WORK OF MARX AND SCHUTZ
bourgeoisie is clearly absent in the pcs and we have good reason to interpret Alavi’s facts
as the case of colonial landlords being transformed into the post-colonial segment of the R A SoHoch
national bourgeoisie: landed capital which diversifies itself in industry. A
The lack of antagonism between thenational bourgeoisie and the metropolitan Plus Reviews & Notigeg
bourgeoisie which is supposed to contradict classical Marxist theory also contradicts
U5la'"'n9 Subscription (four issues) s<5,00
S . I ‘ . .

Alavi’s “new” concept of the state’s relative autonomy in pcs. His analysis misses the fact
"mm“',% @“ ‘-="“ —“‘

that the indigenous bourgeoisie in most colonial. and post-colonial societies began original- Low Income subscription $3 00
ly as an arm of the metropolitan bourgeoisie and developed a limited local class auton- Send Order to: A
omy only during the brief inter-war period of import substitution. Following World THE INSURGENT SOCIOLOGIST
War ll, local capital was and continues to be increasingly absorbed or displaced by the
Department of Sociology
multinational corporation. Those brief populist interclass alliances of the late 40’s and University of Oregon
50’s which dominated colonial and post-colonial politics not only gave way to the emer-
gent military-bureaucratic state as local and foreign capital were re-integrated in a new Eugene, Oregon 97403

3ar;~*—.@m.. ~ e-W __ . e— .n _ *" " " "IE§:;5i;£; =§=f=f;j:3_%_§2}:iE5‘=‘;':';‘=‘=i‘=‘.?_E_i_1:-'=2;-_=.§-11;‘-'