﹝Book Review﹞Marx and Power: Where the Left Has Gone Wrong on the State – book review

(UK) Chris Nineham

Translated by Guanyu Zhu, proofread by Rituwu

This is a book that is theoretical without losing its urgency. Raju Das realized that the way the left understood the institutions of social governance shaped their strategies for change, indeed their entire political path. Questions of state power have been ignored by the left for decades, so the renewed attention to state theory in recent years is to be credited. From Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin to Eric Olin Wright, Bob Jessop, Fred A series of authors, including Fred Block and Stephen Maher, have contributed to the field. Many carried forward themes from previous rounds of debate in the 1960s and 1970s, often drawing on Ralph Miliband, Nicos Poulantzas, and the Thoughts derived from many interpretations of Lancey.

For Das, however, there was a problem. Most writings of this kind start from the assumption that Marx's description of the state in the Communist Manifesto "as a committee governing the common affairs of the entire bourgeoisie" is an oversimplification. Also thinks that Lenin's famous restatement of Marx's view in State and Revolution, that the capitalist state must be overthrown and replaced, has seemed outdated and sketchy. Leo Panich is a representative of the new state theorists. He believes that in the past 100 years, the state has undergone fundamental changes, and the old concepts of "shattering the state" and "death of the state" have been unable to capture this. changes (p. 47).

Nonetheless, modern state theory is generally considered to be Marxist or at least influenced by Marxism. However, as Raju Das points out in this brand new book, the differences (modern state theory) with Marxism are fundamental. He points to many useful insights about the modern state in the recent literature, and he tries to incorporate many of these useful insights into his own analysis. But these disagreements had serious consequences, ultimately leading, according to Dass, to a break with Marxism that "provided a theoretical and political escape from revolutionary action with ideological legitimacy" (p. 6).

For example, for Stephen Maher, one of Leo Panich's followers, the state may be "constructed as an institution for the reproduction of capitalism," but it also "offers the opportunity for democratic Movements deorganize within their institutions and across institutions” (p. 48). The upshot is that the capitalist state should be seen not just as an obstacle to change, but as a set of institutions that can be democratized both within and outside its structure through socialist strategies. Like Poulantzas, Mahome says, "the state provides a field in which the demands of the working class can be formulated, won over, and (possibly) implemented" (p. 48).

In the literature, Dass complains, "the ratio of substance to the number of words used is often quite low" (p. 58); although these discussions are mostly scholarly, they also carry high stakes. Das's critical views dominate much of left-wing discussion and provide theoretical support for left-wing electoral projects such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, and Podemos in the United States. High-profile campaigns like Bernie Sanders and Britain's Jeremy Corbyn. However, none of these projects have achieved good results. As Das points out, "the objective effect of the staunch supporters of the theory of the state (Milliband, Poulanthas, and many others, and those influenced by them) was reformism" (p. 51).

Das's book is thick and sometimes lengthy. Nevertheless, it is an important theoretical contribution. In patiently pointing out the problems with current theories of the state, Dass develops a cogent defense and persuasive update of the ideas of the state by Marx, Engels, and subsequent revolutionary Marxists.

As we all know, Marx never made a final conclusion on the issue of the state, so Das explored the issue of the modern state by studying the first volume of "Das Kapital". In short, Das's point is that the new theorists of the state err on four key points. They tend to overemphasize the independence or autonomy of the state, misunderstand how it is shaped by social forces, and exaggerate its internal contradictions. (They tend to) overemphasize that consent is more important than coercion in the running of the state.

Underlying all this lies the problem that the new theorists of the state seem unable to understand historically that the capitalist state is a product of the rise of the bourgeoisie and an indispensable enabler of bourgeois society. Thus, they ignore the inherent class nature of state institutions, "the state is not a capitalist state because it depends on the bourgeoisie, on the contrary, the state depends on the bourgeoisie precisely because it is itself a capitalist state" (p. 46) .

