Poulanztas Jessop Theoretical Insights

8/13/2019 Poulanztas Jessop Theoretical Insights

1/5

Capitalist Class Formation and State Power in Turkey: The AKP Years (2002-2013)

According to Poulantzas, social classes can be defined as groupings of social agentsidentified principally by their place in the production process as well as by their

location in political and ideological relations (Nicos Poulantzas, 1975a, pp. 14-15). Assuch, Poulantzas emphasizes that economic position is not the sole criterion to assessclass structures, but they are strongly characterized by political and ideological factors.Poulantzas goes on to argue that social classes do not constitute monolithic groupcategories with historically fixed identities, hence the need to formulate a more nuancedclass analysis that takes into account class fractions. What Poulantzas callsautonomous fractions refers to social ensembles of the same class that are capable of

acting as relatively independent units of hegemonic potential on the basis of their place in

the production process and political-ideological relations. Poulantzas distinguishes, forinstance, between commercial, industrial and financial fractions of the bourgeoisie (Nicos

Poulantzas, 1975b, pp. 84-85). Other well-known examples of class fractions are

working class aristocracy and petty bourgeoisie (Nicos Poulantzas, 1975a, pp. 15-16,270; 1975b, p. 84). KOMPRADOR U ANLAT!

Poulantzasconceptualization of the state refutes the instrumentalist framework ofOrthodox Marxism, which reduces the state to an undivided thing or subject simplyserving as an instrumental depository of a dominant class (Poulantzas 2000, 132, 148).Three is no reason to neglect the class nature of the state by which the dominant classfraction acts upon reproducing its corresponding social formation. However, it does notfollow that the state does not constitute a pure reflection of the will of the dominant class(Poulantzas 2008, 105). The merit of Poulantzas nuanced approach is to go beyond theanalysis of the class nature of the state, and to understand how the state is shaped by thegiven configuration of relationships of class forces in society (Poulantzas 2000, 132, 147-148). As such, Poulantzas views the state as a strategic site of organization of thedominant class in its relationship to the dominated classes (Poulantzas 2000, 148). Thisimplies that state apparatuses do not possess a power of their own, but materialize andconcentrate class relations (Poulantzas 1975a, 26). In other words, the function of thestate is then that of constituting the factor of cohesion between the levels of social

formation (Poulantzas 1975b, 45) by concentrating class domination and reproducingclass relations (Poulantzas 1975a, 24-25).

Given that the state is not merely a passive instrument that can generate a unifieddiscourse of cohesion by definition (Poulantzas 2000, 12-13, 32), state power can assumea relatively unified character and be exercised in a relatively centralized manner insofaras political-cultural hegemony is established. Poulantzas would agree that political-cultural hegemony is the ways in which the vested political interests of the dominantclass are reflected as the general interests of society. In Poulantzaslexicon, this situationis designated as power bloc, a hegemonic bloc made up of various politically dominantclasses or class fractions under the leadership of one particular class or fraction(Poulantzas 1975b, 140-141, 231, 234, 242, 297, 1975a, 24-25). Poulantzas cautions thatpower bloc is not synonymous with class alliance. The latter necessitates economic,


2/5

political-ideological and political-cultural coherence, whilst the former assumes a morerestricted form of unity (Nicos Poulantzas, 1975b, pp. 240-241).

Based on Poulantzas insights into state power, it is possible to argue that the stateacts as the organizer of hegemony and a site of engagement of power blocs, once it isconceived as a strategic rather than monolithic field permeated by a plurality of power

centers (Poulantzas 1975a, 74):The state apparatuses consecrate and reproduce hegemony by bringingthe power bloc and certain dominated classes into a (variable) game ofprovisional compromises. The state apparatuses organize-unify the powerbloc by permanently disorganizing-dividing the dominated classes,polarizing them towards the power bloc, and short-circuiting their ownpolitical organizations (Poulantzas 2000, 140).

According to Poulantzas, power blocs tend to constitute contradictory andcontentious formations, which express themselves in conflicts among different organsand branches of the state (including ministries and government offices, executive and

parliament, central administration and local and regional authorities, army, judiciary,

etc.) (Poulantzas 2008, 284-285).

