Holloway focusses on the relation between structure and struggle which he sees as the central question raised by Bonefeld's article on the reformulation state theory rejecting Jessop's treatment of the issues as inadequate. It is suggested that the unresolved tension between structure and struggle in relation to the reformulation literature was present already in Hirsch's contribution to the state derivation debate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bonefeld W. (1987), “Reformulation of State Theory”, Capital & Class no. 33, pp. 96–127
2.
Braunmuhl C. et al. (1973), Probleme einer materialistischen Staatstheorie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
3.
Clarke (1988a), “Keynesianism, Monetarism and the Crisis of the State,”Edward Elger, Aldershot 1988
4.
Clarke S. (1986), “Overaccumulation, Class Struggle and the Regulation Approach”, Capital & Class no. 36
5.
Hall S. (1985), “Realignment for What?”Marxism Today, December, pp. 12–17
6.
Hirsch J. (1973) “Elemente einer materialistischen Staatstheorie”, in Braunmuhl et al (1973)
7.
Hirsch J. (1974/78), “The State Apparatus and Social Reproduction: Elements of a Theory of the Bourgeois State”, in Holloway and Picciotto (1978)
8.
Hirsch J. and Roth R. (1986), Das neue Gesicht des Kapitalismus, VSA-Verlag, Hamburg
9.
Holloway J. (1987), “The Red Rose of Nissan”, Capital & Class no. 32
10.
Holloway J. and Picciotto S. (eds) (1978) State and Capital, Edward Arnold, London
11.
Jessop B. (1988), “Regulation Theory, Post-Fordism and the State: More than a Reply to Werner Bonefeld”, Capital & Class, no. 34
12.
Marx K., Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie, Frankfurt
13.
Marx K., Capital, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965/1971
14.
Negri A. (1978/79), “Capitalist Domination and Working Class Sabotage” in CSE/Red Notes, Working Class Autonomy and the Crisis
