Abstract
This paper examines what has been called the ‘neo-Marxist’ or, more unkindly, the ‘vulgar Poulantzian’, approach to the state. The typical feature of this approach is a formulation of the relation between capital and the state in terms of the struggle between ‘fractions of capital’ to establish the position of ‘hegemonic fraction’ within the ‘power bloc’. The state then represents the unity of capital in relation to the proletariat and the dominance of the hegemonic fraction in relation to the other fractions of capital. Research which is guided by this view of the state tends, therefore, to examine state activity in relation to the policies proposed by various political parties and pressure groups which are said to be the ‘representatives’ of particular fractions of capital. This examination is usually complemented by an account of the particular ‘interests’ of the fractions in play. The policy actually adopted by the state is then explained by reference to the supposed ‘hegemony’ of the fraction in whose interest the policy is said to be.
This paper aims to develop a critique of this ‘fractionalist’ approach to the state through a critique of its conceptions of class, of class fractions and of the state. It is argued that the ‘fractionalist’ approach is ‘overpoliticised’ in seeing the state as condensation of the social, at the same time as being ‘economistic’ in directly identifying the state with capital. The critique is developed with reference to the best ‘neo-Marxist’ work on the state that has blossomed in recent years, that on the South African state. It is hoped, however, that the critique will have a wider relevance.(1)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.