Content uploaded by Clyde W. Barrow
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Clyde W. Barrow on Jun 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Miliband-Poulantzas Debate: An Intellectual History
... A questão da autonomia ressurgiu com grande audiência principalmente no quadro das heranças do estruturalismo francês nas décadas de 1960 e 1970. Dada a polêmica, hoje considerada clássica para alguns, entre Miliband e Poulantzas (Barrow, 2002), a teoria do Estado voltou a ocupar lugar na tradição crítica (Aronowitz & Bratsis, 2002, Barrow, 1993. Coube à tendência estrutural-formalista de Poulantzas (1980) a tarefa de desenvolver teoricamente a "autonomia relativa" do Estado -sobretudo quanto às classes -, procurando fazer frente às concepções chamadas instrumentalistas, as quais negariam qualquer autonomia ao Estado, e àquelas nas quais este se apresenta como um ente inteiramente separado e autônomo. ...
Objetivo da pesquisa: Analisar a interação e a autonomia dos aparatos administrativos do governo federal ligados ao desenvolvimento de política de inovação tecnológica a partir de respondentes vinculados ao poder público e à representação do setor econômico, ambos os grupos ligados/componentes da Câmara Brasileira da Indústria 4.0. Enquadramento teórico: Autonomia estatal e interação entre capital e Estado fundamentadas no materialismo científico. Metodologia: Realizou-se dois surveys. O primeiro junto aos burocratas dos ministérios componentes do Conselho Superior da Câmara Brasileira da Indústria 4.0, obtendo-se 117 questionários respondidos conforme Paço Cunha e Mendes (2022) e o segundo junto aos integrantes de entidades representantes do empresariado componentes da Câmara Brasileira da Indústria 4.0, obtendo-se 41 questionários respondidos. Os dados foram posteriormente compilados, expostos na forma de tabelas e analisados a partir de estatística descritiva. Resultados: Os resultados sugerem haver uma alta interação e limitações quanto à autonomia dos aparelhos administrativos frente às interferências econômicas e políticas. Originalidade: Discute a autonomia estatal e a interação entre capital e Estado a partir de surveys realizados com representantes de ambos os setores ligados (Governo e Empresas) à Câmara Brasileira da Indústria 4.0. Contribuições teóricas e práticas: Retoma a discussão a respeito da autonomia e interação do aparato estatal brasileiro a partir de um prisma materialista e aponta para considerável frequência de interferências políticas e econômicas e para o possível questionamento da autonomia do quadro administrativo com vistas ao seu aperfeiçoamento futuro.
... There is a long and productive history of analysing the relationship of the state to business as an expression of the dominance of capital as a social class, often drawing on ideas originally inspired by Karl Marx. There has been a vigorous debate within the Marxist tradition on the relationship between the state and capital, for instance between those such as Ralph Miliband who saw the state primarily as an instrument of capital, and those such as Nicos Poulantzas, who saw the state as a more structural location within which capital and other classes contended for power, even if those structural properties tended to continually reproduce capitalism (on this debate see Barrow, 2002). The macro-structural character of this type of analysis and its starting assumption that capitalism continually reproduces the dominance of capital, has tended to direct its attention away from the more nuanced and detailed analysis of particular public policies that has been more central to the field of business and public policy. ...
Scholars have hitherto tended to theorise China's ecological civilisation project either as a form of environmental authoritarianism or as a vision of eco‐socialism. This paper contributes to the conversation by conducting a textual analysis of Chinese scholarly discussions on eco‐civilisation. The analysis uncovers topics and themes related to both narratives of environmental authoritarianism and eco‐socialist envisioning. It also captures the shift in discussion from an ideological critique of industrial civilisation to a techno‐bureaucratic agenda concerning sustainable development and governance strategies, along with the growing roles of the party‐state, state‐corporate cooperation, and geopolitical ambition. To interpret the findings, I revisit the neo‐Weberian institutionalist notion of embedded autonomy and revise it through critical realist Marxism, not only to explain the growing bureaucratisation of eco‐civilisation but also to untangle its Hobbesian institutional features that distinguish China's eco‐civilisation project (or the making of a Climate Leviathan) from the Western liberal mode of environmental governance.
Using an inter-sub-disciplinary approach, this chapter puts together the building blocks of the “double-bind regulatory state”: autonomisation of the state power, contradiction in the regulatory objectives, and fragmented authoritarianism. It starts with a critical review of the existing regulatory approaches and discusses their weaknesses in explaining the regulatory practices in contemporary China. It introduces the theory of Michael Mann on the autonomous power of the state. This theory holds important implications for understanding Chinese politics, for, against the views of Marxists and neo-Marxists, autonomisation implies that once institutionalised, a state develops its own agenda and objectives that are independent from or even at odds with those of the ruling elites. This is also true of China. In the last part, this book analyses the sources causing the governance dilemmas of the party-state, and their implications on state-firm power relations in China.
In State, Power, Socialism, Nicos Poulantzas attempted to carve out a middle path for emancipatory political theory between the so-called roads of reforms and revolution. Though his theorizations of the state offer useful insights for how to move beyond this impasse, they are nonetheless beset by the problem of ‘abstractionism’. This chapter argues that a more conjunctural theory of capitalist democracy is necessary to identify the conditions under which such a middle path can be traversed. I term these social and political transformations ‘democratic ruptures’.
This study argues that Nicos Poulantzas presents nuanced understanding of the state and its mechanisms in capitalist societies. Unlike conventional Marxist perspectives that view the state merely as a tool of oppression for the ruling class, Poulantzas's approach recognizes the potential for popular participation in socialist transformation. His standpoint emphasizes the state as a site of class struggle and highlights its role in establishing, maintaining, and perpetuating the relations of production. It stresses the significance of developing new political subjectivities to challenge the existing structures of power and domination. Poulantzas acknowledges complexities inherent in the state within capitalist societies and rejects deterministic interpretations of its function. He focuses on the various forms of exploitation experienced by subordinate classes across economic, political, and ideological domains. His ideas offer valuable insights into influence of state on socio-economic structures, contributing to debates about the role and purpose of the state. Study offered significant information in reaching conclusion and extracting recommendations.
This paper seeks to synthesize the scientific issues of the Marxist critique of the State. Taking insights from secondary literature, it discusses the concept and characteristics of the State in general and then specifies the contestations of the Marxist perspective on the nature of the State. The paper illustrates how classical Marxism perceives State as a unilinear product of class struggle and serves the welfare of the dominant class. However, the recent developments in Marxism have raised questions to the realist and structural perspective of the State. The Neo-Marxist and post-Marxist scholars contributed along with the concepts of ideology, changing relations of base-structure, hegemony, State apparatus, and crisis in the purist form of class. This paper concludes that these developments are unavoidable in the present-day Marxist discourse which can be theoretically levelled as multi-realist and post-structural critiques of the State. It is expected that the implication of the paper lies to foster the Marxist critique of the state, primarily in different social science disciplines including political science, international relations, economics, and development studies.
There is no evidence that the founders of the Caucus for a New Political Science (CNPS) put much thought into the organization’s name because it was initially founded as an ad hoc caucus and there was no expectation that it would still exist more than a half-century later. However, even in the intellectual context of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the name “New Political Science” was something of an oddity as comparable dissident movements in other social science and humanities disciplines were adopting the terms Radical or Critical to name their new insurgent organizations. After decades of debate, the CNPS finally voted in September 2021 to change its name to the Caucus for a Critical Political Science and to adopt a new mission statement identifying it as “an association of critical scholars committed to making the study of political science relevant to building a more democratic and egalitarian economic, social, and political order.”
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.