1) National autonomy

A recurring theme in contemporary state theory is that capitalist states are relatively unaffected by economic processes and the bourgeoisie. Leo Panich, for example, states that "state institutions are more or less relatively independent of class representation and pressure" (p. 32). For the previous Poulantzas, this autonomy was necessary for the state to be able to organize hostile factions within the ruling class and to disintegrate the working class (p. 24).

Ironically, this view is often justified by citing various passages from Marx and Engels. Unlike previous forms of the state, Marx points out, the capitalist state is to a certain extent "outside civil society" (p. 92). For Marx, this is mainly because the capitalist state must be able to provide an administrative and legal venue for capitalists to compete fairly, because the state is precisely a form of safeguarding the common interests of the ruling class. In other words, a certain distance from specific capitalist interests is required for capitalism to survive.

This distance from individual capitalists makes the state appear to have a certain independence from the bourgeoisie, making it appear neutral and thus giving it a certain mass legitimacy. But as Das said, no one should be fooled by appearances. It is illogical to equate this relative separation from individual capital - a separation imposed by the demands of capital as a whole - with a real distance from bourgeois interests:

"The class nature of the state and how it actually operates (e.g., whether it is autonomous) are at different levels of analysis. These two questions are not of equal causal importance in explaining the behavior of the state. The former is primary. Autonomous To a much lesser extent than is commonly believed. Very little autonomy (needed by the capitalist state) is sufficient to subjugate the masses and reproduce capitalist property relations. The separation of the state from the capitalist economy is more of a surface of capitalism matter (p. 6)."

The fact that a capitalist state is often run by non-capitalists is another reason why it may seem non-partisan. In a way, this is a practical problem. As Marx pointed out, capitalists in general cannot devote their full time to the administration of the state. However, there is a more fundamental point: far from being a sign of the independence of the state (under the bourgeoisie), it is yet another sign of the capitalists' awareness of the need for the state to function in the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole.

Dass cites the words of the American Marxist Hal Draper: "It is an intrinsic feature of capitalism that . . . the role of the capitalists themselves as managers or managers of the state is minimized. .” This is in search of “political leaders who can address and uphold the long-term overall interests and needs of the system” (p. 182).

This semblance of national independence or neutrality is supported by another factor: the apparent separation of politics and economics in capitalist societies. Free markets especially in this day and age are considered to transcend politics or human intervention. This is not only because the state overrides the interests of individual capitalists in promoting "free competition," but also because freeing the economy from democratic censorship or control is critical to the survival of capitalism.

Again, we should be careful not to mistake appearances for underlying reality. Although the economy is carefully kept out of parliament, there is a close, even symbiotic relationship between the country and business as a whole. State institutions play a central role in every stage of capital accumulation. They create and maintain infrastructure, enforce taxation, secure the banking system, provide cheap credit to businesses, regulate finance, and provide the bare minimum of benefits and education to keep the workforce healthy and skilled enough to work. Crucially, the state also provides the soldiers and hardware necessary to enforce the foreign economic interests of state capitalists.

All of this reflects the more fundamental reality that capitalism cannot function without the presence of the state. Quoting the words of the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, Das noted, "The distinction between political and economic power ... is a terminological trap." Economic power does not exist by itself. Trotsky said, "There is only property, property in different forms" (p. 97).

Without private property, profits would no longer be available, since the goods produced by workers would be outside the control of capitalists. This is why capitalist states have historically played the role of enforcing social private ownership everywhere, and continue to play the role of maintaining "property rights". As Das points out, without the state apparatus, there would be chaos, "The contradiction of unequal control over property and surplus labor is fundamental and cannot be resolved within a society that pursues individual interests" (p. 46). Consequently, any attempt by workers to exert control over their working conditions or workplaces will be opposed not only by employers, but by all factions of the state. Laws, courts, and police action are all framed around the core principle of upholding private property.

