The state as an instrument of the ruling class
The ‘instrumentalist’ position as it has become known (see below) provides perhaps the most prevalent conception of the state within Marxist theory. It is most often accorded the status of the Marxist theory of the state, despite the fact that instrumentalism itself spans a wide diversity of positions expressing rather divergent theories of the state.
In its most crudely stated form it implies that the state is ‘an instrument in the hands of the ruling class for enforcing and guaranteeing the stability of the class structure itself’ (Sweezy 1942: 243). Within this distinctive school, ‘the functioning of the state is... understood in terms of the instrumental exercise of power by people in strategic positions, either directly through the manipulation of state policies or indirectly through the exercise of pressure on the state’ (Gold etal. 1975a: 34). Instrumentalists or ‘influence theorists’, as Offe terms them (1974: 32), have concerned themselves with the analyses of: (i) the patterns and networks of personal and social ties between individuals occupying positions of economic power in so-called ‘power structure research’ studies (Domhoff 1967, 1970, 1980; Mintz and Schwartz 1985; for a review see Barrow 1993: 13-24); (ii) the social connections between those holding positions of economic power and the state elite (Domhoff 1979, 1990; Miliband 1969; for a review see Barrow 1993: 24-41); and (iii) the social processes moulding the ideological commitments of the state and social elite (Miliband 1969).The state as an ideal collective capitalist
The conception of the state as an ideal collective capitalist has its origins in Engels’ frequently cited (though incidental) remark in Anti-Dühring, that ‘the modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital’ (1878 [1947]: 338).
Advocates of this conception of the state point to the fact that capital is neither self-reproducing nor capable on its own of securing the conditions of its own reproduction. For the very continuity of the capitalist social formation is dependent upon certain interventions being made which, though in the general interest of capital collectively, are not in the individual interest of any particular capital (Hirsch 1978: 66). In rational choice theoretical terms, this is a ‘collective action problem’ (see, for instance, Dunleavy 1991: 30-6). An external, and at least relatively autonomous body or institutional ensemble is thus called upon to intervene on behalf of capital in its long-term general interests (as opposed to the conflicting short-term interests of individual capitals). This body is the state - the ‘ideal collective capitalist’ (Altvater 1973). As Offe explains, ‘it is not without good reason that Engels... calls the state the “ideal” collective capitalist; for the state as a “real” collective capitalist would clearly be a logical impossibility... firstly because the state apparatus is not itself a “capitalist”... and secondly because the concept of the collective capitalist is itself nonsensical in that competition...is essential for the movement of capital’ (1974: 31).The state as a factor of cohesion within the social formation
Though most clearly associated with the work of Nicos Poulantzas whose phrase it is, the notion of the state as a ‘factor of cohesion’ can be traced (as indeed it is by Poulantzas) to another incidental and (characteristically) underdeveloped comment by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:
[I]n order that...classes with conflicting economic interests, shall not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power seemingly standing above society that would moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ‘order’; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state. (Engels 1884 [1978]: 205-6; see also Bukharin 1921 [1926])
Within this conception, the state is understood in terms of its effects and is defined in terms of its role in maintaining ‘the unity and cohesion of a social formation by concentrating and sanctioning class domination’ (Poulantzas 1978: 24-5; see also 1973: 44-56, esp. 44, 304; Gramsci 1971: 244; Jessop 1985: 61, 177). We return to the problems of this conception below.
As the above discussion demonstrates, the state has meant (and continues to mean) many things to many Marxists.
More on the topic The state as an instrument of the ruling class:
- The state as an instrument: 1648 to 1789
- 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
- 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)
- Statism and institutionalism.· is there more focus on the state?
- 'The ambiguity and the excitement': Marxism and the state after Marx
- The apotheosis of the state
- What is the state?
- The concept of the state
- Beyond the state?
- Marxism and the state
- SANCTION AND THE STATE
- The state as institutional contextualization
- The genealogy of the concept of the state
- The state and problems of legitimacy
- Green critiques of the state
- The Weberian definition of the modern state
- Recent developments in state theory
- Greening the state?