Marxism, Sociology and Poulantzas's Theory of the State

In this paper I argue that much of Nicos Poulantzas’ theory of the capitalist state as set out in his final work, State, Power, Socialism (SPS), may be fruitfully combined with the ideas of Fred Block as put forward in two influential essays - ‘The Ruling Class Does Not Rule: Notes on the Marxist Theory of the State’ and ‘Beyond Relative Autonomy: State Managers as Historical Subjects’. I summarise, first, the theory of the capitalist state which Poulantzas advances in SPS. I argue that much of this theory provides a strong and convincing basis for an understanding of the way in which the capitalist state functions. However, I go on to argue that SPS is seriously flawed in that Poulantzas cannot adequately specify the structural mechanisms which ensure that the state tends to operate in favour of the long-term interests of capital in general. I then summarise Block’s work and argue that it provides us with the resources to improve Poulantzas’ theory. Poulantzas’ theory can be modified to incorporate Block’s framework – and with this combination there emerges, I argue, a fuller and more cogent theory of the capitalist state.

1994

This paper explores the relationship between the state and the economic elite during four cases of structural reform. Analyzing state-capital relations in Chile under the Allende government, El Salvador following the 1979 reforms, Mexico during the Cárdenas era, and Peru under the Velasco regime, the author finds substantial variation in the ways in which the business elite responded to state-led reform efforts. In the first two cases, the bourgeoisie tended to unite in opposition to the regime; in the second two, it was relatively fragmented and notable sectors sought an accommodation with the regime. To explain this variation, the paper focuses on the role of five factors: the degree to which class hegemony is exercised by a traditional oligarchy; the level of organizational autonomy attained by business elites; the perception of a class-based threat; the degree to which the regime consolidates politically; and the viability of the economic model introduced by the reform regime. RESUMEN El presente trabajo examina la relación existente entre el Estado y la élite económica en cuatro casos de reforma estructural. Al analizar las relaciones existentes entre el Estado y el capital en Chile bajo el régimen de Allende, en El Salvador después de las reformas de 1979, en México durante la época de Cárdenas y en Perú bajo el régimen de Velasco, el autor encuentra una variación substancial en la manera en que la élite empresarial respondió a los esfuerzos reformistas conducidos por el Estado. En los dos primeros casos, la burguesía tendió a unirse contra el régimen; en los dos últimos, se encontró relativamente fragmentada y una buena parte de los sectores buscó un arreglo con el régimen. Para explicar estas variaciones, este trabajo destaca cinco factores: el grado en que la hegemonía de clase es ejercida por una oligarquía tradicional; el nivel de organización autónoma alcanzado por las élites empresariales; la percepción de una amenaza de clase; el grado en el que el régimen se consolida políticamente; y la viabilidad del modelo económico introducido por el régimen reformista.

1982

This book has been an unconscionably long time in the making. My interest in theories of the state and state power dates back some twelve years or more and my interest in epistemological and methodological issues in theory construction is even longer-lived. But the immediate stimulus to undertake a theoretical investigation into recent Marxist analyses of the capitalist state came from two discussion groups in which I have been involved during the last five years: the Conference of Socialist Economists group on the capitalist state and the ‘Problems of Marxism’ seminar at the University of Essex. Some preliminary results of this investigation were published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics in 1977 and I have since published several other papers on various aspects of postwar Marxist theories of the state, law, and politics. Nonetheless the greatest part of the current book is newly published here and the book as a whole draws together for the first time the principal theoretical and methodological conclusions of my various studies to date on these matters. [...]

The Radical , 2021

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Despite their very different assumptions and principles of explanation, monetarists, Keynesians and Marxists share a concern with the nature and impact of state intervention in capitalist economies. 1 Yet, in contrast to the study of market forces, the state itself is strangely neglected as a field of analysis. This is as true of theories that presuppose an active role for the state as of those that entail a more limited role. Indeed, even though Marxists have long claimed special knowledge of the strategic significance of the state in class struggle, it is only in the last ten years that they have rediscovered the state as a problem in political economy. The resulting discussion has ranged from the most abstract methodological issues to quite specific historical problems and has generated a variety of hypotheses and insights. It is unfortunately true that much of the Marxist debate is esoteric and often inaccessible and/or irrelevant to those working in other traditions. But, in the absence of any comparable reappraisal of the state, this debate merits wider consideration. Moreover, since Marxism has long been concerned with the state as well as with production and exchange, it is surely worth assessing to what extent an integrated approach can illuminate economic analysis. Such an enquiry is particularly germane in the current period of continuing world economic crisis and increasing state intervention to restructure the industrial and financial system.

Lack of Marxist analysis of the causes of the power of the capitalist, 2022

On the occasion of the publication of the book "The Choice of Civil War, Another History of Neoliberalism", this article first offers a brief history of Marxist discourses on Capitalism: starting from Marx's first speeches, it mentions the Marxist speeches extending his analyses of value, surplus value, its extraction and hoarding. He then points out the tendency of current Marxists to consider "neoliberalism" (current capitalism) only through the prism of the state and the political sphere in general: like the work cited, the manifesto of the dismayed economists shows the same tendency by focusing only on finance vs. the state (and Europe), and more militant works such as that of B. Friot ("vaincre Macron") or ATTAC ("l'imposture Macron") illustrate this same tendency. To sum up, Marxist discourses describe and denounce what the power of the capitalist allows (the subjugation of populations and the state in order to "make money") but neither describe nor denounce the laws and procedures that ensure this power. Of course, the subjugation of the population and the state to "make money" reinforces and increases this power, but sufficient power is a prerequisite for these subjugations. By considering only the perspective of the capitalist to "make money", the chapter "Genesis and perpetuation of capitalism" tells a past and present story to show that the state and its organisations are only instruments in the hand of the power of Capital, whether this state is right or left. It also shows that the exploitation of workers and the monopolisation of surplus value is only part of the monopolisation: the main monopolisation is the exclusive monopolisation of the means of production, and it is this exclusive monopolisation which founds the power of the capitalist over the political as well as over those who only have their labour power. The chapter "Exit from capitalism" tells a possible future history, a "resolutely left" history since it breaks the capitalist's exclusivity to possess the means of production, a legal exclusivity which founds his power. Both stories are based on what we consider to be THE main characteristic of capitalism: the processes of appropriation of the means of production "for profit" by the shareholders alone, processes which make them the exclusive owners of these means whatever their contributions to them. It is therefore not the ownership of the means of production that is called into question but the exclusivity of this ownership. This article includes an analysis of the manifesto of the dismayed economists and the common theses mobilised in many articles of our research notebook, including this one.

Telos, 2010

Capitalist Macrodynamics, 1997