Dass also emphasizes an important point that even when it has to perform tasks that are ostensibly socially beneficial (which, by the way, also helps to appear autonomous and neutral), "this function is still fulfilled through class interests. ” (p. 182). How else to explain the brutality of the prison system, the punitive and impoverishing nature of social welfare systems everywhere, and the way the pandemic has always been dealt with with minimal care and always in a way that favors the wealthy of? "The neutral functions of the so-called capitalist state are ultimately class-oriented, because the state is essentially a capitalist state" (p. 182).

2) What shapes a country?

For Das, two main approaches exist in the current literature, seemingly opposed to each other, but in fact share the same problem of failing to recognize the importance of the modern state in capitalist domination. On the one hand, there is the so-called "instrumentalist" approach, in which the state is armed by the ruling class, either through external pressure (corporate lobbying, close ties between state officials and capitalists, bribery, etc.) This is achieved by the fact that its members or supporters act as administrators.

As Dass puts it, there is much to be said for these approaches, one of which is that they "help to disenchant the liberal idea of a class-neutral state" (p. 46). They can also shed light on how states function in everyday life. But they miss the core issue. If the people who run the country are the ones who decide the policy of the country, then it is only necessary to change the people to solve the problem. If it is the balance of social forces that determines state policy, then a strong labor movement should be able to have a decisive influence on the state. The reality, however, is that the capitalist state always selects its top personnel on the basis of its commitment to the status quo and strongly resists all measures that challenge the interests of the bourgeoisie.

However, two things are very clear. The first is that Poulantzas understands the state as the expression or "condensation" of social conflict, and the means by which society resolves social conflict. For example, he says: "The function of the state is to constitute a factor of social cohesion between different levels of social formation. This is exactly what the Marxist conception of the state as a factor of order means" (p. 23).

This, as Das points out, is very odd for a self-proclaimed Marxist:

"For Poulantzas and his followers...state power should be understood as the cohesion or form of historically and spatially varying class struggle. The state is the cohesive and balancing factor of social formation. This view Very close to the state, even in contradictory ways, is actually able to reconcile the views of opposing classes. This is anti-Marxist in nature, because in Marxism, the state arises precisely because of the relationship between the basic classes The reconciliation of is impossible. (p. 44)”

The second essential feature of Poulantzas' thinking about the state emerges from the first. If the state is for Poulantzas the product of class struggle, the state itself is also the site of the struggle. On the one hand, different branches of the state "often stand out as prominent representatives of the different interests of one or several factions of the power bloc" (p. 34). On the other hand, since state power is based on unstable compromises within the ruling class, it can become the arena of actual class struggle . According to Poulantzas, different class interests actually exist within the state, "in the form of centers of power opposed to the ruling class" (p. 34).

Of course, class struggle has implications for the formation of entire societies, and it can and has forced important concessions from ruling classes and states. However, as Das points out, it is important not to confuse "class struggle" with "class power". Aside from revolutions, class struggle does not change the fundamental fact of who controls the economy or the country. Even if the country is forced to put itself on the defensive, it is still a capitalist state based on capitalist interests. It will make as few concessions as possible in the class struggle that will be designed to ease or confuse and disorient the opposition and, given the opportunity, will seek to reclaim any lost ground.

There are several important conclusions here. First, the most effective reform movement will be a revolutionary struggle to force real concessions by threatening the continued existence of the state. The other conclusion, on the contrary, is that there is no gradual, progressive path to transforming the state into a socialist instrument. As Das puts it:

"It is one thing to think that the state can be the locus of the struggle for reform, and another thing to think that the capitalist state will gradually wither away and transform into a socialist state by striving for reform. The two should not be confused. (p. 49 )”

That's not to say that states don't evolve. Countries around the world have been readjusted dramatically into the neoliberal era. The ruling class underwent a change in economic model and political strategy, from nationalization and limited welfarism to privatization, financialization and public attacks on workers. However, these changes were made from the top down and from within, largely in response to the economic crisis, without altering the basic class roles of the state. The state is fundamentally not a set of structures shaped by various external social forces, but an instrument, one developed and sometimes reorganized with the very express purpose of ensuring the continuation and maximum efficiency of bourgeois rule.

