the weaknesses of later Marxist state theories, both analytically and practically, and
has prompted many attempts to completetheMarxist theory of the state based
on selective interpretations of these writings. There were two main axes around
which these views moved. Epiphenomenalist accounts mainly interpreted state
forms and functions as more or less direct reXections of underlying economic
structures and interests. These views were sometimes modiWed to take account of
the changing stages of capitalism and the relative stability or crisis-prone nature
of capitalism. Instrumentalist accounts treated the state as a simple vehicle for
political class rule, moving as directed by those in charge. For some tendencies
and organizations (notably in the social democratic movement) instrumentalism
could justify a parliamentary democratic road to socialism based on the electoral
conquest of power, state planning, or nationalization of leading industrial sec-
tors. Others argued that parliamentary democracy was essentially bourgeois and
that extra-parliamentary mobilization and a new form of state were crucial to
make and consolidate a proletarian revolution. Frankfurt School critical theorists
examined the interwar trends towards a strong, bureaucratic state—whether
authoritarian or totalitarian in form. They argued that this corresponded to
the development of organized or state capitalism, relied increasingly on the
mass media for its ideological power, and had integrated the trade union
movement as a political support or else smashed it as part of the consolidation
of totalitarian rule.
Marxist interest revived in the 1960 s and 1970 s in response to the apparent ability
of the Keynesian welfare national state to manage the postwar economy in
advanced capitalist societies and the alleged ‘‘end of ideology’’ that accompanied
postwar economic growth. Marxists initially sought to prove that, notwithstanding
the postwar boom, contemporary states could not really suspend capital’s contra-
dictions and crisis-tendencies and that the state remained a key factor in class
domination.
The relative autonomy of the state was much debated in the 1970 s and 1980 s.
Essentially this topic concerned the relative freedom of the state (or, better, state
managers) to pursue policies that conXicted with the immediate interests of the
dominant economic class(es) without becoming so autonomous that they could
undermine their long-term interests too. This was one of the key themes in the
notoriously diYcult Miliband–Poulantzas debate in the 1970 s between an alleged
instrumentalist and a purported determinist, respectively. This controversy
generated much heat but little light because it was based as much on diVerent
presentational strategies as it was on real theoretical diVerences. Thus Miliband’s
( 1969 ) work began by analyzing the social origins and current interests of
economic and political elites and then proceeded to analyze more fundamental
features of actually existing states in a capitalist society and the constraints on its
autonomy. Poulantzas ( 1973 ) began with the overall institutional framework of
capitalist societies, deWned the ideal-typical capitalist type of state (a constitutional
116 bob jessop