THREE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE STATE 29 Such regimes have come into existence in many underdeveloped countries due to three specific conditions obtaining in them: the numerical dominance of the lower middle class at the attainment of political independence, the extensive involvement of governments in economic activity, and the availability to them of credits from socialist countries. Having come into being, in order to continue existing, these regimes proceed to provide for three necessary conditions: gaining a measure of independence from foreign private capital, carrying out land reforms and ensuring continuous economic growth. For these purposes such regimes can be politically viable in a situation where the state can, performing the role of 'dynamic entrepreneurs', undertake the basic investment necessary for economic development and promote a pattern of amalgamation of the interests of the lower middle class with state capitalism. K N Raj conceives of the lower middle class—or the 'intermediate classes^—as consisting of all those who have some income from property earned along with input of own labour, where such income is not large relative to the income from work. Further, he treats possession of certain kinds of knowledge and skills administrative, scientific, technical and so on (which, he claims, make it possible for the possessor to earn an element of quasi-rent, in much the same way as does the ownership of any other asset) as property taking a different form. Intermediate to What? The very first question that arises is if the regimes are 'intermediate9 then what are they intermediate to? The very concept of intermediacy presupposes, first, that the regime in question falls in between two distinct historical phases, and secondly, that it is transitional in nature. In other words, the nature of state power, which necessarily corresponds with the given historical mode of production, does not figure in the discussion. The question of the components of governmental machinery is gone into, which is essentially subordinate to and serves the interests of state power and therefore of the class or classes which control the corresponding mode of production. Raj is not willing to answer either of these questions because his 'intermediate regimes', by implication, cover such apparently different imdss of production as obtaining in India and China, the first still based on the private ownership of property and the second obviously not. Thus, it appears that Raj's 'regimes^ bear no relationship with modes of production, an essential requirement of any Marxist analysis of state power and regimes, and his "frequent and benevolent references to Marx" are merely a smokescreen behind which he tries to hide his petty-bourgeois academics. Property without Transferability Even from a non-Marxist point of view, however, Raj's 'intermediate regimes9 do not stand the test of reason. For, he has obviously based his 'regimes9 on certain 'property-owning' classes much of