Conclusions

Why do we need a Marxist approach to the state today? For in a world which is seemingly either globalized or globalizing and in which Marxism as a political project is defunct, it is tempting to dismiss Marxist attempts to theorize the state as anachronistic and of purely historical interest - if that.

With the nation-state on the wane do we really need a theory of the state anyway? And even if we think we do, with Marxism in retreat why a Marxist theory of the state?

The first objection can be dealt with fairly swiftly. Yes, the current phase of capitalist accumulation is qualitatively different from all previous stages - in terms of the international mobility of capital and in the truly global nature of the social, political and environmental crises with which it is associated. Yet it would be dangerous to conclude either: (i) that this threatens to precipitate the end of the nation-state; or (ii) that even if it did we could afford to dispense with the theory of the state. For whilst national communities, states and governments still provide the primary focus of political socialization, mobilization, identification, and representation, the nation-state is firmly here to stay. Moreover, while this remains so, the sort of concerted inter-state response necessary to deal with global ecological crisis is likely to be thwarted and hijacked by more parochial national interests and considerations. Hence the very form of the state itself (its national character) may militate against a genuinely global response to a genuinely global crisis. The national form of the state may problematize its global function. Environmentalism may concern itself with global problems, but environmentalists require a theory of the state (see Chapter 8). Furthermore, as Jessop notes, the internationalization of capital has rendered (more) porous the boundaries of formerly closed national economies, but it has not lessened the significance of national differences or indeed national states in the regulation of capitalist accumulation.

The form of the state may have changed, and it may have been subject to a ‘tendential hollowing-out’ as many of its previous functions and responsibilities have been displaced upwards, downwards and outwards, but its distinctively national character remains (Jessop 2002). Thus the process of globalization (more accurately, the processes that may interact to sustain any tendency to globalization) merely demonstrate the continuing centrality of the state to the dynamics of capitalist accumulation.

It is one thing to demonstrate the continuing need for a theory of the state; it is another thing altogether to claim this as justification for a distinctively Marxist approach to the state. The proof of any pudding must be in the eating and it should be remembered that this particular pudding comes in a great variety of different flavours. Nonetheless two general arguments for a sophisticated Marxist conception of the state (such as that formulated by Jessop) can be offered: one substantive, the other analytical.

For the first we can return to the above example. Environmental crisis has its origins in an industrial growth imperative. This might suggest the relevance of a theory of the state in industrial society to the political economy of ecology. Yet a moment’s further reflection reveals that the growth imperative that characterizes contemporary societies - and is thus responsible for the environmental degradation we witness - is a capitalist growth imperative, sustained and regulated by the capitalist state. Environmentalists then need not merely a theory of the state, but a theory of the capitalist state. As such a theory, Marxism clearly has much to offer.

The second reason is somewhat more esoteric, and relates to the analytical sophistication of contemporary Marxist approaches to the state. Though characterized for much of its history by the seemingly intractable dispute between structural functionalism on the one hand and instrumentalism on the other, considerable analytical advances have been made in Marxist state theory in recent years.

In this respect contemporary Marxist state theory has much to offer to Marxists and non-Marxists alike. For as authors like Anthony Giddens (1984) and Nicos Mouzelis (1991; 1995) have noted, the dualism of structure and agency (of which the structuralisminstrumentalism battle is merely a reflection) is not only a problem within Marxism but has characterized social and political science since its inception. In the strategic-relational approach it has eventually been transcended in a simple yet sophisticated manner. Though not all will share the analytical, critical and political concerns that animate contemporary Marxist theory, few can help but benefit from the analytical insights it offers.

Jessop’s central achievement has been to take Marxist state theory beyond the fatuous question: is the modern state a capitalist state or a state in capitalist society? If his work receives the attention it deserves, feminists need not duplicate the errors and deviations of Marxist theory by asking themselves: is the contemporary state essentially patriarchal or merely a state in a patriarchal society? Contemporary Marxist theory will probably never get the chance to follow Henry Higgins in transforming the object of its study. But those who might can surely learn a thing or two from its deviations.

Conclusions

More on the topic Conclusions: