alex calinicos, the modern state (1987)

15th to 18th C – centralized and bureaucratic states emerge in the form of Absolutism

prior two this, there are two main forms

(1) World Empires—monarchies that rule through military power, and have little or no relation to States of a comparable level of advancement (this is very different from the modern state, which is part of a state-system, the members of which are at a more-or-less shared level of development)

(2) City-States—a number of States co-existing, but small in size. Rely often on popular armies, and can develop 'democratic' political forms (the modern state, though, rules a much larger territory—reflecting development of political forces—rules that territory through a bureaucratic apparatus, and a standing army)

so the modern state is distinctive.

modern states form a system—they co-exist with each other, and they interact with each other.

these interactions take various forms.

one such form is trade. rise of the modern state is coincidental with the formation of the world market [hobson/blaut would have their grievances with this]

the most important form of their interaction as States, of course, is war/military competition. the European state-system was characterized by the most ruthless military competition. what this leads to is a kind of Darwinian process of natural selection—in 1500, there were 500; in 1900, there were 25.

the emergence and development of this system is often seen—especially by bourgeois sociologists—as a refutation of Marxism. why? because it emerged in a context that wasn't capitalist—in a context where the prevailing form of exploitation was feudal ('analytically autonomous' from world capitalism). the notion is that the competitive interaction of nation-states represents a logic of military competition that is autonomous from capitalist social relations—both historically and in the present (Skocpol, Mann)

the point of disagreement with this position is not over the emergence of absolutism prior to the emergence of the bourgeoisie. Marx was well aware that many of the institutions of the modern state precede the 'bourgeois revolutions.'

the argument is not an argument over the facts. it's over the explanation.

can the emergence of the modern state be explained in terms of historical materialism? the answer is yes (Brenner)

the two key elements to Brenner's argument

(1) the crisis of the late-middle ages—the 14th and 15th centuries (plagues, famines that hid Europe in the middle of the 1300s, and then in the early of the 1400s). symptoms of a deep-seated economic crisis. you have another crisis in the 1600s—the whole of Europe is swept by wars (Thirty Years' War) and famine, which climaxes in the English Revolution in the late 1600s.

this arises in the context of the feudal mode of production.

characteristic form of exploitation is lord over peasant—extraction of surplus labor on the basis of legal rights over the peasant, reinforced by his political power. unlike in capitalism, both lord and peasant have direct access to their means of subsistence—none of this is mediated by the market. the peasants have direct access to their means of subsistence, they typically have their own plots. the Lord uses his military powers, his armed retainers to get resources from the direct producers.

in this situation, in which both exploiters and exploited have direct access, neither have incentive to increase the productive forces. no one has an incentive to develop the level of the productive forces. the main developments in the level of productive forces that do occur, under feudalism, occur in the early middle ages, when feudalism first appears. after that, the main form of growth is extensive (not intensive), and runs into limits by the 1300s.

(2) the crucial point—the second aspect—is that these dynamics give rise to 'political accumulation'. the lord, to maintain and increase his consumption, must (a) squeeze his peasants harder; (b) pinch other lord's peasants. what that means is that a fierce competitive dynamic is unleashed (e.g., the Hundred Years' War). this process of military competition then gives rise to State-building. more pressure to build up professional armies, etc.

this, the argument is, will culminate in the absolutist state (Perry Anderson—the only way feudalism could persist, in the face of its economic stagnation)

far from it being the case, then, that you don't need Marxism—Marxism is central.

and the one major exception to the 'absolutist' trend, England, demonstrates the superiority of the Marxist method.

out of the crisis of feudalism, the feudal lords were able--'unintended consequences' of the class struggle in the later middle ages—to separate peasants from the land, and to transform them into wage-laborers. in the 1400-1700s, these new wage laborers didn't go to work in industry (the industrial revolution takes place in the late 1700s); rather, they become involved in capitalist agriculture. you see the emergence of the capitalist 'trinity'--the landowner, the capitalist (who rents the land), and the worker. this permits a dynamic development of the productive forces—there is a sharp increase in agricultural productivity, which in turn enables the development of industrial capitalism (without it, of course, you couldn't support an industrial workforce).

also, you have 1640-1660 and 1688-1689—the English revolution—the outcome of that process was to establish as politically dominant a capitalist landed class. in the 18th century, the dominant class were capitalist landowners. the State that they create is an odd one—the bulk of political control is still in the hand of local landowners (in the nobility and landowners—no centralized standing army or bureaucracy). the country is run through a parliament of landowners. BUT, externally, a strong state—based, above all, on the Royal Navy, created with the support of the land-owning parliament as a means of expanding Britain's influence in the world.

and so we see a period—during the 18th century—which is sometimes described as the First World War. England vs. France (which is the greatest of the absolutist monarchies). this culminates in the Napoleonic Wars.

to understand why Britain came out on top in this war is to appreciate the economic dynamism of capitalism. rapid economic development gave the British ruling-class the naval and military power to defeat the French (English also helped build up Prussia, remember, as a rival to France). internally, this involved an absolutely massive increase in military spending—between 1700 and 1815, public spending rose fifteen-fold (civilian aspects never amounted to more than 23% of total spending—the rest was military!). the centralized monarchies put the burden of taxation on their peasantries—in England, however, because of relative economic dynamism, lords were prepared to tax themselves, relatively heavily (the land tax amounted to something like 20% of the nominal gross income of landowners). they were prepared to take from their own pockets.

in the 1800s, the English pattern is generalized throughout Europe. this becomes especially true as, more and more, military power comes to depend on having a considerable industrial base.

and so you see, in Germany, the junkers encouraging development in industry, in order to win wars, etc. in other words, 'political accumulation' becomes subordinated to economic accumulation. the outcome, of course, is imperialism.

this process continues today.

this historical argument thus has an important political point—the horrific bloodshed of the contemporary interstate system can only be ended by a socialist revolution that destroys world capitalism!