44 SOCIAL SCIENTIST but reconcilable55, the three warring classes are unevenly matched, the very existence of the native bourgeoise and the feudal elements being dependent on imperialism. In such a straightforward situation there is hardly any need to gain "fresh theoretical insights" into Marx's 'secondary' view of the state; the state in 'post-colonial9—or more accurately, neocolonial—countries being nothing more than the handmaiden of imperialism, and to the extent it permits, of its indigenous dependent propertied classes. But, obviously, Hamza Alavi is not satisfied with this. He finds that the state in these countries has also "a new and autonomous economic role, which is not parallelled in the classical bourgeois state". He says, "The state in the post-colonial society directly appropriates a very large part of the economic surplus and deploys it in bureaucratically directed economic activity in the name of promoting economic development^. Also, he finds a section of 'armv generals5 "for whom the interests of the army as such take precedence over other considerations". (Emphasis added). In the section dealing with the Kalecki-Raj thesis we discussed in detail the question of state or bureaucrat-capitalism and there is no need to repeat the argument here. Suffice it to say that even to an absolutely naive observer, the army does not per se have interests which are not linked with the politico-economic situation of the country. Mix-up Hamza Alavi like many others, makes the familiar error of confusing between the apparatus of the state and the state itself. However the one significant difference between him and others like Kalecki-Raj or Sen-Krishnan is that whereas the latter two see in their misconceived notion of the state the strength of the system, he perceives its exploitative aspect and hence its inherent weakness. At one place, describing a section of the army officers, Hamza Alavi remarks, "In general they subscribe to a conspiracy theory of society and imagine, for example, that inflation is due simply to the greed of a few businessmen—they do not see the roots of the problem in the economic system itself". Substitute the word businessmen with bureaucrats and military officers (and if necessary, politicians) and the description fits Hamza Alavi himself like a glove. Otherwise, how can he come to the preposterous conclusion that the (East) Bengali bourgeoisie was "brought into being59 simply because "President Ayub decided to "foster in East Bengal a Bengali bourgeoisie". In trying to get a "fresh theoretical insight" into Marx's theory of the state, Hamza Alavi too has ended up in the familiar—and stale— petty-bourgeois position of mixing up the instrument with the wielder, and adopting the "Cleopatra's Nose" theory of history by trying to explain events in Pakistan and Bangladesh by Ayub's wJiims, Tikka Khan's hawkishness and Mujib's "personal style of life95!