Attempts on Non-Reductionist Marxist Theory of the State: A Stimulating Rehearsal or a Coherent Approach?

Yıl 2017, Sayı: 3 - 2017, 1 - 33, 30.09.2017

Emrah Konuralp

Öz

As an oversimplification of economic reductionism, the base/
superstructure metaphor is over identified with Marxist theory of the state,
and the state has been considered to be corresponding to the latter. This over
identification was seen inconvenient by some Marxist theoreticians who have
been looking forward to analyse the state through a non-reductionist perspective.
In this article, those attempts are compared and contrasted by dividing them into
two categories and by using open Marxism as the banner of a distinctive group
among non-reductionists. The main theme of this article is to clarify major theses
of non-reductionists and to address to the apparent tensions within themselves.
Despite their points of differentiations, they share a commonality in their hostility
towards ‘traditional historical materialism’ and even towards structural Marxism.
The positions mentioned in this article may not be considered as a coherent and
consistent non-reductionist theory of the state due to their variations within
themselves; however, at least they are successful as contemporary ‘attempts’ of
non-reductionist Marxist theory of the state that would pave ground to a more
consistent theory. In this article, they are considered to be stimulating as they
ground their unease with reductionism on appealing issues.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Non-reductionists, Open Marxism, Theory of State

İndirgemeci Olmayan Marksist Devlet Kuramı Üzerine Çabalar: Ufuk Açıcı Bir Deneme mi, Tutarlı bir Yaklaşım mı?

Öz

Ekonomik indirgemeciliğin bir yalınlaştırması olan altyapı/üstyapı
metaforu Marksist devlet kuramıyla aşırı özdeşleştirilmektedir ve bu bağlamda
devletin üstyapıya denk düştüğü düşünülmektedir. Bu aşırı özdeşleştirme,
devleti indirgemeci olmayan bir bakış açısıyla çözümlemeye çaba gösteren bazı
Marksist kuramcılar tarafından uygunsuz bulunmuştur. Bu makalede, bu çabalar
sınıflara ayrılarak karşılaştırılmıştır ve açık Marksizm, indirgemeci olmayan
yaklaşımlar içinde farklı bir grubun etiketi olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu makalenin
ana teması, indirgemeci olmayan yaklaşımların temel tezlerini ortaya koymak
ve bunlar arasındaki görünür gerilimlere dikkat çekmektir. Farklılaştıkları
noktalar olmasına karşın ‘geleneksel tarihsel maddecilik’ ve yapısalcı Marksizme karşı tutumları ortaktır. Bu makalede ele alınan yaklaşımlar kendi aralarındaki
çeşitliliklerden ötürü açık ve tutarlı bir indirgemeci olmayan devlet kuramı olarak
değerlendirilmeyebilir; ancak, bunlar en azından daha tutarlı bir indirgemeci
olmayan çağdaş Marksist devlet kuramına doğru evrilecek başarılı ‘çabalar’dır. Bu
makalede, bu çabalar sorunları ele almada indirgemeciliğe karşı tedirginliklerini
temellendirdikleri ölçüde ufuk açıcı görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İndirgemeci Olmayan Marksist Yaklaşımlar, Açık Marksizm, Devlet Kuramı

