Whether overtly or not, all twentieth-century political theory has basically posed the same question: what is the relationship between the State, power and social classes?

just as there can be no general theory of the- economy (no 'economic science') having a theoretical object that remains unchanged through the various modes of production, so can there be no 'general theory' of the state-political (in the sense of a political 'science' or 'sociology') having a similarly constant object.

The State maintains its relative autonomy of particular fractions of the power bloc (including fractions of monopoly capital itself) so that it may ensure the organization of the general interest of the bourgeoisie under the hegemony of one of its fractions.

The (capitalist) State should not be regarded as an intrinsic entity: like 'capital', it is rather a relationship of forces, or more precisely the material condensation of such a relationship among classes and class fractions

an institution destined to reproduce class divisions is not, and can never be, a monolithic bloc without cracks, whose policy is established, as it were, in spite of its own contradictions.

Contradictions among the dominant classes and fractions - or in other words, the relationship of forces within the power bloc - are precisely what makes it necessary for the unity of the bloc to be organized by the State.

If we confine ourselves to waiting, we will not get the 'great day' at all, but rather the tanks in the small hours of the morning.