Dear All,'Fitting we'd be having one of those gray days today as I nestle back into overdue revisions. A very special friend re-emerged, and it has been necessary to celebrate. But things are turning nerdy again.
Taking the separation of the political and the economic under capitalism even in its present phase, as our point of departure, the state should be seen (as should capital, according to Marx) as a relation, or more precisely as the condensate of a relation of power between struggling classes. In this way we escape the false dilemma entailed by the present discussion on the tstae, betwen the state comprehended as a thing/instrument and the state comprehended as a subject.
....
But I repeat, the relative autonomy of the state, founded on the separation (constantly being transformed) of the economic and the political, is inherent in its very structure (the state is a relation) in so far as it is the resultant of contradictions and of the class struggle as expressed, always in their own specific manner, within the state itself - this state which is both shot through and constituted with and by these class contradictions. It is precisely this that enables us exactly to pinpoint the specific role of the bureaucracy which, although it constitutes a specific social category, is not a group standing above, outside or to one side of classes: an elite, but one whose members also have a class situation or membership.
...
Indeed, conceiving of the capitalist state as a relation, as being structurally shot through and constituted with and by class contradictions, means firmly grasping the fact that an institution (the state) that is destined to reproduce class divisions cannot really be a monolithic, fissureless bloc, but is itself, by virtue of its very structure (the state is a relation), divided.
From Nicos Poulantzas, 'A Reply to Miliband and Laclau'
This recent copse of days has allowed me the opportunity to engage with Poulantzas' own writings, after no less than a year spent with Bob Jessop's Nicos Poulantzas: Marxist Theory and Political Strategy, and, shit, a whole decade ping-ponging between the works of Althusser and Laclau. Mostly known in the context of his famous debate with Ralph Miliband, Poulantzas is often (mis?)understood as a sort-of "missing link" between Althusser's crazed maoist structuralism and Laclau's always-contradictory program of antiessentialist Universalism, so as you can see I'm long overdue for this interface.
And I've had a positive experience, let me tell you. Considered alongside Laclau or Althusser, Poulantzas' theory distinguishes itself through its explicit engagement with the capitalist state as a political and social form. This is an important contribution, because serious theories of the class politics of the Liberal state eluded mainstream marxist theory - allowing for the anomalie and/or miracle that is the work of Gramsci - until the late 1960s. The politics of the state have also hounded American labor politics: Gompers' AFL wanted to maintain real distance with parties and government; Wobblies were bomb-tossing, no-contract anarchists; industrial unions made an ambitious, ill-fated run to expand the public and private sector welfare and establish a liberal-corpratist American consensus via collective bargaining and the Democratic Party. These diverse ideologies reflect unions' understanding of government, and, notably, electoral politics, as a major scene in labor politics, and one that has demanded decisive responses.
My current problem involves reconciling this broad, 20th Century labor history - "craft" vs. "industrialism," New Deal corporatism, Reagan etc - with the somewhat divergent, eruption of public employee organizing in the 1960s-1970s, and the equally virulent, counter-organization against public employee unions (and the public sector in general) under neoliberalism. Public employees enjoy a special place in the labor movement, having enjoyed relative successes in organizing throughout neoliberalism (ed - that's a bit of a generalization, but consider the neoliberal era to span 1973-now). Simultaneously, public workers occupy a place of privilege in the ideological fantasies of the activist Right. Coincidentally (or not), public employee unions trend towards a different-looking labor movement with far larger proportions of women and people of color, for example. In figurative and literal ways, this labor population leads workplace and electoral struggles in, for and through the capitalist state. Does public workers' proximity to state power, over and above many other distinguishing characteristics, make the public sector/the state an essentially different venue of political struggle than the private labor market?
We will continue this discussion of the public sector unions specifically soon with some words from Thomas Frank, but first I want to return to an important insight for marxist theory that is highlighted in Poulantzas: a generalized agnosticism when it comes to the validity of the "public-private" distinction in liberal political economy and the mainstream political culture. Even after Keynesianism has been burnt in effigy and pissed on (not unlike the flash-in-the-pan that was Althusserianism, come to think of it) by multiple sub-generations (of Democrats, even), no sane person could argue that the State is not an economic agent in the capitalist economy. Yet an overwhelming amount of blood and ink have been spilled since the 'capital-L' Liberal division of labor between politics/government and "the economy" set the table for wars, governments and social movements that mobilized their politics of redistribution and recognition around "nationalization," "privatization," of resources .
