CLAUS OrFE AND THE CAPITALIST

STATE: A CRITIQUE

Gordon Haas

Claus Offe's work may be regarded as a synthesis between certain

Marxist concepts and systems theory and has broad implications for

Marxist theories of the state. This paper will present and criticize

Offe's ideas with special regard to the status of historical mater-

ialism in his work.

The historical materialist method (the analysis of production

and appropriation of surplus) is not immune to improvement. However,

the borrowing of concepts specific to historical materialism for use

in a synthesis serves only to vitiate the method. This occurs because

the differing background assumptions of the concepts utilized are

contradictory and thus render the conclusions incomprehensible.

Offe's synthesis is an exemplar of the problems inherent in

synthesizing approaches. Offe's work blends functional ism, Marxian

political economy, and systems theory. The characteristic teleology

of functional analysis is established on the basis of a 'Marxian'

analysis of the commodity. We shall demonstrate that the concepts

which Offe borrows from Marxism are not utilized in a valid fashion

and that logical inconsistencies exist in his work even if the former

is ignored.

In the first section of the paper, Offe's thesis is presented;

the second section will provide a critical assessment. The paper

concludes with an evaluation of Offe's contribution to Marxist research.

OFFE'S THEORY OF STATE AND SOCIETY

From the outset of his argument Offe dispenses with the Marxist

Revised version of a paper presented to the Canadian Sociology and
Anthropology Association, Saskatoon, June, 1979.



base/superstructure distinction and instead portrays capitalist society

as three functionally related sub-systems: the economic, the political,

and the normative. A sub-system is defined as a set of relationships

and processes having a specific coherence based in an 'organizing

principle' specific to the sub-system. The principle of the economic

system is exchange, the political system is organized on the basis of

power, while the normative system is neglected by Offe and, aside

from an indication of its normative nature, does not have a principle

defined for it (1976:. 34,53).*

Offe argues that sub-system relations are concerned with the

creation and maintenance of the conditions of economic dominance as

the economic system is dominant (in that its stability is crucial to

general system stability). For this reason, the non-economic systems

are cast as 'flanking' systems as their operation must uphold the

dominance of the exchange principle (1976: 34,35). Adding that a

system is inherently unstable Offe is able to reduce the question of

general system equilibrium to the inter-play of the three organizing

principles. To be precise, however, system instability is not the

result of the principles themselves but rather is due to the processes

based on the principles. In this view, over-all system crisis consists

of processes based in one principle coming to control processes

organized by another principle.

Given that three unstable sub-systems are linked in an over-all

unstable system we can see that Offe's intent is to investigate the

nature and conditions of equilibrium for each sub-system as well as the

general system. Through such an investigation an over-all social

dynamic may be found. For each system Offe must ask: 'what is it

about the processes within the system that produces instability, what

•Unless otherwise noted, all references are to Offe.

27



are the implications of this instability for the other systems, and

how is stability regained in all systems?'. Simply stated then,

Offe's object consists of the conditions of the maintenance of econ-

omic dominance. Note, however, that Offe reduces each system to an

organizing principle- thus, maintenance of the economic system is

seen by Offe as maintenance of the exchange principle. Further, as

the organizing principle actually refers to processes, the conditions

under investigation must also be processes. Thus, Offe's object is made up

by the processes which maintain the dominance of the exchange principle

in capitalist society.

Primary amongst these processes are those involving the non-

economic systems. Offe conceptualizes the flanking relationships of

these systems as being one of either positive or negative subordination.

Positive subordination concerns:

...the adjustment of the content of those sub-systems
not organized and formed by exchange to conform to
economic processes. . .(1976: 35).

Negative subordination is a relationship where non-economic systems

are related to the economic systems:

...in such a way that they are limited and are insulated

from the economic system, without, however, being able to
contribute to the content of its ability to function...
(1976: 35).

Negative subordination is not the opposite of positive subordina-

tion and is best understood as a relation of exclusion.