Kaynakça

• Akbulut, Ö. Ö. (2005). Siyaset ve Yönetim İlişkisi: Kuramsal ve Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım. Ankara: TODAİE.
• Balibar, E. (1994). Masses, Classes, Ideas: Studies on Politics and Philosophy Before and After Marx. London: Routledge.
• Bonefeld, W. (1992). Social Constitution and the form of the Capitalist State. In W. Bonefeld, R. Gunn, & K. Psychopedis (Eds.), Open Marxism, Vol. I: Dialectics and History. London: Pluto Press.
• Bonefeld, W. (1993). The recomposition of the British state during the 1980s. Dartmouth.
• Bonefeld, W., Gunn, R., & Psychopedis, K. (1992). Introduction. In Open Marxism, Vol. 1: Dialectics and History. London: Pluto Press.
• Clarke, S. (1991). The State Debate. In S. Clarke (Ed.), The State Debate (pp. 1–69). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21464-8_1
• Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of History: a Defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Corrigan, P. R., Ramsay, H., & Sayer, D. (1980). The State as a Relation of Production. In R. Corrigan (Ed.), Capitalism, State Formation and Marxist Theory: Historical Investigations (pp. 1–26). London: Quartet Books.
• Denis, C. (1989). The Genesis of American Capitalism: an Historical Inquiry into State Theory. Journal of Historical Sociology, 2(4), 328–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6443.1989.tb00018.x
• Gerstenberger, H. (1992). The Bourgeois Form Revisited. In W. Bonefeld, R. Gunn, & K. Psychopedis (Eds.), Open Marxism, Vol. 1: Dialectics and History (pp. 151–175). London: Pkuto Press.
• Gerstenberger, H. (2011). The Historical Constitution of the Political Forms of Capitalism. Antipode, 43(1), 60–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00811.x
• Gunn, R. (1992). Against Historical Materialism: Marxism as a Firstorder Discourse. In W. Bonefeld, R. Gunn, & K. Psychopedis (Eds.), Open Marxism,Vol. 2: Theory and Practice (pp. 1–45). London: Pkuto Press.
• Gülenç, K. (2017). Post-Marksist Siyaset Anlayışı ve Eleştiriler. In K. Gülenç & Ö. Kulak (Eds.), Marx ve Sonrası (pp. 233–286). Istanbul: İthaki.
• Holloway, J. (1976). Some Issues Raised by Marxist Analyses of European Integration. Bulletin of the CSE, (13).
• Holloway, J. (1992). Crisis, Fetishism, Class Composition. In W. Bonefeld, R. Gunn, & K. Psychopedis (Eds.), Open Marxism,Vol. 2: Theory and Practice (pp. 145–175). London: Pluto Press.
• Holloway, J. (1994). Global Capital and the National State. Capital & Class, 18(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/030981689405200103
• Holloway, J. (2007). Küresel Sermaye ve Ulusal Devlet. In W. Bonefeld & J. Holloway (Eds.), Küreselleşme Çağında Pra ve Sınıf Mücadelesi (pp. 133–162). Istanbul: Otonom.
• Holloway, J. (2010). Crack Capitalism. New York: Pluto Press.
• Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Jessop, B. (1990). State Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Jessop, B. (2008). State Power: a Strategic-Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Korsch, K. (1991). Marksizm ve Felsefe. Istanbul: Belge Yayınları.
• Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
• Marsden, R. (1992). The State: A Comment on Abrams, Denis and Sayer. Journal of Historical Sociology, 5(3), 358–377.
• Marx, K. (1966). Capital, Vol. III. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
• Marx, K. (1999). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Marxists.org. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Contribution_to_the_Critique_of_Political_Economy.pdf
• Ollman, B. (1993). Dialectical Investigations. London: Routledge.
• Ollman, B. (2006). Diyalektiğin Dansı: Marx’ın Yönteminde Adımlar. Istanbul: Yordam.
• Poulantzas, N. (1978). State, Power, Socialism. NLB.
• Roberts, J. M. (2002). From reflection to refraction: opening up open Marxism. Capital & Class, 26(3), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/030981680207800105
• Sayer, D. (1979). Science as Critique: Marx vs Althusser. In J. Mepham & D. H. Ruben (Eds.), Issues in Marxist Philosophy, Vol III. Harvester Press.
• Sayer, D. (1987). The Violence of Abstraction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Sayer, D. (1991). Capitalism and Modernity. London: Routledge.
• Wood, E. M. (1998). The Retreat from Class: A New “true” Socialism. London: Verso.
• Wood, E. M. (2008). Kapitalizm Demokrasiye Karşı. Istanbul: Yordam.
• Yalman, G. (2010). Transition to Neoliberalism: the Case of Turkey In the 1980s. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press.
• Yalman, G. (2012). Devlet. In G. Atılgan & E. A. Aytekin (Eds.), Siyaset Bilimi: Kavramlar, İdeolojiler, Disiplinler Arası İlişkiler (pp. 69–85). Istanbul: Yordam.