For Das, the fundamental problem with the new theories of the state was their static and ahistorical approach, which tended to ignore the intrinsic, organic, and historical connections between the ruling class and the capitalist state. These theories fail to recognize the historical and organic marriage of the modern state to the capitalist system. In most theories of the state, the relationship between class and state is seen as external, when in fact, as Das puts it, "their relationship is internal, not external."

3) Conflict and contradiction

Now, new theorists of the state place great emphasis on the conflict between the ruling class and the state. Several different issues need to be sorted out here. The first is the issue of state personnel. As we have seen, the class background of state personnel does not determine their class character. In Great Britain, for example, many departments of the state were run by members of the nobility until the mid-20th century. But since at least the middle of the nineteenth century the state has been run exclusively in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Of course, the state has massively expanded its operations since the days of Marx and Lenin, employing vast numbers of workers in healthcare, education, and civil service. The presence of these workers within state institutions creates a point of vulnerability for the ruling class. Some of these people (but not the police and many others) will play a vital role in any successful socialist transformation.

Under normal circumstances, however, these workers have no influence over state policy, and the fact that the state employs workers does not automatically create a "center of class opposition" within the state, just as the presence of workers in industrial manufacturing does not directly equate to the opposition of workers there . Nor does it mean that the state can gradually reposition itself from below. After all, a rational and truly democratic society has little use for the core institutions of the modern state—the country’s brutal criminal justice system, its violent, racist, and sexist police force, its colonial foreign ministry, and so on. These institutions at the heart of the state need to be dismantled, not reformed.

Transforming even the more marginalized and innocuous state sectors related to education, health and welfare would require a forced removal of state management and a radical change in all methods and ways of working. Given the state's hostility to fundamental change, the task of abolishing, replacing, or in some cases transforming these institutions can only be imagined if working-class masses across society are mobilized and new institutions of democratic power are organized. This is not a vision of a radical reformist internal and external strategy, but a vision of social revolution.

The second issue concerns the impact of parliamentary democracy on state functioning. As we have seen, Dass rightly emphasizes how decisive economic issues are excluded from the confines of democratic politics. But also, as he points out, even on the parliamentary agenda, options are deliberately limited. Parliaments are so embedded in the wider institutions of the state, and so influenced by the forces of big capital, that most of the time they are merely forums for discussion by the ruling class, while providing society with some democratic veneer:

"Different political parties are all more or less slightly different mechanisms for politically representing different factions of the bourgeoisie or the economic interests of entire classes. The Republicans and Democrats in the United States, or the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party in India , are both parties of the bourgeoisie, differing only insignificantly in their pursuit of economic policy representative of the bourgeoisie." (p. 93)

Here, Das exaggerates his example, as he does in America. In many countries, the origins of electoral parties can be traced back to the labor movement. Their presence must be factored into any serious strategy for change. However, Das's central thesis holds. If you accept the Marxist idea of a state based on class interests, the social democratic and most left reformist parties' acceptance of the political and economic division of labor built into the state system, and their commitment to the so-called "national interest", Keeping them from being leaders who represent fundamental change for the working class.

A third issue concerns divisions within the ruling class. In times of crisis, major divisions can emerge, especially when they resonate with the wider population, and (these divisions) can destabilize the country. For example, the divide between liberal globalists and populist protectionists is creating various levels of unrest in some countries right now.

Still, most countries have shown resilience in the face of these and other pressures. This is because, while it is true that different “factions” of capital compete for status and influence in the state and support different state policies, they agree more than they disagree on many issues, and the design of state institutions One of the purposes is to resolve disputes that arise.

