 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| HOME
|
Marx's view of the relation between state and society was original, but hardly convincing. Do you agree?
'The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.' (1)
This is the clearest assertion of the basic tenet of Marxist theory of the state. The state acts in the interests of the dominant class. Marx never elaborates on the topic of the state - the task of putting forward a full theory of the state was one the aims of the incomplete Das Kapital. In order then to find a Marxist theory of the state, modern scholars must piece one together from the references scattered throughout Marx's work. The above quote, however, is by far the most succinct way of putting forward the basic message of a Marxist theory of the state.
The question is in two parts. In answer to the first, the roots of Marxist theory of the state shall be found in Hegel's political philosophy. It shall be shown that although Marx's conception of the state is just an adaptation of Hegel's, the application of that conception in relation to society is more original. The second part of the question demands an examination into the defensibility of Marx's state theory. The fact that Marx never clarifies his theory gives modern Marxists a great deal of leeway in adapting Marxist theory to counter its critics. Several different ways of defending Marxist theory will be set out below.
In his Philosophy of Right, Hegel makes the important and influential distinction between Civil Society and the Political State. Briefly, the Political state is the total of the objective institutions of public authority, involving legislative, fiscal and supervisory powers, etc. There is also a degree of subjectivity, in the form of public opinion expressed through a representative body. The state is manipulated by men whose 'interest and duty lie in promoting the national interest' (2). It exists to serve the interests of society as a whole. Conversely, Civil Society expresses the interests of individuals. It consists of the private relations between individuals within the laws and regulations of the Political State. All these relations can be seen as being motivated by self-interest. This includes non-political institutions such as the Corporation and marriage.
According to Hegel, Civil Society and the Political State are 'organically connected'. He claims that Civil Society is based upon the rules and regulations of the Political State. The purpose of this is to make sure that the individual actors in Civil Society act in accordance with the interests of society as a whole. Hegel sees social change as the result of disharmony between the Political State, Civil Society and the ethical values of society. This disharmony requires a shifting of these three areas in order to regain social stability. As the Political State is the area under direct influence of man, the State is the area which adjusts to fit changing society and values.
It can be seen that Hegel's ideas greatly influenced those of Marx. Like Hegel, Marx sees the Political State and Civil Society as separate, but claims the causal relation between them is in the opposite direction. Instead of society forming under and in accordance with the laws of the State, Marx claims that the actions of the state are determined by society. The function of the laws and institutions of the state is to stabilise Civil Society. Society is dominated by one class, and so the actions of the state stabilise the society in accordance with that dominance. The logic is as follows. The economic relations of production determine the structure of Civil Society, and more specifically, the class structure. The mode of production creates a dominant class. The state acts to stabilise and institutionalise that dominance. Therefore, the state acts in accordance with the interests of the dominant class. Modern Marxist philosophers, in order to tackle criticism, must explain why the state acts in such a way.
The most simple way of expressing this theory for a capitalist society is in the form of a 'bourgeois conspiracy'. This means that due to the fact the they are the dominant class in society, they hold power over the state. Their wealth and their ownership of the means of production means they can effectively hold the state to ransom in order to get their way. This is a very crude method of explaining class dominance over the state. Jon Elster elaborates on this in his 'Instrumentalist' view - the first and simplest of his three versions of Marx's theory of the state. In this version, the state acts as an instrument of the dominant class, and protects their long-term interests. In a capitalist example, the state protects competition and free trade, in Marx's words, 'the bourgeois state is nothing more than the mutual insurance of the bourgeois class against its individual members, as well as against the exploited class' (3). This would indicate that the state is not autonomous from the ruling class. The instrumentalist view, however, does explain the fact that in many historical examples - such as the 19th century England - the state acts in the dominant class' interests, without having to represent them as a class.