What Jessop refers to as common interests and general will indicates the classhegemony that reflects the narrow interests of a particular dominant class(es) orfraction(s) as these of the entire society, as distinguished from straight-forward politicaldomination or violent oppression (Jessop 2008, 9, 11). According to Jessop, thehegemonic configuration of the state stems from its defining feature as a site of strategy

and class struggles (and consequently as, a system of strategic selectivity) (Jessop2008, 36). It follows from this assumption that the state cannot act by itself as a classsubject for it does not correspond to a highly coherent institutional ensemble free ofinternal contradictions:

In short, the state does not exercise power: its powers (always in plural)

are activated through the agency of definite political forces in specificpolitical conjunctures. It is not the state that acts; it is always specific setsof politicians and state officials located in specific parts and levels of thestate system (Jessop 2008, 37).

for Jessop, it matters to investigate the ways in which social support is mobilized basedon particular policies, programmes and hegemonic projects as well as how popular-democratic resistance is organized to overcome bourgeois-hegemonic outcomes (Jessop1982, 242). Accordingly, Jessop differentiates between three dimensions of state poweras they pertain to the non-formal parts of the state and social relations between the stateand civil society: the social basis of the state, hegemonic projects, and state projects andstrategies (Jessop 1982, 228-229, 2008, 97, 1990, 161). The social basis of the statecorresponds to the specific configuration of social forces that supports the basicstructure of the state system, its mode of operation and its objectives (Jessop 1990, 161).

The social basis of the state is not limited to the constituents of what Poulantzasunderstands by power blocs, but is also extended to the specific modes of mass


3/5

integration which channel transform and prioritize demands and manage the flow ofmaterial concessions necessary to maintain the unstable equilibrium of compromise that

underpins such support (Jessop 1990, 161). While the social basis of the state helpsexplain who are included and excluded in the states strategic selectivity, hegemonic

projects and state strategies help understand how they are included and excluded. Indeed,

hegemonic projects have a discursive aspect in that they serve to resolve the abstractproblem of conflicts between particular interests and the general interest by ensuring themobilization of popular support (Jessop 1990, 161). State projects and strategies areexpected to be subordinated to hegemonic projects that set the states prevailing discourse

toward popular masses. In this sense, it is possible to argue that they are particular policypractices that aim to implement hegemonic projects.

A more nuanced and sociological approach is needed in order to tease out thevarious ways in which state power is embodied at the level of social movements. Suchnecessity has already been superficially voiced in Jessops work, which pointed to the

need to understand how culture and politics affect capacities for resistance and struggle

in light of changing social conjunctures (Jessop 2008, 97). While Jessop is primarilyinvested in understanding how capital accumulation is sustained through theconfiguration of state-civil society relations, my main concern is to shed light on howstate power itself shaped and/or is shaped by class actors and social mobilization, whichis obviously beyond the scope of political economy.

Butun bunlari hegemonic porjects, state projects and practices, ve social basis ileaciklanabilir aslinda: mesela osmanlicilik dusuncesi ve bunun yansimalari syasete

ONCE KAPIALIT CLASS FORMATION I ANLATEconomic: sirketler, ihaleler, toki gibi mesruluk projeleri, marmaray , cilgin projeler,osmanlicilik (hobsbawm tarih bomba gibidir)

SNR DIGERLERINI:

Erdoan ile Fethullah Glen arasndaki ilk atlak, Mavi Marmara krizi srasnda ortaya

kt. Snr mit snr dersahne, ama aslinda rant paylasimi ihaleler

Political-cultural and political-ideological: medya

Devletin hegemonic acilimlari: krut acilimi, alevi acilimi, akil adamlar, ergenekonoperasyonlari tarih yazimi

Babakan R. Tayyip Erdoann Tarih Tezlerine El-Cevap, sinan meydanAKP ve Yeni Reji, Farih yasli


4/5

Ideological apparatuses: school, media, din, aile kurumu, sanat-kultur, siyasal vetoplumsal kurumlar yada hareketler

Repressive apparatus: army, police, judiciary

Erdogan in ailesini kendisi kapitalistlesti: hastaneler, pasataneler gemicikler vs, calikyakn cevresi, unakitan vardi,

Komprador:

What is tra!!y._ll.,:!$rs>?_comprador llourgie, on theother hand, is that fraction of the bourgeoisie which does not haveits own base for capital accumulation, which acts in some way orother as a simple intermediary of foreign imperialist capital (whichis why it is often taken to include the 'bureaucratic bourgeoisie'),and which is thus triply subordinated - economically, politically and

ideologically - to foreign capital.poulantzas classes in contemporary capitalism71

..comprador bourgeoisies, that is,simple intermediaries between the national economy and foreigncapital (this is the case with the ' ultra-imperialist' tendency).poulantzas classes incontemporary capitalism72

Significant contradictions thusexist between the internal bourgeoisie and American capital. Evenif these cannot lead it to adopt positions of effective autonomy orindependence towardsthis capital, they still have their effects on the

state apparatuses of these fonnations in their relations with theAmerican state.poulantzas classes in contemporary capitalism72-73 classes inconemtporary

http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=burokraside-akp-cemaat-kargasasi-yasaniyor-3112131200

burjuvazinin kendi icinde catsmasi anlaminda:

http://www.ulusalkanal.com.tr/gundem/abdli-ortak-

hisselerini-satti-h19930.html

hastane zinciri, emine erdogan, abd ve fetoscu

sirketler

parallel delve yasli: http://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-

ve-siyaset/fatih-yasli-yazdi-paralel-devlet-devleti-
http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=burokraside-akp-cemaat-kargasasi-yasaniyor-3112131200http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=burokraside-akp-cemaat-kargasasi-yasaniyor-3112131200http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=burokraside-akp-cemaat-kargasasi-yasaniyor-3112131200http://www.ulusalkanal.com.tr/gundem/abdli-ortak-hisselerini-satti-h19930.htmlhttp://www.ulusalkanal.com.tr/gundem/abdli-ortak-hisselerini-satti-h19930.htmlhttp://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-ve-siyaset/fatih-yasli-yazdi-paralel-devlet-devleti-paralize-ederken-haberi-84958http://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-ve-siyaset/fatih-yasli-yazdi-paralel-devlet-devleti-paralize-ederken-haberi-84958http://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-ve-siyaset/fatih-yasli-yazdi-paralel-devlet-devleti-paralize-ederken-haberi-84958http://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-ve-siyaset/fatih-yasli-yazdi-paralel-devlet-devleti-paralize-ederken-haberi-84958http://www.ulusalkanal.com.tr/gundem/abdli-ortak-hisselerini-satti-h19930.htmlhttp://www.ulusalkanal.com.tr/gundem/abdli-ortak-hisselerini-satti-h19930.htmlhttp://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=burokraside-akp-cemaat-kargasasi-yasaniyor-3112131200http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=burokraside-akp-cemaat-kargasasi-yasaniyor-3112131200


5/5

paralize-ederken-haberi-84958

bugun duyurdugum haber de onemli:

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/25451182.asp

http://ekonomi.haberturk.com/para/haber/907313-

tivnikli-ile-6-isadami-ve-2-sirketin-mallarina-tedbir
http://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-ve-siyaset/fatih-yasli-yazdi-paralel-devlet-devleti-paralize-ederken-haberi-84958http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/25451182.asphttp://ekonomi.haberturk.com/para/haber/907313-tivnikli-ile-6-isadami-ve-2-sirketin-mallarina-tedbirhttp://ekonomi.haberturk.com/para/haber/907313-tivnikli-ile-6-isadami-ve-2-sirketin-mallarina-tedbirhttp://ekonomi.haberturk.com/para/haber/907313-tivnikli-ile-6-isadami-ve-2-sirketin-mallarina-tedbirhttp://ekonomi.haberturk.com/para/haber/907313-tivnikli-ile-6-isadami-ve-2-sirketin-mallarina-tedbirhttp://ekonomi.haberturk.com/para/haber/907313-tivnikli-ile-6-isadami-ve-2-sirketin-mallarina-tedbirhttp://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/25451182.asphttp://haber.sol.org.tr/devlet-ve-siyaset/fatih-yasli-yazdi-paralel-devlet-devleti-paralize-ederken-haberi-84958

Documents

Poulanztas Jessop Theoretical Insights