Marxism and the state
The modern state is... an amorphous complex of agencies with ill-defined boundaries performing a variety of not very distinctive functions. (Schmitter 1985: 33)
It might seem somewhat strange, if not downright defeatist, to begin a chapter on the Marxist theory of the state with this comment.
Yet in one sense it provides a particularly appropriate starting point. For, as I have remarked elsewhere, ‘there is no more arduous task in the theory of the state than defining this notoriously elusive and rapidly moving target’ (Hay 1996a: 2). We begin then with perhaps the second most neglected question in the study of the state - what is it? - before moving on to the first - why do we need a theory of it anyway? In fact, as we shall see, although the definitions offered by Marxists are often implicit rather than explicit, and although their justifications for a concern with the state are often somewhat cryptic, it is to their credit that theorists within this tradition have not been short of answers.
More on the topic Marxism and the state:
- 'The ambiguity and the excitement': Marxism and the state after Marx
- Like Henry Higgins who, through his work changed the object of his studies into something other than what it was, the purpose of the Marxist theory of the state is not just to understand the capitalist state but to aid in its destruction. (Wolfe 1974: 131)
- The so-called ‘new institutionalism’ is a relatively recent addition to the pantheon of theories of the state and, like some of the other perspectives considered in this volume, it is by no means only a theory of the state
- Statism and institutionalism.· is there more focus on the state?
- Changing theories of the state: has there been a convergence?
- What is the state?
- The concept of the state
- Beyond the state?
- SANCTION AND THE STATE
- The state as institutional contextualization