Karl Marx Returning
| DOI | 10.1177/019251218600700204 |
| Published date | 01 April 1986 |
| Author | Göran Therborn |
| Date | 01 April 1986 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
131
KARL
MARX
RETURNING
The
Welfare
State
and
Neo-Marxist,
Corporatist
and
Statist
Theories
GÖRAN
THERBORN
Over
the
past
two
decades
the
prevailing
postwar
political
theory
paradigm
of
pluralism
has
been
strongly
challenged
by
other
approaches,
such
as
neo-Marxism,
Corporatist
theory,
and
a
state-centered
approach.
After
the
exhaustion
of
the
first
wave
of
neo-
Marxism,
the
1980s
have
seen
the
development
of
an
empirical
neo-Marxism
Mark
II,
largely
focusing
on
comparative
welfare
state
research.
A
critical
overview
of
the
bear-
ing
of
Pluralist,
Corporatist,
Statist,
and
neo-Marxist
II
conceptions
on
the
patterns
of
development,
the
structural
forms,
and
the
socio-economic
implications
of
welfare
states
is
given.
Finally,
a
perspective
for
further
elaboration
of
welfare
state
theory
and
analysis
is
presented,
along
neo-Marxist
lines
but
incorporating
contributions
from
other
intellectual
sources.
In
the
mid-1980s,
there
are
many
indications
that
one
of
the
major
combatants
in
the
great
controversies
about
the
state
of
the
past
two
decades,
neo-Marxism,
is
fatally
wounded
or
even
dead.
According
to
Claus
Offe
( 1983: 58),
whom
the
textbook
literature
often
describes
as
a
Marxist,
&dquo;as
a
consequence
above
all
of
the
reception
of
French
theorists
such
as
Foucault,
Touraine
and
Gorz ...
remnants
of
Marxist
orthodoxy
hardly
have
any
social
scientifically
respectable
chance
any
more.&dquo;’
I
In
his
overview
of
state
theories,
Pierre
Birnbaum
disposes
of
the
&dquo;four
great
schools&dquo;
of
Marxist
political
theory
and
finds
a
tendency
toward
dissolution
of
the
latter
into
conceptions
centering
on
what
Birnbaum
calls
the
&dquo;differentiation
of
the
state.&dquo;
This
tendency
was
noticeable
in
Nicos
Poulantzas’
last
work
(1968),
and
now,
according
to
Birnbaum,
we
have
arrived
at
a
moment
where
certain
Marxist
theoreticians
themselves
come
to
re-
ject
the
main
hypotheses
of
the
currents
previously
examined
and
almost
132
to
conceive
the
State
in
a
Weberian
perspective,
where
the
action
of
the
State
is
exercised
to
the
benefit
of
the
personnel
who
controls
it,
regarding
the
power
of
the
former
increasing
to
the
extent
that
that
of
the
latter
grows
(see,
for
example,
within
the
Marxist
current,
Therborn
1978
and
Block
1977)
[1985:
670].
Birnbaum’s
compliment
here
is
unjustified
in
my
case.
Michael
Mann
(1984:
185ff.)
attempts
to
ground
the
autonomy
of
the
state
in
its
ter-
ritoriality
after
briefly
dismissing
Marxist
along
with
liberal
and
func-
tionalist
theories
of
the
state
as
&dquo;reductionist.&dquo;
The
greatest
neo-Marxist
political
theoretician,
Nicos
Poulantzas,
died
a
tragic
death
in
1979.
Confrontations
with
other
new
rival
challenges
to
liberal
pluralism,
such
as
corporatism
and
its
two
main
variants,
led
by
Philippe
Schmitter
and
Gerhard
Lehmbruch
(Schmit-
ter
and
Lehmbruch,
1979;
Lehmbruch
and
Schmitter,
1982)
and
statism,
pushed
by
Theda
Skocpol
(1979),
have
been
evasive,
con-
ceding,
and
have
often
simply
avoided
the
issues.
Bob
Jessop
(1982)
ends
a
penetrating
discussion
of
school
Marxist
state
theories
with
a
chapter
attempting
to
guide
us
&dquo;Towards
a
Theoretical
Account
of
the
State&dquo;
without
mentioning
the
corporatist
and
the
statist
challenges.
Ralph
Miliband
has
addressed
the
statist
critique,
but
in
a
remarkably
weak
and
conceding
way.
