Abstract: This paper examines the logic of state and it discusses various scholars on the issues

of state. The state is a complex relation with many aspects. The state theory debate has produced
a range of competing theories including instrumentalism (Miliband), structuralism (Poulantzas),
and organizational realism (Skocpol), analysis shows how one approach develops as a critique of
another. Each of these theories is grounded in a conception of Marxist tradition, but each
theory diverges in its definition of what counts as Marxs political writings. There effort has been
made to contrast the Pranab Bardhan relative autonomy with the European conception of relative
autonomy.

Introduction: State is an institution which appears everywhere in our daily life, it regulates
the conditions of our life from birth registration to the death certificate. Until the fully existence
of state, there was the rule of church, struggle between monarchs and barons over the domain of
rightful authority; peasant rebellions against the weight of excess taxation and social obligation.
The concept of the state became a central point of political analysis only in the sixteenth century.
The work of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Jean Bodin (1469-1527) are of great in these
developments. Thomas Hobbes (1530-1669) discusses the concept of state in his book De Cive
(1642). Hobbes, through a theory of human nature, sovereign authority and political obligation,
tries to prove that the state must be regarded as ultimately both absolute and legitimate in order
the worst of evils might be permanently averted. In Hobbesian theory the state is considered to
be an institution that stands outside and above society. For Locke state remains an institution
neither outside nor above society. Unlike Hobbes he does not entrust entire power in the hands of
state rather people remains more powerful and central body for decision making. Locke devises
separation of power where their remains executive, legislative and judiciary whose functions are
well prescribed in constitution. Moreover he also talks of civil society on whom the real power
rest. The major function of state is to secure the inalienable rights of individual which exists in
form of liberty, equality and property. State is assigned with a minimalist role, to work just as
night watchman, to secure the private property (Held, 93, 29-33)

In utilitarian understanding, which is quite concerned with pain and pleasure state is assumed to
perform the task that can maximize the happiness of citizens and minimize their pain. Utilitarian
like Bentham and Mill believed in a liberal democratic state. For that they strongly argued for
periodic election, freedom in marketplace, freedom of acquisition etc. John Stuart mill added a
new dimension in form of non arbitrary interference, which he calls freedom.

Marxist Analysis of State:

Marx subjected the entire idea of the modern state to political economy and historical
examination. For Marx, state as a political entity developed at a particular historical juncture, it
was not present all the time in the history. Its evolution could be traced with the growth of the
surplus and its private appropriation by a particular class which in return led to emergence of
class division and serious contradictions within society. In order to resolve the contradictions like
social production and private appropriation a powerful body was required to which could place
itself above the society and its contradictions and manage to order the irreconcilable antagonism
is known as state. For scholar like Engels state has two major features, first the fixed territory
and the second establishment of public power (Held, 93, 54). Public power of the state differs
fundamentally from organization of population of armed forces (Lenin, 68, 266). It means
creation of new forces and institutions in form of army and police along with bureaucracy.
Organization of population into armed forces remains impossible because society remain split
into several classes. The major premise on which the use of public power is justified is on the
ground of growing complexities of social lives and differentiation of functions in society.

But according to Marx and Engels the opposition between the interests that are public and
general and those that are private and particular is to a large extent illusory. The state defends the
public as if classes do not exist, that the relationship between the classes are not exploitative, as
classes do not have any difference of interest. This highlights the nature of state; protection and
promotion of bourgeois interest become central elements of state. As in order to maintain the
public power, state requires large number of taxes and lone which bourgeois provides. Thus, it
becomes the instruments of exploitation of the oppressed class. Lenin in State and Revolution
argues that bourgeois make in the way for state by paying for public power which in return
allows them to hold means of production, leading massive exploitation of poor and oppressed
(Lenin, 68, 271). This shows the nexus that remains oppression on the ground between the
bourgeois and the state. Marx while discussing historical materialism highlighted base and super
structure, where base signified economy and the state comes into the domain of supper structure
thus, it incline supper structure towards base as base remain the crucial element where change in
base signifies change in super structure. Thus, Marx argument regarding state nothing but
executive committee of bourgeois which to a great extend is justified.

Concept of Relative Autonomy of The State: Miliband-Poulantazs debate

The question of the relative autonomy of the state largely started to emerge in relation to state
and class. It emerges in the writings of Miliband and Poulantzas. Miliband through his
instrumentalist argument tried to highlight that state remains an executive committee of
bourgeois. In instrumentalist approach the control over the state is exercised by bourgeois
through several ways such as ideological, coercion etc. state personnel also represents the
bourgeois ideology largely due to the social origin or due the affiliation that exist in the inter
personal relation between ruling class and the bureaucrats.