In what way are public employee unions different and the same as private sector unions? is what I'm wondering. And Poulantzas reminds me that while the public-private distinction is meaningful as a frame through which all mainstream political agents must pass, it is above all a _____________
a) Social Fact
b) Discourse
c) Structural "Effect"
d) Lacanian Imaginary
- that can be manipulated/appropriated/disrupted/undermined under certain conditions. The public/private distinction is meaningful, but also arbitrary. I'd been on to this line of thought for years - at least as long as I've been working inside public-service unions - but I've been incredibly happy to finally make this overdue journey into Poulantzas and find the distilled (if also highly concentrated dense) instance in marxist state theory.
And I've had a positive experience, let me tell you. Considered alongside Laclau or Althusser, Poulantzas' theory distinguishes itself through its explicit engagement with the capitalist state as a political and social form. This is an important contribution, because serious theories of the class politics of the Liberal state eluded mainstream marxist theory - allowing for the anomalie and/or miracle that is the work of Gramsci - until the late 1960s. The politics of the state have also hounded American labor politics: Gompers' AFL wanted to maintain real distance with parties and government; Wobblies were bomb-tossing, no-contract anarchists; industrial unions made an ambitious, ill-fated run to expand the public and private sector welfare and establish a liberal-corpratist American consensus via collective bargaining and the Democratic Party. These diverse ideologies reflect unions' understanding of government, and, notably, electoral politics, as a major scene in labor politics, and one that has demanded decisive responses.
My current problem involves reconciling this broad, 20th Century labor history - "craft" vs. "industrialism," New Deal corporatism, Reagan etc - with the somewhat divergent, eruption of public employee organizing in the 1960s-1970s, and the equally virulent, counter-organization against public employee unions (and the public sector in general) under neoliberalism. Public employees enjoy a special place in the labor movement, having enjoyed relative successes in organizing throughout neoliberalism (ed - that's a bit of a generalization, but consider the neoliberal era to span 1973-now). Simultaneously, public workers occupy a place of privilege in the ideological fantasies of the activist Right. Coincidentally (or not), public employee unions trend towards a different-looking labor movement with far larger proportions of women and people of color, for example. In figurative and literal ways, this labor population leads workplace and electoral struggles in, for and through the capitalist state. Does public workers' proximity to state power, over and above many other distinguishing characteristics, make the public sector/the state an essentially different venue of political struggle than the private labor market?
We will continue this discussion of the public sector unions specifically soon with some words from Thomas Frank, but first I want to return to an important insight for marxist theory that is highlighted in Poulantzas: a generalized agnosticism when it comes to the validity of the "public-private" distinction in liberal political economy and the mainstream political culture. Even after Keynesianism has been burnt in effigy and pissed on (not unlike the flash-in-the-pan that was Althusserianism, come to think of it) by multiple sub-generations (of Democrats, even), no sane person could argue that the State is not an economic agent in the capitalist economy. Yet an overwhelming amount of blood and ink have been spilled since the 'capital-L' Liberal division of labor between politics/government and "the economy" set the table for wars, governments and social movements that mobilized their politics of redistribution and recognition around "nationalization," "privatization," of resources .
In what way are public employee unions different and the same as private sector unions? is what I'm wondering. And Poulantzas reminds me that while the public-private distinction is meaningful as a frame through which all mainstream political agents must pass, it is above all a _____________
a) Social Fact
b) Discourse
c) Structural "Effect"
d) Lacanian Imaginary
- that can be manipulated/appropriated/disrupted/undermined under certain conditions. The public/private distinction is meaningful, but also arbitrary. I'd been on to this line of thought for years - at least as long as I've been working inside public-service unions - but I've been incredibly happy to finally make this overdue journey into Poulantzas and find the distilled (if also highly concentrated dense) instance in marxist state theory.
5 comments:
I like this kind of shit.
very interesting, this chap.
i'm quite fascinated by the horizon of possibilities for internal dialogues within this specific type of relation, one which is both shot through and constituted by contradictions which are themselves individually divided in their own identifications with class/state and public/private...
How involved, from your other readings of Nicos, does this notion seem to be with Laclau's 'antagonism?' or should I say, how would the public/private effect seem to distribute the realm of possibility? With that question, and dovetailing in with your worthwhile Lacanian reading of the "relatively autonomous state," I wonder where the structural effect can be chased down, and which quadrant of the structural displacement might house the "head?" OR is that just it?
