The orthodox Marxian position as explained above, has been slightly revised by some neo-Marxian thinkers. In this, the capitalist class is seen as cohesive and their power unified. Exercise of political power is viewed as class power because the ruling class is also the politically governing class. This means the capitalist class organically, ideologically and coercively dominates the state. Organically dominating means that the state is staffed and run by the ruling class, maintaining the conditions favourable for capitalism through ideas and coercion and force. This is because the economic base determines the superstructure with politics. In the orthodox Marxian view, state power is considered as being exercised in favour of capitalist class.
In his The State in Capitalist Society and Marxism and Politics, Miliband has analysed the role and nature of the state in capitalist societies. He holds that the concept of state in the Western societies as a neutral arbiter amongst social interests is misplaced. He concludes that the state is not able to separate itself from the ruling class factions. Thus, the state is not relatively autonomous. This conclusion is based on various factors.75 These include: (i) in contemporary Western societies there is a dominant or ruling class which owns and controls the means of production, (ii) the dominant class has close links to powerful institutions, political parties, the military, universities, the media, etc., (iii) the dominant class has disproportionate representation at all levels of the state apparatus, especially in dominant positions. This leads Miliband to infer that though the state can achieve independence in certain times like war or national crisis, is by and large, not relatively autonomous. Miliband suggested an organic link between the ruling class and the state power.
Nicos Poulantzas, a neo-Marxian theorist, on the other hand, does not agree with either Marx’s position or Miliband’s conclusions. He suggests that the state in a capitalist society is not an instrument of the bourgeoisie in the way Marx suggested. Marx in Manifesto of the Communist Party says, ‘The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.’76 Marx treats state as an instrument of the whole bourgeoisie and treats the later as the ruling class. Lenin in his State and Revolution supports and elaborates on Marx’s position. Poulantzas on the other hand, puts forward the view that the state enjoys a degree of autonomy from the ruling class, though ultimately it protects the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. In his, Political Power and Social Class (1973) and in an article ‘The Problem of the Capitalist State’, Poulantzas discussed the nature of the state power in capitalist society. According to Poulantzas, the state in the capitalist system serves the long-term interests of the capitalist class. This means the state is structurally in the service of the capitalist interests even if the capitalist class is not the ruling class in a unified and cohesive manner. In fact, he argues that the ‘capitalist state serves the interests of the capitalist class only when members of this class do not participate directly in the state apparatus’.77
His position is that the capitalist class is not cohesive and unified in its immediate interests and is broken up in ‘class fractions’, i.e., internal division. This may include manufacturing, financial and commercial interests, as they will always present differing interests. It is also apparent that the state provides democratic rights and carries welfare reforms, which is opposed by the class fractions of the capitalists. In this way, divisions within the capitalist class are recognized by Poulantzas. Implication of this argument is that Poulantzas does not agree with the ‘executive committee’ view of Marx, which holds that the state is a mere instrument of the ruling class as a unified class. He suggests that the state is autonomous and regulates the economic and political conflicts in society. He says, ‘the ruling class is not the politically governing class.’ Why does this happen and how does the state, then serve the interests of the capitalist class?
He argues that due to internal divisions within the ruling class, there may be differing interests to protect the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole; the state must stay relatively autonomous and maintain the cohesiveness of the system. According to Poulantzas, the state must ensure: (i) political organization of the dominant class to represent their common interests, and conversely (ii) political disorganization of the working class by diffusing their radical potential by giving concessions, (iii) long-term interests of the capitalist class by keeping itself relatively autonomous and presenting the state as representing public interests. Louis Althusser, a neo-Marxian, has also supported the conclusion that the state, to serve the interest of the capital as a whole, needs to remain autonomous from the ‘explicit capitalist direction’.
In fact, J. Westergaard and H. Resler in their empirical study, Class in a Capitalist Society concluded that though, in Britain as well as other advanced capitalist countries, the state has implemented a wide range of reforms to improve health, social security, safety in work places, age old pensions, free education etc., these reforms have left the basic structure of inequality unchanged.78
There are differing views within the Marxian fold on distribution of power in a capitalist society. Orthodox Marxian position expressed in the views of Marx, Engels and Lenin is that the political and economic power is in the hands of the ruling class as a unified class with cohesive interests. Miliband sought to examine this position and its relevance in the contemporary British capitalist society. He agreed with the orthodox position. However, Poulantzas and Althusser take a different position and argue that though the interests of the capitalist system as a whole are protected by the state, it remains autonomous of the domination of the capitalist class. Study by Westergaard and Resler showed the capitalist face of the welfare state. However, some argue that emphasis only on social class, as dimension of power may not give a full picture of the nature of the distribution of power. Various studies including that of Ralph Dahrendorf have suggested that the proletariat class itself is no more a unified deprived class. Instead, there is a process of upward economic, status and professional mobility from amongst the proletariat. This process is described as ‘embourgeoisement’ of the proletariat, i.e., the proletariat attaining bourgeois lifestyle. James Burnham has shown that the emergence of the managerial class has led to differentiation between the owner and the manager. He concluded that the power in production and market lies with the managers. Raymond Aron suggests that due to public shareholding of companies, the concept of the capitalist class as the sole owner and dominant class is no more valid. However, all these studies that seek to show that the capitalist class is no more to be reckoned with, take up only certain points that do not reveal the process of implicit and ideological dominance that the capitalist system generates. Notwithstanding changes in the overall composition of the capitalist as well as the working class, the capitalist system sustains and protects the interests of the dominant class. The process of sustenance and domination is achieved in a subtle way, what Gramsci calls ‘hegemony’. This means people were ruled by ideas and not by coercion alone and the capitalist system is presented as legitimate system.
Leave a Reply