>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:53:22 -0400 Marv Gandall
> <marvgandall at videotron.ca> writes:
>> 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.
>
> I addressed this in my following post in which I discussed
> Richard W. Miller's attempt to synthesize instrumentalist
> and structuralist conconceptions of the state. There I wrote:
>
> would also recommend Richard W. Miller's
> unjustly neglected book, *Analyzing Marx: Morality, Power,
> and History* (Princeton University Press, 1984). Miller's
> book was one of the more interesting texts of Analytical
> Marxism. He devoted one section of the book to an
> investigation of Marxist understandings of power and
> focused in particular on the debate between "structuralists"
> and "instrumentalists" over the nature and functions of
> the state. Miller's discussion of this debate took Poulantzas'
> *Political Power and Social Class* along with Althusser's
> "Ideology and Ideological-State Apparatuses" as key texts
> on the structuralists' side, and he took Ralph Milliband's
> *The State in Capitalist Society* as representative of the
> instrumentalist position. Miller saw both positions as
> containing important truths that a full Marxist analysis
> of the state must take into account. He also saw both
> sides as being afflicted by distortions which limit the
> utility of their analyses. Miller attempted to provide a
> resolution of the debate which incorporates the insights
> of both sides. He also took a look Franz Neumann's
> *Behemoth* as respresenting a persuasive Marxist
> analysis of the Nazi seizure of power in Germany.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYciptTHL9pisgqBJgpKkmRhvDucFyrERPkhYUup1o9gOyRulSw/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk