[lbo-talk] The State (Was: Ralph loves the nice plutocrats)

[Marv Gandall]

Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:38:33 -0400 Bhaskar Sunkara
> <bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com> writes:
>> Is Chris' objection simply the intrumentalist view of the state?
>> I've
>> always found that analysis a bit wanting, but what are the
>> alternatives?
>> Poulantzas?
>
> ...within the Marxist tradition,
> there have been those who have been
> critical of instrumentalist notions
> of the state, most notably,
> Nicos Poulantzas, who developed
> a structuralist analysis of the state
> which emphasized its relative autonomy,
> and its functioning on behalf of the
> long term interests of the capitalist
> class as a whole precisely because of
> its relative independence from the capitalist
> class.
>
> In Marx's writings one can find both
> instrumentalist analyses of the state
> and analyses of the state which emphasize
> its relative autonomy in relation to
> social classes...
=========================================
Did you mean to say "ruling classes", Jim? Neither Poulantzas nor Marx
suggested that the state was somehow equidistant from all of the "social
classes", only that in certain circumstances it functioned relatively
autonomously of the ruling class but always in it's ultimate interests -
including in those instances when the state "mediates" internal conflicts
within the ruling class or between it and antagonistic classes, or, as I've
indicated elsewhere, when it takes the lead in capital accumulation and
economic development on behalf of a weak and developing bourgeoisie.

Having been exposed to much "mediation" as a former trade union negotiator,
I'm aware of how one-sided such mediation can be -it's purpose being to
offer relatively modest concessions in exchange for an end to costly and
messy conflict. Labour boards are a micro example of how the state
intercedes between the classes on a macro level, even though to the
uninitiated looking in from the outside, like Wojtek, Chris, and uninformed
mainstream reporters, these boards appear to be "neutral", above the
conflict between the two sides, the most powerful of of the parties
concerned, and the one most responsible for the outcome - rather than the
instrument of the employers, their paymasters, which is their intended
function.

Just to be clear: No one on this thread has been taking the side of the
"instrumentalist" Miliband against the "structuralist" Poulantzas or vice
versa - nor should they, since the respective approaches of both Marxists to
the state were complementary rather than contradictory. Miliband suggested
that the capitalists exercised state power more directly through the
political institutions and parties it created, while Poulantzas, like
Gramsci, extended this analysis by taking wider cultural and other factors
into account, all the while maintaining that the state was capitalist - even
lacking direct input from the corporations or governed by parties other than
the conservative ones favoured by the big bourgeoisie - because it continued
to ensure the maintainance of the existing system of capitalist property and
power.