Either type of subordination may be regarded as a system state,

i.e. we may analyze inter-system relations and reach a conclusion

concerning the type of subordination that describes the system. The

dynamic which operates here is called 'system autonomy'. This is the

'...partial emanc ipa(t ion) .. .from the relationship of positive

subordination' (1976: 48) and refers to the functionally necessary

28



'freedom of system' (my term) which is required for maintenance of

economic dominance when the very maintenance is so problematic that

processes subject to non-economic principles are required to uphold

it. Autonomy is a system response to economic instability, its

meaning embedded in the economic processes which it functions to

maintain. Offe's understanding of capitalist society thus rests upon

his analysis of the economic processes.

. Offe argues that economic instability is a product of the devel-

opmental tendency f capital accumulation, a process which engenders

'...the relative decline in the organizing potential of the wage-

labour/capital pattern with regard to the total social labour power

...' (1976: 34). The characteristic instability of the economic system

is that it makes its own dominance problematic. The decline of the

exchange principle means that less labour is organized as a commodity

whereas economic stability depends on labour in this form.

A four sector model of labour power utilization illustrates this

conclusion (1976: 40). The monopoly, competitive, public, and residual

(all other labour power) sectors represent proportions of labour organ-

ized according to specific principles. As commodity relationships

exist only on the basis of exchange Offe argues that only in the

monopoly sector is labour power organized solely on the basis of that

priniciple. The dependency of the competitive sector (made up mainly

of firms which are integrated with the monopoly sector via, for

example, input or output dependency) on the monopoly sector means that

the vast proportion of its labour power is organized on the basis of

administered decisions rather than exchange. As the state sector

cannot make reference to the market (as its services are not marketable

as commodities) Offe concludes that labour power is here organized

29



on the basis of administered decisions while the dependence of the

residual sector (eg. welfare, schools, etc.) on the state sector means

that its proportion of labour power is also administered. Offe's

point is that the expansion of the monopoly sector causes more and

more labour to be administered. The systemic response is the autonomy

of the political system.

However, because of its specific organizing principle (i.e.

power) political intervention is, in itself, a cause of de-commodifi-

cation as it requires utilizing labour on the basis of power rather

than exchange. Due to the nature of its flanking relationship, Offe

can argue that

:

. . .what the state protects and sanctions is a set of
rules and social relationships which are pre-supposed
by the class rule of the capitalist class. The state
does not defend the interests of one class, but the
common interest of all members of a capitalist class
society (1975a: 139).

The state then is defined not as a set of institutions but in terms of

'...the way it is functionally related to and dependent upon the

accumulation process' (1975a: 125). This functional relation excludes

the state from direct participation in production processes but mandates

the state to create the conditions of accumulation. As this functional

relation is also an historical one Offe can cast the question of the

rise of state intervention as one of 'modes' of intervention.

The modes of intervention are 'allocative' and 'productive' (1975a:

128). Allocative strategies are policy measures which stabilize accum-

ulation by use of strictly political resources, i.e. the state

allocates resources which are under its direct control (eg. education

policy, trade tariffs, etc.). In pursuing productive strategies the

state takes direct responsibility for the provision of inputs required

by the accumulation process in the case where units of the economy will

30



not undertake production of the input because of low profit potential

(1975a: 128-132).

The difference between the two modes of intervention is that for

productive intervention:

...what is needed in a given situation is not already at
the disposal of the state but must be 'produced' by the
state in the first place. The state-owned resources...
are...merely the raw materials out of which certain out-
puts have to be manufactured according to decision rules
...that the state cannot take from its environment but
has to generate for itself (1975a: 134).

But as the state can only operate as a political entity we can

say that its economic intervention must meet conditions defined by

the economic system. The state must, because it is not a capitalist

enterprise, direct its economic related activities on the basis of a

defined- 'general capitalist interest*. The content of this definition

is the forum of state/capitals conflict.

The distillation oi a general capitalist interest from the

narrow interests of individual capital units is seen as a question of

policy determination. The concept of 'system selectivity' allows Offe

to conceptualize the nature of the capitalist state as a question of

policy formation. 'Selectivity' refers to a set of 'filtering mech-

anisms' which, in their functioning, result in '...the systematic

restriction of the scope of possibility...' of the policy process

(1974: 37). Offe argues that the selectivity of the state structure

is such that only interests which correspond to the state-defined

'general interest' are allowed representation (1974: 34). As a corollary

of this, anti-capitalist interests are denied articulation (1974: 38).