Poulantzas strongly criticized Miliband on the ground that he does not develop the Marxist
theory of state. He uses bourgeois epistemology terrain as a result the bourgeois notion does not
confronted with concrete reality because concepts for Poulantzas cannot be opposed to concrete
facts but to parallel concept situated at other epistemological terrain. It is the reason Miliband
fails to see social classes and state as objective structure and their relation as objective system,
where agent remains the trigger instead what he sees is that groups and social classes remain in
inter personal relation to state. It means agents are not bearer of objective structure but genetic
principle of social whole. So conduct of state is decided by the condition of individual who has a
social base. Miliband believes that elites are also bourgeois because like them he also seeks
profits. However he fails to see whether elite owns the means of production or not. Further on
question of bourgeois Miliband fails to see the objective structure of the state which reconcile
with bourgeois interest. Bureaucracy for Miliband is capitalist in origin however, he fails to see
bureaucracy as objective system having its own inherent logic. It is a specific social category, not
a class and always remains subordinated to state. It is not the class origin rather class position
that determine the character of the bureaucracy.

The relative autonomy for Poulantzas generally is a functionalist approach. It comes in the
political domain where the state highlights that it does not represent the interest of any dominant
class. It represents the people unity, where all interest submerge and the interest which it reflects
either of individuals or economic subject but in reality it is always the dominant class of the
power bloc whose interest the state promotes. It always reorganizes the dominant section and
disorganizes the non dominated sections. Though relative autonomy is all about securing
independent place in politics, it also entails short term sacrifices at economic level which the
bourgeois make. The larger aim of the relative autonomy is to secure the place for capitalist by
resisting the chances of class struggle. The capitalist state according to Poulantzas does this by
disorganizing the dominated sections and organizing the dominant class. It conceals the reality
from the dominated sections. It uses ideological as well as repressive mechanism to control the
dominated class. It always prevents the dominated class to participate political activism.

If we see this concept in Indian context, PRANAB BARDHAN in his book Political Economy
and Development in India argued that India is a multiclass society and he talks of three
dominant classes like Industrial capitalist classes, Rich farmers and Professional classes i.e. the
bureaucrats. He argued that since India is a multiclass society, it was about how to balance
between these three dominant classes. In course of balance he argues State becomes important
player and State as a third actor enjoys relative autonomy and this is very much distinct from the
European states. In Europe when talks of relative autonomy of the state, Miliband-Poulantzas
debate, State gets its relative autonomy because of mobilization capacity of the working class,
wherever working class relatively mobilized, state gains certain autonomy. In contrast to this
Pranab argues that in India State gets relative autonomy not because of the mobilization of the
working class but because of the conflict between the ruling elite.

For Poulantzas there remains many classes within the state whose coexistence remains within the
power bloc in form of unity of contradictory interest thus, state autonomy is not set against the
power bloc. It is not the function of the state capacity to remain external to them but rather the
result of what takes place within the state. Its autonomy is concretely manifested in the diverse
contradictory measures that each of the classes and fraction through its specific presents in the
state and resulting play of contradictions manages to have integrated into the policies thus, the
state relative autonomy is the product of the diversity of the interest which are represented within
the states. It is the division within the state that allows it to be relatively autonomous from any
class or fraction. It was suggested that the conceptual separation between the economic and the
political ultimately leads to a notion which attributes independence to the state. Thus, the authors
who operate within the autonomy problematically criticize Poulantzas for being ultimately
class-reductionist. There are two variants of this critique. One is Skocpols (1979,1985) argument
in favour of potential autonomy and the other is Blocks (1977, 1980) and Milibands (1983)
argument in favour of moving beyond the relative autonomy framework to a model of
partnership between class power and state power. Skocpol (1979) develops her argument about
the autonomy of the state in the context of study of social revolutions, revolutions occurs as a
result of objective circumstances of crisis (Gulalp, 87, 296). She argues that in the context of
revolutions, political structures and struggles cant be reduced to class forces and conflicts.
Therefore Skocpol does not talk of a state that is relatively autonomous from the dominant
classes, but of a state that is a potentially autonomous. The starting point of Blocks and
Milibands argument is slightly different. Block (227-29) argues that the relative autonomy
framework is too limiting, because it is ultimately class reductionist (Gulalp, 87, 298). He argues
that the essence of state power is the monopoly over the means of violence. Based on this power,
the manager of the state apparatus can force compliance with their wishes. This formulation
assumes that state managers collectively are self interested maximizes interested in maximizing
their power, prestige and wealth. According to the Block the self interest of the state managers
tend to converge with the interests of the capitalist class, as the strength of the state, both
internally and externally, depends on the strength of the economy, wealth of the capitalist class
exercise control over the managers through various mechanism like bribe so, in this context he
argues that it is this specificity which lend support to the classic Marxist formula of the state as
the executive committee of the bourgeoisie (Gulalp,87, 299).
 References
Bardhan, P. K. (1984). The political economy of development in India. Oxford, UK: B.

Blackwell.

Lenin, V. I. (1927). Collected works of V.I. Lenin (Completely rev., ed.). New York:

[International Publishers].

McLennan, G., Held, D., & Hall, S. (1984). The Idea of the modern state. Milton Keynes

[England: Open University Press.

Poulantzas, N. A. (1973). Political power and social classes. London: NLB; Sheed and Ward.
 Term Paper:
Miliband- Poulantzas debate on state.
Date: 07-10-2014

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Satya Prakash Prof. Vidhu Verma
Reg. No. 54942
Group: F