In rare cases, when sharp conflicts within the ruling class arise and become public, space can be created for movements from below to try to impose their will on society. What contemporary theory of the state fails to realize, however, is that when these dangerous moments come, the ruling class will do everything possible to overcome its secondary differences, regroup, and act brutally against opposition from below, which is the Achilles heel of contemporary state theory . All history tells us that these moments call for the most decisive and revolutionary action to drive change, rather than gradual reformist plans.

4) Consent and compulsion

This brings us finally to the question of coercion. Das argues that today's theories of the state systematically downplay the modern state's use of coercive force. Part of the reason, he argues, is a product of Eurocentrism. Most of the writers concerned base their analysis on more developed countries where coercive power is somewhat hidden. As Das points out, class rule tends to be more overtly repressive in most underdeveloped countries. Populations in the global South are also more likely to experience the violence of foreign imperialist invasion, which is inherent in global capitalist relations and central to state functioning in the leading capitalist states.

This downplaying of violence is also related to the lack of historical perspective discussed above. In every country, establishing capitalist relations has involved various forms and degrees of violence against populations at home and abroad, including enclosure campaigns, the criminalization of vagrancy, and the seizure of land and the destruction of entire populations. As Das puts it, "the state often enforces the separation of immediate producers from their use of private and public property and facilitates the emergence of private property in its capitalist form" (p. 128).

The growth of state institutions in developed countries since the early 20th century has given the system some legitimacy, indeed. The bourgeoisie has learned to use welfare, state education and a strictly limited democracy to limit dissatisfaction and to reinforce the impression of state neutrality. Any serious socialist strategy needs to recognize how welfarist state institutions have helped to generate a degree of consent.

At the same time, the importance of this trend should not be overestimated. Coercion and the threat of coercion are inevitable in capitalist life. As Dass remarked, "coercion must be in order to preserve the general conditions of commodity relations," since capitalist production can only exist by continually separating workers from the commodities they produce, which they need precisely in order to be able to Survival (p. 102). Dass cites China Mieville's explanation that "without the constant threat and/or use of coercive force, commodity production is in danger of being rapidly subverted and disintegrated" (p. 103).

In most cases, this threat of arrest and imprisonment, combined with the sense of powerlessness generated by an alienated job, is enough to keep order and keep the profits flowing. However, this threat is hollow if the courts and prisons are not overcrowded, and the repressive state machinery is kept in good shape to be fully deployed in an emergency.

One of the book's strengths is that while Dass criticizes the left's tendency to downplay the state's hostility to the challenges posed by progress, he does not fall into the dangerous error of conversely arguing that the state is omnipotent. He recognizes that the economic realities of the neoliberal era have led to a general increase in authoritarianism. However, he realizes this may have conflicting effects, including a decline in consent. Especially in developing countries, Das argues, the nature of state domination has changed profoundly. The post-colonial state “acquired a degree of legitimacy because of its commitment to promoting economic development,” the ensuing “selective retreat” of the state, even the renunciation of pretense of development, and its growing violence” undercuts its legitimacy in the eyes of the vast majority of rural people” (p. 287).

There is actually a very uncomfortable irony in this discussion, and it is certainly one of the driving forces of this book. Theoreticians who advocate an incremental approach to what they see as a more complex, less hierarchical state have achieved at least partial hegemony on the left. This is precisely what happens when states that do exist today are becoming more overtly authoritarian, more committed to class struggle, and less concerned about extending the welfare of the broad masses than perhaps since the 19th century. As a result, resentment and alienation from state institutions is spreading around the world. Raju Das has brought us some timely rain by taking these ideas seriously and recovering and reconstructing the Marxist view of the state. The Left badly needs to take this to heart.

March 9, 2023

Chris Ningham was a founding member of the British anti-war group Stop the War and the left-wing group Counterfire, speaking regularly across the country on behalf of both groups. He is the author of The People Versus Tony Blair and Capitalism and Class Consciousness: the ideas of Georg Lukacs .

Original link: https://www.counterfire.org/article/marx-s-capital-capitalism-and-limits-to-the-state-book-review/