97 | Poulantzas, Marxism and the State
Added 2024-09-12 10:00:15 +0000 UTCIn this episode we take up the question: what is the State? With 1978’s State, Power, Socialism by Nicos Poulantzas as our guide, we talk about what it means to grasp the state as a historically specific form inseparable from the economy, find ourselves torn between the mutual dissatisfactions of Althusser and Foucault, and ask whether it is even possible to conceptualize ‘the capitalist state’ as such. Doing so might be necessary for political strategic reasons, but O, abstraction! Along the way we give some of our favorite French thinkers a bit of a hard time. It’s meant with love. Mostly.
leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphil
References:
Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, trans. Patrick Camiller, with an introduction by Stuart Hall (New York: Verso, 2014)
Music:
“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com
“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN
Comments
Before criticizing: only listened to a few eps but already convinced this is best pod ever. Luv y'all. The real fab four. Second, the woman's audio was much lower than others, plz equalize next time. Had to up volume when she spoke and then William (I think) would speak and shatter eardrums. Given that the largest issue which divides the Left is the state, bit troubled that there was no discussion of the anarchist view. One cannot fully discuss the nature of a state without discussing its antithesis. If we say, as anarchs do, as I do, that administrative units run by workers or those deputized and controlled by workers to perform such tasks does not constitute a state, then it is not true, as one of you insisted, that there will have to be some kind of state after a socialist revo. In fact such must not exist. The critical difference, from my POV (shared by most anarchs), is whether administrators--those not engaged in production--have power over those who are (state), or the opposite (antistate). If I may quote myself: "To be [an anarch] is to acknowledge the necessity of a classless, domination-free society; to recognize the singular importance of a workers' anti-state, a peopledom, whose hub is a global constellation of autonomous workplaces; it is also to affirm and safeguard the inviolability of workers' control at every point of production and distribution. For us there can be no power above the workers which can interdict our decisions. It's not at all complicated: socialism is worker self management, and in the here and now and always. The idea of a post-revolution state which usurps workers power and which asserts disciplinary authority over workers is anathema to us. The point of the social revolution is not to exchange one overlord for another. Why fight a revolution if not to be free?" Bakunin believed that those units, whatever form they might take, that would arise organically in the struggle to effect revo should be the administrative apparatus in its immediate aftermath, altered subsequently, if desired. This, he believed, was best as these units would by nature be large, mass, worker organizations so would be most democratic and least susceptible to counterrevo, and whose ethos would be least likely to misalign with revolutionary goals. Bakunin would have supported the free soviets--that is before the Leninazis destroyed them! If you are going to say that there must be a state post-revolution, at least you should have addressed the other side. As for the structure of cap' states: Back in the day it was widely believed that the representative--that is the open-to-the-public--organs of state came into being and broadened when the caps replaced the aristocracy due in large part to the former's need to resolve intraclass disputes. People need to eat, so food sellers could charge whatever the like and thereby command so much walletshare that it would diminish or eliminate consumption of other commodities. Capitalism could not survive a moment without state regulation as they would destroy themselves. The growth of the franchise, according to this view, was in part so various wings of the bourgeoisie could protect themselves from the predation by the others--to set and enforce the ground rules. One can disagree, but was surprised this viewpoint, once pretty common, didn't get mentioned.
David fryett
2024-09-13 18:59:15 +0000 UTCHell yeah let’s go dudes
pelicans123
2024-09-12 19:19:12 +0000 UTC
