● F
romMarxism, it adopts the recognition ofunderlying class conflictsand the
reproductive function of state institutions.
Yet corporatism retains its foundational idea oforganicsocial unity.
In practice, societal corporatism has been most successful in countries like Austria
and the Netherlands, where institutionalized cooperation between labor, business, and
the state has contributed to economic stability and democratic governance.
ere's a well-organized, refined, and academically structured summary of the Marxist
H
Theory of Power based on your provided content. This version is suitable for study,
presentations, or academic assignments:
Marxist Theory of Power
Revival of Marxist Approaches in the 1970s–80s
uringthe1970sand1980s,therewasaresurgenceofinterestamongMarxistscholars
D
in the analysis of state power. Thinkers like Ralph Miliband, Nicos Poulantzas, and
Michel Foucault (though Foucault isoftenclassifiedmorebroadlyasapost-structuralist)
made significant contributions to rethinking the nature, distribution, and function of
powerin modern capitalist societies.
Ralph Miliband: The State and Class Power
ilibandarguedagainsttheliberal-pluralistviewofthestateasaneutralarbiteramong
M
competingsocialinterests.Instead,fromaMarxistperspective,heemphasizedtheclass
character of the state, asserting that:
● A
ruling classexists in capitalist societies, whichcontrols the means of
production.
● T
his class maintainsstrong linkages with politicalparties, the military,
academia, and the media.
● T
hesocial backgroundsandideological orientationof civil servants and
policymakers reflect and reproduce thisstructureof power and privilege.
● A
s a result, the state functions topreserve advanced capitalism, serving the
interests of dominant class forces rather than balancing social interests.
iliband'sanalysisfocusedonbothclass–staterelationsandstate–societyinteractions,
M
highlighting thenon-neutralityof the modern state.
Nicos Poulantzas: Structuralist Marxist Approach to Power
icosPoulantzasofferedamorestructuralistinterpretationofpowerandthestate.He
N
argued that:
● P
ower is relationaland emerges through theinteractionbetween state
institutions and class forces.
● InPolitical Power and Social Classes, he definedpower as thecapacity to achieve
class interestswithin aspecific historical and socialcontext.
● C
lass interestsare not fixed but represent arangeof feasible, context-bound
objectives.
● P
ower is not afixed quantity; it isfluid and dynamic,evolving with shifting class
alignments.
In State, Power, Socialism, Poulantzas conceptualized the state as a social relation, not
merely a coercive instrument. He emphasized that:
● Thestate mediates class relationsrather than simplyserving the ruling class.
● It acts as afactor of social cohesion, stabilizingcapitalist society whilebalancing
inter-class conflicts.
Michel Foucault: Power Beyond Class and the State
lthough not a traditional Marxist, Michel Foucault made significant contributions to
A
understanding the nature of power in modern societies. In works suchasDisciplineand
PunishandThe Will to Know(part ofThe History ofSexuality), he argued that:
● P
ower isnot merely repressivebut alsoproductive—it creates norms, knowledge,
institutions, and subjectivities.
● Power isomnipresentin all social relations, not confined to the state or economy.
● P
ower andknowledge are closely linked: those whocontrol knowledge
production often dominatepolitical and ideologicalstructures.
● S
ocial struggles—whether cultural, racial, gendered, or class-based—areassertions
of powerand are inherent to human interaction.
● P
owergenerates resistance, and in turn,resistanceprovokes new forms of
power.
Common Ground: Poulantzas and Foucault on Power
espite their differing theoretical foundations,PoulantzasandFoucaultsharedseveral
D
key views:
1. P
ower is relational– emerging from evolving circumstancesand not possessed by
any one actor or institution.
2. P
ower is productive, not just repressive – it constructssocial realities, norms, and
identities.
3. Power invites resistance, and this dialectic is centralto social transformation.
4. B
othrejected traditional liberal and orthodox Marxistviews, which reduce
power to economic dominance or state coercion.
5. P
ower is linked to knowledge– dividing knowledgeinto mental/manual labor
entrenches class domination.
6. P
ower is present in all social relations– it is diffused,not solely located within
state structures.
7. A
llsocial strugglesare expressions of power andinvolve contesting prevailing
power relations.
Points of Disagreement: Poulantzas vs. Foucault
Despite the areas of agreement,Poulantzas critiqued Foucaulton several counts:
● O
veremphasis on micro-powers: Poulantzas argued Foucault overstated the
dispersionof power, ignoring thecentral role ofthe state.
● N
eglect of structural domination: Poulantzas believedthat Foucault downplayed
thestructural mechanisms of class oppression.
● H
e insisted thatone cannot exist outside the reach of state power—even
popular movements and grassroots struggles must engage with the state to affect
change.
Conclusion
ogether, Poulantzas and Foucault significantly enriched the understanding of power in
T
modernsocieties.Bytreatingpowerasstrategic,relational,andpervasive,theymoved
beyondreductionistconceptionsofpowerrootedsolelyineconomicsorstateauthority.
Their work underscores the multifaceted and dynamic nature of power, opening the
doorformorenuancedanalysisthattakesintoaccountinstitutions,knowledgesystems,
cultural practices, and resistance movements.
