What do you think?
Rate this book
The Capitalist State
Book by Jessop, Bob
- GenresSociology
320 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1982
4 people are currently reading
52 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 8, 2022
Bob Jessop, in the last chapter of this book, argues against Marxist "general theories" of the state. Rather than a theory which explains every facet of the capitalist state in detail what is needed is rather guidelines and a framework by which the states "contingent necessities" can be analysed. I think this is a position any serious Marxist ought to engage with, especially as Jessop's framework attempts to problematize concepts often taken for granted in older scholarship (the class struggle, relative autonomy, general interest etc); explanandum not explanations as he often repeats.
In short, Jessop argues the capitalist state form is not given but constituted through a multitude of institutions that represent or serve as a site of struggle for class and non-class social forces. All these institutions (some serving the interests of certain capitals in the circulation process, others non-capitalist functions) can for Jessop only function coherently under the hegemony of a dominant class (fraction).
However, it's in this framework that Jessops social-democratic and reformist sympathies become apparent. Jessop appears to argue that institutions aren't one possible form of social conflict and class struggle, but the form and the content of politics. There's the "der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen" and nothing else. Indeed, Jessop's argument that the one must not presume the capitalist nature of the state is explicitly because it would preclude this kind of reformist agenda. Similarly, Jessop claim that different institutions has class-character conversely means (within his conception of class struggle) certain institutions are veritably anti-capitalist; under the hegemony of a different class the state form can (and should) be maintained.
Confirming many of my suspicions of "hegemony" as a tool of analysis, the presumption of a intentional project at the centre (by which all these institutions are organized to work in tandem) serves to reintroduce an instrumentalist conception of the state. Jessop refers to Foucault and discourse analysis, but disarms its radical critique (that there is not political centre) by subserving it to the liberal hope that behind the blind idiot circulation of capital there's still the plan of the individual capitalists; discourse (or ideology) not as an object of analysis in its own right but merely a veil to be expunged. The concept therefore hampers both an adequate analysis of capitalism and of ideology or discourses.
In summary: Jessops own theory can thus never serve an actual communist project, because he fundamentally does not see class struggle as a struggle for the abolition of capitalism and the proletarian class itself; instead as a struggle between the classes for "hegemony" within the capitalist mode of production.
In short, Jessop argues the capitalist state form is not given but constituted through a multitude of institutions that represent or serve as a site of struggle for class and non-class social forces. All these institutions (some serving the interests of certain capitals in the circulation process, others non-capitalist functions) can for Jessop only function coherently under the hegemony of a dominant class (fraction).
However, it's in this framework that Jessops social-democratic and reformist sympathies become apparent. Jessop appears to argue that institutions aren't one possible form of social conflict and class struggle, but the form and the content of politics. There's the "der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen" and nothing else. Indeed, Jessop's argument that the one must not presume the capitalist nature of the state is explicitly because it would preclude this kind of reformist agenda. Similarly, Jessop claim that different institutions has class-character conversely means (within his conception of class struggle) certain institutions are veritably anti-capitalist; under the hegemony of a different class the state form can (and should) be maintained.
Confirming many of my suspicions of "hegemony" as a tool of analysis, the presumption of a intentional project at the centre (by which all these institutions are organized to work in tandem) serves to reintroduce an instrumentalist conception of the state. Jessop refers to Foucault and discourse analysis, but disarms its radical critique (that there is not political centre) by subserving it to the liberal hope that behind the blind idiot circulation of capital there's still the plan of the individual capitalists; discourse (or ideology) not as an object of analysis in its own right but merely a veil to be expunged. The concept therefore hampers both an adequate analysis of capitalism and of ideology or discourses.
In summary: Jessops own theory can thus never serve an actual communist project, because he fundamentally does not see class struggle as a struggle for the abolition of capitalism and the proletarian class itself; instead as a struggle between the classes for "hegemony" within the capitalist mode of production.
Displaying 1 of 1 review