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

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.

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

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.

___

  • 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.