The Miliband-Poulantzas' debate on the Capitalist state felt for a long time like a relic of bygone era. The "Moloch state" - the powerful and interventionist social-democratic state - they analysed seemed to have little to do with the "rolled back" state of the neoliberal era.
In their work on the state Miliband and Poulantzas had discussed how state technocracy and dirigisme had become integral part of the capitalist system, and how the pact between capital and labour served the purpose of preventing drift towards socialism.
Yet in aftermath of debate the direction of history took a rather different course: internationalisation of the state (something Poulantzas had already discussed in fact without however drawing its implications), globalisation, and "deregulation" leading to loss of state control
Consensus in academia in the late 1990s and early 2000s was that market was triumphant and the state on the backfoot. This contributed to decline of debates on state and capitalism.
However, neo-statist trends in the aftermath of the populist 2010s and the Covid crisis make debates about the nature and function of the state very relevant once again.
Some of problems and threats Miliband and Poulantzas signalled are relevant once again: role of state in reproducing capitalist system; role in containing /neutralising popular mobilisations; bourgeoisification of political personnel (elite vs people); socialism for the rich etc.
(I am working on an article looking at what lessons we can draw from that debate in radically different historical circumstances)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