Is there an overriding intentionality to the distribution of the relation, is there a linear logic that emerges within the wow and flutter, or is it open to hegemonic re-identification as more conventional 'civil society' would be? (or is there such a thing? i doubt it) Does the structural effect originate in the bureaucratic site, the market-driven influence, or is the site divided more as a result of it's already contradictory constituents?
Creme-cakes...These are poorly worded questions/thoughts, and obviously, I am coming at this from a less topical angle, but maybe, because we have played music together, lived together, and defecated together, you might be able to read the tell-tale splatter that is my jist. cheers, jimjim.
roberto,
lemme try this in stops and starts. again, taken in the context of the long history of political theory, poulantzas/althusser/laclau/gramsci are basically of a piece, with only EL distinguishing himself as "post-Marxist." but of course you're WELL aware of the problems i have with the latter phrase. to say nothing else of it, if Laclau is a "post-marxist" without apologies, he is equally unapologetically still a SOCIALIST.
To varying lengths Althusser and Poulantzas both argue that the "economic" still "determines" the "political," but hopefully my scare quotes underscore my suspicion that in their saner moments, both worked to explain "causality" in a nuanced, self-effacing and agnostic way that significantly reduces the breadth and depth of economic determinism as an idea.
Par example, if I am confused by a social or historical phenomenon, I do as a matter of course usually begin by "following the money" in terms of trying to figure out motivations, consequences, etc. But I never STOP there, if the subject is of importance to me. Neither would Althusser or Poulantzas, both of whom made their names problematizing - "deconstructing," even - scientistic and economistic facets of a marxist theoretical enterprise they nonetheless thought was worth saving. Thus, without trashing political economy, Althusser went to great lengths to show how no revolution was ever waged in strictly "class" terms, and how in any given social formation, other aspects of the "relations of production" like politics, religion, kinship, etc.,
Afterwords, Poulantzas distinguished himself by talking about how liberal-democratic institutions such as political parties and representative democratic states needed to be considered not just as capitalist defense mechanisms or (reformist, social-democratic) means to (a socialist or more specifically, EuroCommunsist) ends, but instead as contested venues that belonged neither entirely to elites nor to have-nots. Poulantzas' image of the state as a "condensate" of class struggle is a particularly illustrative example of his primary inheritance from Althusser, which is the notion of "overdetermination," which Althusser himself came up with through a weird alchemic combo of Lacan and Mao! Overdetermination is at play, to use a pedestrian example, when the capitalist class mobilizes "culture" (God/Guns/Gays) to get people to vote against their "self-interest" at the ballot booths. On a more basic level, liberal democracies mobilize politics - via the conceit that voting = democracy - to establish the legitimacy of capitalist relations.
I'll save differentiating these lads from Laclau for another moment, seeing as how we live in the same town and all that. Plus I wanna watch Hank Paulson get his face wrinkled on Meet the Press.
wow, that 3rd paragraph just ran off the cliff.. i meant to say that Althusser allowed for other institutions i.e., religion, kinship, caste, etc., could be the primary frame through which people perceived/waged their politics, even if these struggles nonetheless dramatically effected the (for, Althusser, "constitutive") antagonism at the base of the capitalist mode of production.
Laclau would fall out on any idea of one essential antagonism overdetermining the others, which is very useful when it comes to figuring out the discursive specificity through which people coalesce and understand their coalitions. It is less than useful, however, when it comes to making any sort of comparative study of institutions - which is why Poulantzas' work on the state has helped me so. A straw-man version of Laclau might argue that The State is a transcendental signifier in need of decentering; a more realistic version of Laclau would probably look at P's work and say, "that's interesting, but it's not really my project."
Actually, Laclau's critique of the Poulantzas-Miliband debate is as great a read as is Poulantzas' response to Laclau. Sometime soon we should meet at the GTFF office (home of 30 free copies/month!), then organize some grievances while airing the rest of this out.
much thanks for your response. the art wnk in me really got off on poulantzas' use of the "condensate" relation. I have myself often used that as a description for certain drawing/drumming structures that often emerge in my navigations of overdetermining contexts, and i appreciate his engagement with present state apparati... i am just finishing the conclusions in hegemony, contingency, universality, and really getting a kick out of zizek's flimsy attacks towards laclau's supposed ignorance or acceptance of said state/economic relations. i wait a continued mashing out with you in person...
Post a Comment