Capitalist interest is guaranteed by the conditions of interest repre-

sentation. To be articulated in the political arena, a group 'need'

must meet two conditions: it must be capable of conflict (i.e. it must

31



have a collective ability for refusal to perform), and it must also be

capable of being organized. The ultimate effect is that groups

with access to large amounts of resources have a better chance of

gaining interest representation (1972: 85-87). Thus:

the pluralistic system of organized interests excludes

...all articulation of demands which are general in

nature and not associated with any status group; that are
incapable on conflict because they have no functional

significance for the utilization of labour power, and

that represent Utopian projections beyond the historically
specific system, (1972: 89).

Offe's intent is to define the nature of the class state, not of

the state ruling in response to external demands, and it is argued

that such a difference may be explored in the selectivity which

results in policy generation. This is why the concept of selectivity

has the status of a set of hypotheses for Offe. Investigation of

these hypotheses is, however, problematic because '...state power in

capitalist industrial societies is the method of class rule whijh does

not disclose its identity as such' (1974: 46); thus, concealment of

the state's relation to the accumulation process is seen as one of the

pre-conditions of the capitalist state. This 'concealment' is revealed

only in 'crisis' situations, i.e. in those situations where the state

acts directly and incontrovertibly as a class state.

Offe's functional definition of the state illustrates this. As

the state has the role of maintaining both the legitimacy of the over-

all system and directing the economy Offe argues that these two roles

are contradictory in terms of their effects on system stability.

While 'direction' is subject to external demands (demands from individ-

ual capitals, sectors of capital, and other pressure groups), the

attainment of legitimacy involves the fulfilling of specific demands

(to a greater or lesser extent), i.e. policies are created which do not

32



satisfy everyone. Thus, the contradiction is that meeting demands

will cause groups whose demands are not met to withhold legitimacy

(1973: 245-248). The state's problem is balancing these two roles.

The conditions of the balance are:

...achieved if (a) the acceptance of legitimating rules of
democratic and constitutional regimes is reinforced by
the material outcomes of governmental policies and measures,

and (b) if these measures and policies are 'efficient' in
the only way a capitalist state can be efficient, namely
in succeeding to provide, to restore, and to maintain
commodity relations for all citizens and for the totality

of their needs (1973: 252).

Thus, legitimacy is tied to the attainment of economic stability.

Further, legitimacy is now a function of the commodity form as the

method by which the state can gain legitimacy is dictated by the state's

relation to economic processes. We can now appreciate the logic behind

Offe's statement that: 'The commodity form is the general point of

equilibrium for the capitalist state'. (1975a: 140) We are also in a

position to appreciate Offe's ideas regarding subordination, system

autonomy, and the intrusion of foreign organizing principles. Because

of its functional role the state faces what Offe calls a 'crisis of

crises management'. Offe presents an illustrative diagram:

* regulatory welfare ^
^ services state

Economic Political/ Normative
System Administrative System

System

fiscal ^ ^ mass
absorption *^ ^ loyalty

(1976: 52)
2

The problems which the state must 'balance' are 1) maintaining the

balance of input/output within each separate system, and 2) maintaining

the balance of the system as a whole (1976: 53),

33



Offe's principal argument is that as the state is the central

actor in society the social bases of conflict are restructured because

of the intrusion of the political organizing principle into the

economic sphere. The basic conflicts are now political rather than

economic in nature. This may be seen in the dramatic effects of

political intrusion on class relationships:

As politically manipulable variables now intervene
extensively between labour and income, and between
the latter and the concrete structures of life chances,
the new forms of social inequality are no longer directly
reducible to economically defined class relationships
which they are assumed to reflect (1972: 95).

Thus, the real issues of conflict in capitalist society are now

derived from the mechanisms of political intervention which generate

a '...horizontal system of disparities between vital areas...' (1972:

96) . Vital areas are defined as such by virtue of their functional

relevance for the accumu^tion process. In late capitalist societies

then, a dominance of functions now exists rather than class dominance,

and conflict now occurs between groups having differing degrees of

'functional relevance' and not differing relations to the means of

production. Offe argues that it is this conflict which is the driving

force of social change (1972: 98,101) as the 'horizontal privilege

distribution' is not necessarily related to class, even if the effects of

both class and functional privilege inequality tend to accumulate '...on

the lower levels of the income scale' (1972: 102).

