Искра
27th October 2009, 01:28
What do you think about Bob Jessop and Nicos Poulantzas and their theories?
Do you consider them Marxists even they rejected almost everything (especially Poulantzas) associated with Marxism?
Since I read their works only in Croatia I'm posting here something from Wikipedia, so that people who haven't read them can join discussion.
Jessop's major contribution to state theory is in treating the state not as an entity but as a social relation with differential strategic effects. This means that the state is not something with an essential, fixed property such as a neutral coordinator of different social interests, an autonomous corporate actor with its own bureaucratic goals and interests, or the 'executive committee of the bourgeoisie' as often described by pluralists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%28political_theory%29), elitists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitists)/statists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statists) and conventional marxists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) respectively. Rather, what the state is essentially determined by the nature of the wider social relations in which it is situated, especially the balance of social forces.
The state can thus be understood as follows: First, the state has varied natures, apparatuses and boundaries according to its historical and geographical developments as well as its specific conjunctures. However, there is a strategic limit to this variation, imposed by the given balance of forces at specific time and space. Thus, second, the state has differential effects on various political and economic strategies in a way that some are more privileged than others, but at the same time, it is the interaction among these strategies that result in such exercise of state power. This approach is called the "strategic-relational approach" and can be considered as a creative extension and development of Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx)'s concept of capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29) not as a thing but as a social relation and Antonio Gramsci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci)'s and Nicos Poulantzas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicos_Poulantzas)'s concept of the state as a social relation, something more than narrow political society.
Jessop uses the term “time sovereignty” (or “temporal sovereignty”) to stand for a government's right to have at its disposition the time that is required for considered political decision-making. He states that this “time sovereignty” is endangered as governments see themselves pressured to compress their own decision-making cycles so that they can make more timely and appropriate interventions.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jessop#cite_note-0) By comparison, Robert Hassan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Hassan&action=edit&redlink=1) uses the term in related but slightly different meaning as the government's sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty) to decide the future, beyond the immediate present; in this usage, the term stands in analogy to territorial sovereignty; Hassan holds that the legislative is losing “time sovereignty” to the executive.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jessop#cite_note-1)
Poulantzas's theory of the state was reacting against what he saw as more simplistic understandings within Marxism. Instrumentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism) Marxist accounts held that the state was simply an instrument in the hands of a particular class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class). Poulantzas disagreed with this, because he saw the capitalist class as too focused on their individual short term profit, rather than on maintaining the class's power as a whole, to simply exercise the whole of state power in its own interest. Poulantzas argued that the state, though relatively autonomous from the capitalist class, nonetheless functions to ensure the smooth operation of capitalist society, and therefore benefits the capitalist class. In particular, he focused on how an inherently divisive system such as capitalism could co-exist with the social stability necessary for it to reproduce itself - looking in particular to nationalism as a means to overcome the class divisions within capitalism. Poulantzas has been particularly influential over the leading contemporary Marxist state theorist, Bob Jessop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jessop).
Borrowing from Antonio Gramsci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci)'s notion of cultural hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony), Poulantzas argued that repressing movements of the oppressed is not the sole function of the state. Rather state power must also obtain the consent of the oppressed. It does this through class alliances, where the dominant group makes an 'alliance' with subordinate groups, as a means to get the consent of the subordinate group. In his later works, Poulantzas analysed the role of what he termed the 'new petty bourgeoisie' in both consolidating the ruling classes hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony) and undermining the poletariat's ability to organise itself. By occupying a contradictory class position, that is to say, by identifying with its de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto) oppressor, this fraction of the working class throws its lot in with the bourgeois whose fate it (wrongly) believes it shares. The fragmentation (some would argue the demise) of the class system is, for Poulantzas, a defining characteristic of late capitalism and any politically useful analysis must tackle this new constellation of interests and power. An example of this can be seen in a Poulantzas-influenced analysis of the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States): the American ruling class, by acceding to some of the demands of labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) (regarding things like minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage), labour laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_laws), etc.), helped cement an alliance between labour and a particular fraction of capital and the state [Levine 1988]. This was necessary for the continued existence of capitalism, for if the ruling class simply repressed the movements and avoided making any concessions, it could have led to a socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) revolution.