Elster claims that Marx overcomes the problem of an autonomous state in two ways. In the first, the 'abdication' theory of the state, Elster shows that the ruling class may choose to abstain or abdicate political power, if it is in their best interests as a class. In England of the last century, the Whigs, the Political party of the landed aristocracy, held a near monopoly on political power. Yet they still acted in the best interests of the bourgeoisie. Elster cites many reasons why it may be in the best interests of the ruling class to abdicate political power, such as to defuse opposition of the exploited class, or concern that members of the business community may not make competent political leaders. Schumpeter expresses this by saying, 'A genius in the business office may be, and often is, utterly unable outside of it to say boo to a goose - both in the drawing room and on the platform. Knowing this he wants to be left alone and to leave politics alone' (4). The state will still act in the interests of the ruling class, even when the bourgeoisie takes a step back from active political life. Under this 'abdication' theory, the state can have a degree of political autonomy from the bourgeoisie, but only to the extent to which the ruling class allows it to have autonomy. The state still acts in the best interests of the dominant class.
Marx's historical study, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, is the example used by Elster to create his 'class-balance' theory of the state. In examining the rise to power of Louis Bonaparte, Marx claims that 'the state built itself up into an apparently independent force' (5). This is because in the rise of the Bonapartist regime, there was a balance of power between the classes in France, with none being politically dominant. The state, in the form of Louis Bonaparte was then able to have a high degree of autonomous power. It can be seen, however, that his regime still acted in the interests of capital. This can be explained by the fact that the Bonapartists were given power by the votes of the petit bourgeoisie, and in order to protect their voter's interests, protected private property and capital, and the free market.
Ralph Miliband sees the regime of Louis Bonaparte as politically independent of the dominant class, but still subject to the social and economic dominance of that class. Like Elster, he investigates the 'class balance' theory of the state, which Miliband calls Marx's 'secondary view of the state'. This is in contrast with the primary view asserted in the Communist manifesto, and reproduced at the top of this essay. This secondary view is 'that of the state as independent from and superior to all social classes, as being the dominant force in society rather than the instrument of a dominant class' (6). Later in the same work, he adds to this by saying, 'the Bonapartist state, however independent it may have been politically from any given class, remains, and cannot in a class society but remain, the protector of an economically and socially dominant class'. This can be explained with reference to Marx's version of the Hegelian view of the state. Even though the state under Bonapartism may have been politically independent, is must still stabilise the existing Civil Society, which is one dominated by private capital. Even though the state is independent, it 'represents' the society over which it presides.
The autonomy of the state from the direct control of the dominant class can be referred to as Relative Autonomy. Nicos Poulantzas explains this with reference to 19th century England and Bismarkian Germany as well as Bonapartist France, that, 'the state can only truly serve the ruling class in so far as it is relatively autonomous from the diverse fractions of this class, precisely in order to be able to organise the hegemony of the whole of this class' (7). This ties in with the idea that Elster puts forward that it may be in the best interests of the dominant class to abdicate power to the state. While Elster's class balance theory claims that the state can be autonomous from the dominant class, Poulantzas shows that the autonomy gained by the state is used in the interests of the dominant class.
In order to explain why the state acts in the interests of the bourgeoisie, even though it may have a large degree of political autonomy, Miliband puts forward the idea of the 'circulation of elites' (8). This is the assertion that those who occupy high positions in the state originate from the dominant class. This can be explained by elitist schooling systems which are available to only the wealthy, and by the action of 'old-boy' networks, where personal connections help to advance position. The result of this is that the individuals in control of the state, and those at the top of the bourgeoisie have a common class background, and may even be personal friends. Miliband investigates Britain, the United States, France, Germany and Japan, and finds that the education system, and society in general are arranged so that the state is controlled by people who originate from the dominant class.
As a reply to this thesis, Nicos Poulantzas criticises Miliband by ignoring some fundamental aspects of Marxist theory. Poulantzas reminds Miliband that class is determined by the position in the process of production, and that any class origin must be seen to 'fade into the background'. The relation between state and society must take place in the 'objective relations between the dominant class and the state'. These will be objective as they are independent of the individual actors in the economy. Miliband's thesis is subjective, as the actual positions of individuals in society is relevant to his theory of class domination. Miliband's thesis can be defended by showing that the process through which there is 'circulation of elites', such as the education and recruitment processes, are examples of the objective relations between class and state. They are examples of the way in which the superstructure ensures the reproduction of the dominant class by the domination of the state.
