Ken Tarbuck | ETOL Main Page
Ethiopia & Socialist Theory
The two essays brought together here have both been published before, the first, on Ethiopia, was published in New Interventions, Vol. 3 no. 4, January 1993. The second essay, on the topic of Bonapartism and the state, really follows on from the first and was indeed published in Red Banner, no. 5, February 1993. However, both essays were written almost simultaneously, and this is why they can stand together, since they both address some important questions that need resolution if Marxists are to lever themselves out of routinised thinking.
Why does this need arise? I would argue that with the collapse of the Soviet Union we have witnessed an epoch-making event, one that puts into question many of the received certainties of the past 70 years or so. The need to question, discuss and clarify is an urgent one for socialists if they are to come to terms with the world as it really is and not as they imagined it to be. Not only has the nature of the – now no longer existent – Soviet state been put into question once more by its collapse, but also the very nature of ‘the state’ itself. The ideas explored in these essays suggests that the social formation known as ‘the state’ is far more complex and heterogeneous than many, if not most, Marxists have assumed up to now: always seeing it as, ultimately, the servant of the ‘ruling class’, never ascribing it an independent role even in its Bonapartism form. Such a view needs to be challenged.
The evidence we now have of a number of historical experiences should suggest that there is a need to develop a more sophisticated and flexible view of ‘the state’. In particular I draw readers’ attention to the Ethiopian experience. The lessons to be learned from the Ethiopian revolution of 1974 have still to be fully assessed. However, such as we have, the evidence points to the conclusion that in this instance, at the very least, ‘the state’ did not represent ‘the ruling class’ or even the economically dominant one; on the contrary, it exhibited an independence and a purpose of its own. If this can happen in an economically underdeveloped society, where the social surplus was quite meagre, what does it suggest about a comparable formation within advanced industrialised or capitalist societies? Does it not suggest that where the social surplus is considerable ‘the state’ has that much more room for manoeuvre? Does it not also suggest that Marxists need to refurbish and refine some of those tools bequeathed to us by Marx? I certainly think this is the case, and I see these essays as my own further steps along this path. It is time to stop being shocked by new ideas, rather we should begin acting as historical materialists and examine the accumulating evidence before our eyes and ears.
Finally I have appended a review of a new book on Ethiopia which has been published since I wrote my original essays. I include this to bring the reader as up to date as possible.
|
|
Ken Tarbuck |
Last updated: 3 July 2014