Poulantzas/Miliband

[penguinfoot]

Any thoughts on this important debate around the Marxist theory of the state? Personally I find that the lines between the two combatants are a lot less clear and distinct than has been portrayed in much of the literature because a careful reading of Milband's 'The State in Capitalist Society' shows that he was actually aware of the objective relations which affect the shape and role of the state rather than solely being concerned with showing how the state's activity is dependent on its elected and appointed personnel coming from the same social and cultural milieu as the ruling class in the economic sphere, which is effectively what Poulantzas accuses him of doing along with saying that he accepts the epistemological terrain of the bourgeoisie whilst seeking to confront bourgeois-pluralist argumentation solely on empirical grounds - by this I mean that Miliband does, against Poulantzas' claims, acknowledge that the state's autonomy is limited by its dependence on economic stability and how the self-evident concentration of economic power in the hands of the bourgeoisie gives the ruling class a way of undermining the effectiveness and legitimacy of the state if the state pursues policies that undermine bourgeois class interests in a substantial way. I also think that Miliband is right to describe Poulantzas' approach as a form of structural determinism and to highlight the strategic errors that are derived from Poulantzas' approach - in particular I think Miliband is correct to highlight how, if it is indeed the case that the state protects the interests of the bourgeoisie in its capacity as an agent of social cohesion and if this capacity is simply the function of the state in an integrated social system, it is not clear how socialists can plausibly argue that we should defend bourgeois democracy against the threat of fascism or how it is possible for socialists to support movements that aim to put pressure on the state and extract important reforms, despite both of these positions being important parts of socialist strategy and derived from Marx's own opposition to abstention from political struggles.

As should be clear, I think that Miliband comes out the stronger of the two despite both having important contributions and errors. I think that Marxists should take the instrumental theory of the state seriously rather than dismissing it as reductionism.

On another note, does anyone know anything about Poulantzas' political background? I've read that he was a Maoist who later drifted towards Eurocommunism but I would love to know more.