Page 19 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Changing Definitions of Politics and Power 5

shall follow Dunleavy and O ’ Leary ’ s (1987) classifi cation of Marx ’ s anal-
yses of the state into three distinct and somewhat contradictory positions
on how it contributes to the reproduction of the capitalist system and the
economic power of the bourgeoisie. All of them have been followed up
in different ways by neo - Marxist theorists (Dunleavy and O ’ Leary, 1987 :
209). First, in the instrumental model, the coercive aspect of the state is
emphasized; it is seen above all as repressive of working - class resistance
to exploitation. The “ executive of the modern state ” is “ but a committee
for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie ” (Marx, 1977 : 223).
On this model, economic power is quite simply translated into political
power, by which means the dominant bourgeoisie rules over subordinate
classes through the liberal state. Second, in his later, more empirical writ-
ings, Marx suggested a different model of the state – the arbiter model
(Dunleavy and O ’ Leary, 1987 : 210). In “ The Eighteenth Brumaire of
Louis Bonaparte, ” he sketches the modern state in such a way as to
suggest its relative autonomy from the interests of the bourgeoisie. The
modern state has grown so strong that in exceptional moments, when the
bourgeoisie cannot completely dominate the other classes against which
it must struggle, it may become an arena for competing interests, an
ostensible mediator, and may even act independently to limit the power
of the bourgeoisie (Marx, 1992 ). However, “ state power does not hover
in mid - air ” ; it is only class interests that are represented at the political
level and, ultimately, economic power will determine how state power is
to be used (Marx, 1992 : 237). Despite the relative autonomy of the
modern state, then, economic power is translated into political power
since it needs the material support of the historically ascendant class, and
it therefore works ultimately to ensure the economic advantage of the
bourgeoisie. Third, in his mature economic work, Marx suggested a third
model of the state: the functionalist version. In this view, developed in
Capital , volume 3, the state is “ superstructural, ” determined entirely by
changes in the economic “ base ” of society. The state apparatus, govern-
ment, and legal forms operate in order to optimize the conditions for
capital accumulation, regardless of how directly the bourgeoisie manages
state institutions and irrespective of the balance of forces in society
(Dunleavy and O ’ Leary, 1987 : 21011). In this understanding of the state,
political power is irrelevant; the state is but an epiphenomenon of the
economic logic of the capitalist system which reproduces itself in every
social and political institution to the advantage of the dominant economic
class.
For some time after Marx ’ s death, this economistic model of capitalist
reproduction was Marxist orthodoxy. Although early Marxists gave some