He
argues
for
viewing
the
relationship
between
the
state
and
the
dominant
class
as
one
of
partnership,
and
reduces
the
state
to
&dquo;certain
people
who
are
in
charge
of
the executive
power
of
the
state-presidents,
prime
ministers,
their
cabinets,
and
their
top
civilian
and
military
advisers&dquo;
(Miliband,
1983:
60).
If
the
state
is
no
more
than
the
government
61ite,
there
would
seem
to
be
no
need
for
any
state
theory.
Martin
Carnoy
(1984),
in
a
wider-ranging
presentation
of
school
Marxisms
than
Jessop’s,
critically
discusses
other
contemporary
state
theories.
But
he
ends
his
book
with
a
deep
and
meek
bow
to
the
non-class
movements
theories
which
have
impressed
Offe
among
others,
asking:
&dquo;Is
it
possible
that
the
class
state
degenerates
through
its
own
delegitimation
to
be
replaced
by
other
loci
of
political
and
economic
power?&dquo;
Whereas
many
former
protagonists
and
adherents
of
the
various
schools
of
neo-Marxism
are
now
proclaiming
a
&dquo;post-Marxist,&dquo;
beyond-class
stance
(Laclau
and
Mouffe,
1985),
a
new,
vigorous,
self-
confident
class
theory
of
politics
and
states
is
being
launched,
impec-
cably
dressed
in
the
best
clothes
of
modern
empirical
social
science
and
making
no
secret
of
its
inspiring
commitment
to
the
working-class
133
movement.
The
most
elaborate
argument,
so
far,
of
this
counter-
tendency
is
probably
Walter
Korpi’s
(1983)
tellingly
titled
book
The
Democratic
Class
Struggle.
Other
examples
include
Gösta
Esping-
Andersen’s
(1985a,
1985b)
comparative
study
of
Scandinavia,
and
Esping-Andersen’s
and
Korpi’s
ongoing
comparative
welfare
state
research
project,
a
part
of
which
has
been
published
(Esping-Andersen
and
Korpi,
1984).
I
might
perhaps
be
allowed
to
add
to
these
examples
some
works
of
my
own
(Therborn,
1983a,
1984a,
1984b,
1985a,
1985b,
1986).
This
1980s
renaissance
of Marxist
political
analysis
appears
un-
expected
in
at
least
two
respects.
First,
its
main
empirical
focus
is
the
welfare
state,
a
topic
absent
from
classical
Marxism-for
self-evident
historical
reasons-as
well
as
in
the
first
wave
of
neo-
Marxist
political
theory,
inaugurated
by
Poulantzas
(1968)
and
Miliband
(1969).
Second,
its
geographical
center
is
Scandinavia-where
it
is
paralleled
by
other
major
works
of
a
similar
orientation,
such
as
that
by
Ulf
Himelstrand
et
al.
(1981)-never
before
distinguished
as
a
nursery
of
Marxist
thought.
A
historical
materialist
or a
social
historian
may
find
some
reasons
for
this
development
beyond
individual
idiosyncracies.
Class
politics
is
in
the
open,
on
the
central
stage
in
Scandinavian
politics.
The
party
spectrum
is
divided
between
parties
claiming
to
represent
the
working
class
and to
constitute
the
labour
movement
and
parties
called
and
designating
themselves
&dquo;bourgeois.&dquo;
The
labour
movement
is
relatively
strong,
and
the
working
class
relatively
homogenous.
National
and
religious
issues
play a
smaller
part
in
Scandinavia
than
in
most
other
countries.
The
Scandinavian
welfare
states
are
very
developed
and
occupy
a
central
part
of
the
self-identification
of
Scandinavian
society.
Outlining
the
bases
of
contemporary
Scandinavian
sociological
Marxism,
of
course,
tells
us
nothing
about
its
truth
and
about
its
explanatory
range.
Those
questions
will
be
examined
below.
There
is,
then,
still
a
contingent
of
scholars
arguing
that
states
move
around
classes,
rather
than
the
other
way
around.
Let
us
now
try
to
locate
their
arguments
in
a
broader
context
of
controversies
about
the
state.
NEO-MARXISM
PHASES
ONE
AND
TWO
The
first
generation
of
neo-Marxist
political
theory
asserted
three
major
theses.
First,
it
claimed
that
political
power,
even
in
democratic
To continue reading
Request your trial