An approach to Althusser’s and Poulantza’s theory of the State

Althusser’s theory of the State rises in a context in which the possibility of democratic participation is opened and the welfare state is in its complete development.

Faced with this openness to participation, the author argues that praxis is determined and seeks to complete Marxist theory, bringing up Marx’s, Engels’ and Lenin’s contributions from the scientific foundation of the ideology.

He has an instrumentalist conception of the State, he brings up the definition of it as an instrument of class repression. He also takes up Lenin’s formulation, distinguishing the power of the State from its apparatuses, which Althusser divides into:

• Repressive apparatuses of the State, which are based on violence and are monopolized by the State and;
• Ideological apparatuses of the State, which are based on the ideology and are outside the State, in the hands of private institutions.

Here there is a continuity with Gramsci in the affirmation that there are no purely repressive or purely ideological apparatuses. Poulantzas agrees with this conception but also affirms that the State is not restricted only to repression and ideology; Ideology fulfils, according to this author, the function of legitimizing violence and of cohering the divided dominant classes.

Althusser adds to the architectural metaphor of the State the concept of State ideology, which would act as an overdetermination of the structure.

The condition of production is that the productive forces and their production relations must be reproduced. The reproduction of the workforce is not only shaped by the wage that permits the worker to reproduce himself physically; it is also shaped by the reproduction of his submission to the dominant ideology and the reproduction of his qualification in the division of labour. This reproduction is carried out by the ideological apparatuses of the State, among which (within the framework of the Welfare State) the school and the family dominate.

The ideology that is introduced through the ideological apparatuses of the State interpellates the individual and is reflected in his practice, guaranteeing a certain degree of social cohesion. Ideology is an imaginary relationship that men establish with their material conditions of existence.

Faced with these conditions, Althusser affirms that intellectuals of the party are needed to give an ideological fight against the dominant ideology that allows the reproduction of exploitative relations.

Poulantzas in “Political power and social classes” is in a similar context to that of Althusser’s work, framed by discussions regarding praxis. In his work a strong imprint of Gramsci, as well as Althusser, can be captured, later in “State, power and socialism” the author takes up some of Foucault’s conceptions.

The author thinks about the political and the State in a structural sense, taking up the formulation of the State found in the 18th Brumaire, in which the State presents itself with relative autonomy. This methodological decision is because Poulantzas considers that this is the form that the capitalist state presents itself today; the state is a structure. This conception has the purpose of overcoming the historicism of the political.

According to the author, the State has a series of functions, two of which stand out. The first makes a clear allusion to the definition of the Gramscian State, it is about the function of coordinating, unifying and disciplining the different sections of the dominant class. This function is necessary because the bourgeoisie is divided into sections that together make up a bloc in power. We can distinguish between the financial bourgeoisie, the productive bourgeoisie, the small bourgeoisie and other sections, among which the monopoly capital section emerges as hegemonic. The State acts by preventing political conflicts from unleashing between the dominant classes and their corresponding sections.

These relations of the classes and sections that make the power bloc are reflected both in the States in which there is a predominance of the Legislative Power and in the States where the Executive Power predominates, but there is a tendency for these relations to be transferred in the last instance to the Executive Power, which usually manifests the monopolies’ interests.

A second function of the state is to disorganize the dominated classes.

These State’s functions correspond to the dominant classes’ interests, always having as the first objective the preservation of its unity. These functions are reflected at the economic level in the work process in productivity. Also, the State establishes the functions of education and teaching and finally, it is responsible for the preservation of the political order.

The change of perspective in Poulantzas is related to a change of context, in which it is necessary to subject to criticism the functioning of Soviet societies where the seizure of state power did not lead to their destruction but, on the contrary, made the State grew in repressive and bureaucratic terms, thus showing a structural distance between theory and practice.

The author rejects an economistic definition of the State according to which it is seen as a “thing” and goes on to conceive it from a relational perspective and incorporates the idea of ​​class struggle into its conception. The State is where the relations of force are condensed in the relations of production and in their reproduction. This view is clearly anti-instrumentalist.

Returning to Engels’s definition of the State as a collective capitalist, Poulantzas considers that the State also acts positively and that, in order to maintain domination, it can make concessions to the dominated classes, going beyond its repressive and ideological functions already seen in Althusser. This is possible because it has relative autonomy in relation to the dominant class fractions, consequently the State assumes a decisive role in the class struggle.

Finally, Poulantzas goes back to Foucault defining power in a “relational way”. The fact that power is found in all areas calls for a new political tactic. Although power is disseminated, it never ceases to be capitalist and its centre of exercise is ultimately the State, at this point Poulantzas moves away from Foucault.

Note: This text is based on my interpretation of the bibliography and it’s not exhaustive.