Claus Offe gives another reason why the state acts in the interests of capital. He shows how the state can be 'self-limiting' in that the 'institutions of the state respect and are subordinate to the power of private capital' (9). This is a reassertion of the idea of relative autonomy - the state may have a degree of autonomy, but will still act in the interests of capital. He also gives another example of how the state protects the interests of the dominant class as a whole. He says that, 'the state must organise and restrict capital in such a way that problems to the detriment of capital are solved or avoided'. Such problems include pollution and city deinvestment, which arise if capital is not restrained in any way. These problems may mount up to such an extent that the dominant class may be threatened. The state plays the role of organising capital so that such problems are avoided. This helps to sustain the capitalist society.
The above set of theses is a good spread of how modern Marxist scholars have tried to explain the relation between state and society in a way that is consistent with Marxist doctrine. All of them have to deal with some fundamental questions of the state, usually starting with: Can the state be independent or autonomous? Marx's own work on the Bonapartist regime in France shows that this is possible. Yet the basis of Marxist doctrine on the state claims that the state acts in the interests of the dominant class. So the question that naturally follows is: Why does an autonomous state still act in the interests of the dominant class? Each of the scholars above attempt to explain why this is so, and therefore find a defensible version of the Marxist theory of the state.
Non-Marxists, however, do not have to try and reconcile an autonomous state with a dominant class. Adam Przeworski puts forward a thesis which claims that the actions of the state are the result of a compromise between the leaders of industry and workers' leaders. He argues that when choosing a strategy to maximise the material wealth of the working class, the leaders of the proletariat may choose to support capitalism, rather than challenge it. This is because of the possibility of a loss of wealth during the transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat, even though material wealth would improve dramatically after the transition. The proletariat, then, chooses to continue the capitalist dominance of society in the hope of uninterrupted growth of material wealth. This runs counter to the Marxist idea of 'irreconcilable classes'. Under this thesis, dominance is agreed upon by the proletariat, rather than forced upon them. The state is acting in the interests of both the dominant and dominated class by enforcing the compromise. On the other hand, it can be seen that it is acting in the long-term interests of the bourgeoisie, by placating the working class, and only in the short-term interests of the proletariat, by only considering immediate growth in their material wealth. By only considering the short-term interests of the proletariat, this can hardly be called a balanced or unbiased state.
Frank Parkin proposes the notion that the Marxist theory of the state, as dominated by class, is narrow-minded. He shows examples of the South African and the Orange state where the dominant divisions are race and religion respectively. He suggests an alternative 'Closure Model', where 'the state as an agency buttresses and consolidates the rules and institutions of exclusion governing all relations of dominance and subordination' (10). If a groups 'exclusionary prerogatives' are backed by the state, then it is the dominant group. This view can be reconciled with Marxism, by seeing economic class as an exclusive group, the rules of which are always backed by the state. Parkin would argue that class does not have to be the dominant group in society, but the Marxist response would be that even in the cases where religion, race or gender is the main dominant category, class dominance also exists. Not only that, but class dominance is primary. It is possible to add a degree of racial, gender or religious dominance to that structure, and arrive at a society like that of the South Africa under apartheid, or the Orange state. The important point is that class is primary, and other distinctions are subjective and historically contingent.
In a summary of the above argument, it is clear that Marx's theory of the state, although it is vague in the original texts, can be used to form a defensible view of the state. The most important argument arising from the above these is whether the state is completely dominated by the ruling class, as put forward by Miliband and Poulantzas, or if there can be a compromise or balance between classes, such as proposed by Przeworski, and in Elster's 'class-balance' theory. By comparing these two groups, the balanced view of the state can be seen to be too shallow, as even in a politically balanced state, the interests of the economically dominant class are still protected by the state. In terms of originality, Marx's state theory clearly stems from that of Hegel, although the causal relation between state and society is reversed. For Marx, the economic structure of society produces a dominant class, and the state reflects that dominance, and helps to reproduce it. In the final analysis, neo-Marxist scholars are able to form coherent and defensible positions on the state, while not betraying the essential Marxist nature of their theories.
- Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party.
- Z. A. Pelcynski, The Hegelian Conception of the State.
- Karl Marx, review of Girardin's Le Socialisme et 'Impôt.
- J. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.
- Karl Marx, A German Ideology.
- R. Miliband, Marx and the State.
- N. Poulantzas, The Problem of the Capitalist State.
- R. Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society.
- C. Offe, Social Policy and the Theory of the State.
- F. Parkin, Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique.