翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ "O" Is for Outlaw
・ "O"-Jung.Ban.Hap.
・ "Ode-to-Napoleon" hexachord
・ "Oh Yeah!" Live
・ "Our Contemporary" regional art exhibition (Leningrad, 1975)
・ "P" Is for Peril
・ "Pimpernel" Smith
・ "Polish death camp" controversy
・ "Pro knigi" ("About books")
・ "Prosopa" Greek Television Awards
・ "Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen
・ "Q" Is for Quarry
・ "R" Is for Ricochet
・ "R" The King (2016 film)
・ "Rags" Ragland
・ ! (album)
・ ! (disambiguation)
・ !!
・ !!!
・ !!! (album)
・ !!Destroy-Oh-Boy!!
・ !Action Pact!
・ !Arriba! La Pachanga
・ !Hero
・ !Hero (album)
・ !Kung language
・ !Oka Tokat
・ !PAUS3
・ !T.O.O.H.!
・ !Women Art Revolution


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Miliband-Poulantzas debate : ウィキペディア英語版
Miliband–Poulantzas debate
The Miliband–Poulantzas debate was a debate between Marxist theorists Ralph Miliband and Nicos Poulantzas concerning the nature of the state. Their exchange was published in ''New Left Review'', beginning with Poulantzas's review of Miliband's 1969 publication on bourgeois democracies, ''The State in Capitalist Society''.〔Poulantzas, N. & Miliband, R. (1972). The Problem of the Capitalist State. In R. Blackburn (ed.) ''Ideology in Social Science: Readings in Critical Social Theory''. NY: Pantheon Books. Pp. 238-262.〕〔Block, F. (1987). State Theory in Context. In ''Revising State Theory: Essays in Politics and Postindustrialism''. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. pp 3-38.〕 In their exchange, Miliband argues for an instrumentalist model of the capitalist state, whereas Poulantzas takes a structural position.
In ''The State in Capitalist Society'', Miliband puts forth his theory of how the state functions to serve capitalist interests. It does so, he claims, because of (1) the social origins of members of state government and (2) the personal ties and influence between members of state government and the ruling-class elites.〔Miliband, R. (1969). ''The State in Capitalist Society''. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.〕
Poulantzas disagrees with Miliband's approach, adopting a structural position. He claims the state is objectively a capitalist entity, which can serve no purpose other than preserving the capitalist mode of production. Furthermore, he argues that if members of the ruling class are the same people as those who manage the state, this is merely a coincidence: the state serves capitalist interests regardless of who is in charge. In his critique he claims,

“The relation between the bourgeois class and the state is an objective relation. This means that if the function of the state in a determinate social formation and the interests of the dominant class coincide, it is by reason of the system itself: the direct participation of members of the ruling class in the state apparatus is not the cause but the effect…”〔

In a response to Poulantzas's criticisms, Miliband counters that Poulantzas's position allows no room for agency and is therefore too limiting. His point of view does not allow individuals to make decisions based on their own free will; rather, their decisions are determined solely by the structure of society.

"For what his exclusive stress on ‘objective relations’ suggests is that what the state does is in every particular and at all times wholly determined by these ‘objective relations’: in other words, that the structural constraints of the system are so absolutely compelling as to turn those who run the state into the merest functionaries and executants of policies imposed upon them by ‘the system’"〔

==See also==

* Structural Marxism
* Instrumental Marxism
* Structure-agency debate

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Miliband–Poulantzas debate」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.