Btw. this is not enough. I'll write tomorrow more about their views and why I'm I against them.
Do you consider them Marxists even they rejected almost everything (especially Poulantzas) associated with Marxism?
Since I read their works only in Croatia I'm posting here something from Wikipedia, so that people who haven't read them can join discussion.
Jessop's major contribution to state theory is in treating the state not as an entity but as a social relation with differential strategic effects. This means that the state is not something with an essential, fixed property such as a neutral coordinator of different social interests, an autonomous corporate actor with its own bureaucratic goals and interests, or the 'executive committee of the bourgeoisie' as often described by pluralists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%28political_theory%29), elitists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitists)/statists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statists) and conventional marxists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) respectively. Rather, what the state is essentially determined by the nature of the wider social relations in which it is situated, especially the balance of social forces.
The state can thus be understood as follows: First, the state has varied natures, apparatuses and boundaries according to its historical and geographical developments as well as its specific conjunctures. However, there is a strategic limit to this variation, imposed by the given balance of forces at specific time and space. Thus, second, the state has differential effects on various political and economic strategies in a way that some are more privileged than others, but at the same time, it is the interaction among these strategies that result in such exercise of state power. This approach is called the "strategic-relational approach" and can be considered as a creative extension and development of Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx)'s concept of capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29) not as a thing but as a social relation and Antonio Gramsci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci)'s and Nicos Poulantzas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicos_Poulantzas)'s concept of the state as a social relation, something more than narrow political society.
Jessop uses the term “time sovereignty” (or “temporal sovereignty”) to stand for a government's right to have at its disposition the time that is required for considered political decision-making. He states that this “time sovereignty” is endangered as governments see themselves pressured to compress their own decision-making cycles so that they can make more timely and appropriate interventions.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jessop#cite_note-0) By comparison, Robert Hassan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Hassan&action=edit&redlink=1) uses the term in related but slightly different meaning as the government's sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty) to decide the future, beyond the immediate present; in this usage, the term stands in analogy to territorial sovereignty; Hassan holds that the legislative is losing “time sovereignty” to the executive.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jessop#cite_note-1)
Poulantzas's theory of the state was reacting against what he saw as more simplistic understandings within Marxism. Instrumentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism) Marxist accounts held that the state was simply an instrument in the hands of a particular class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class). Poulantzas disagreed with this, because he saw the capitalist class as too focused on their individual short term profit, rather than on maintaining the class's power as a whole, to simply exercise the whole of state power in its own interest. Poulantzas argued that the state, though relatively autonomous from the capitalist class, nonetheless functions to ensure the smooth operation of capitalist society, and therefore benefits the capitalist class. In particular, he focused on how an inherently divisive system such as capitalism could co-exist with the social stability necessary for it to reproduce itself - looking in particular to nationalism as a means to overcome the class divisions within capitalism. Poulantzas has been particularly influential over the leading contemporary Marxist state theorist, Bob Jessop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jessop).
Borrowing from Antonio Gramsci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci)'s notion of cultural hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony), Poulantzas argued that repressing movements of the oppressed is not the sole function of the state. Rather state power must also obtain the consent of the oppressed. It does this through class alliances, where the dominant group makes an 'alliance' with subordinate groups, as a means to get the consent of the subordinate group. In his later works, Poulantzas analysed the role of what he termed the 'new petty bourgeoisie' in both consolidating the ruling classes hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony) and undermining the poletariat's ability to organise itself. By occupying a contradictory class position, that is to say, by identifying with its de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto) oppressor, this fraction of the working class throws its lot in with the bourgeois whose fate it (wrongly) believes it shares. The fragmentation (some would argue the demise) of the class system is, for Poulantzas, a defining characteristic of late capitalism and any politically useful analysis must tackle this new constellation of interests and power. An example of this can be seen in a Poulantzas-influenced analysis of the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States): the American ruling class, by acceding to some of the demands of labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class) (regarding things like minimum wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage), labour laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_laws), etc.), helped cement an alliance between labour and a particular fraction of capital and the state [Levine 1988]. This was necessary for the continued existence of capitalism, for if the ruling class simply repressed the movements and avoided making any concessions, it could have led to a socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) revolution.
Btw. this is not enough. I'll write tomorrow more about their views and why I'm I against them.