Offe concludes that the final outcome of the functionally re-

quired state intervention is the autonomy of the political system from a

relation of subordination. The political system has come to dominate

the economic system. Thus:

The decisions and actions which are the output of the labour

of the civil service and other categories of employees are

no longer deducible from criteria of their relevance for

34



capital accumulation, but, on the contrary, themselves
determine exchange relations between commodities
(1973: 114) .

Due to the dominance of political control, the need for legitimacy

is amplified. That is, not only must the political system as such be

legitimated but also the intrusion of the political into the economic

system must be legitimated. Capitalist domination is now so bound with

the political system that only the legitimacy of the political system

makes the domination possible (1973: 74). Offe's general thesis of

crisis in capitalist society is that:

...the increasing utilization of the regulatory medium of
state power - a medium external to the market - leads,
cumulatively, to the production of breaches that enable
intrusions into the (economic) system by non-capitalist
structures; the closing of these breaches through mechanisms
of 'negative subordination' consequently becomes the main
problem of late capitalist social systems (1976: 47).

The basic problem in resolving this crisis is that its resolution rests

on the action of the system (the political) which is responsible for

the crisis.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

Our critique will first address Offe's characterization of crisis

3
in capitalist society ;then, having demonstrated the shortcomings of

his approach to the problem,we shall show that Offe's economic analysis

is seriously flawed by an inadequate understanding of the commodity.

We will conclude with a brief discussion of legitimacy and of the

political system.

That the concept of the commodity is crucial to Offe's analysis

is proven by (a) the reduction of system stability to economic stability

and (b) the reduction of the economic system to the exchange principle,

where the 'commodity form' is taken as the indicator of the proper

35



functioning of the principle.

We shall now turn to Offe's concept of the totality. As we have

seen, the totality is conceived as a system composed of three function-

ally related sub-systems. Here we can ask of Offe what Laclau asks of

Althusser: 'Why only three? What has been the method of their deduc-

tion? Does there exist any logical link between them?' (Laclau, 1975:

104). Offe's answer is 'silence to the first two and functional to the

third'. Offe does not present any reasons as to why there are three

systems or why it is these three particular systems.

We argue here that the three systems are identified as such as a

function of Offe's over-riding concern with system crisis. The concept

of crisis is the first point of analysis. As Offe states:

...one conceptualizes crises not at the level of events
but rather at the super-ordinate level of mechanisms that
generate events (1976: 32) .

Offe points out that '...such a definition predisposes one to favour

a processual concept of crisis...' as '...crises would be processes

which violate the "grammar" of social processes' (1976: 32). The view

of crisis as a super-ordinate mechanism is compatible with Offe's

reduction of all systems to organizing principles; in this usage, crisis

becomes the failure of an organizing principle. The concept of crisis

is therefore contained within the concept of organizing principle

because the principle involves the crisis-prone processes. As the

processes must follow the pre-defined functional imperative of economic

stability Offe has only to define those processes which are of functional

importance to the economic system and which are capable of being

described as based in an organizing principle. If such a principle can

be formulated then, ipso facto , crisis pertains within the processes

referred to by the principle. As we can see however, Offe is able to do

36



this only for two systems.

There are implications here for Offe's theory of the state. A

tenet of the systems theory employed by Offe is that if crisis exists

then a 'crisis-resolving mechanism' mast also exist. In Offe's work,

this mechanism is found in the state. Such a view of the state dove-

tails with a functional definition of the state such as the one used

by Offe.

Referring now to the organizing principles we argue that while

Offe holds that processes are of basic importance in his formulation,

the 'logic of crisis' exists only at the level of the principles.

However, the derivation of a principle involves not an abstraction of

system content (i.e. the processes) but, rather, a reduction of the

content to a statement of form. This reduction is severe enough to

expel content,* for instance, the reduction of the economic system to

the principle of exchange means that Offe cannot approach the specificity

of capitalism as exchange characterizes any economic system. The

reduction is, however, functional for Offe's analysis as it facilitates

the extension of the idea of crisis to the functional relations between

sub-systems.

Another problem connected to the functional relations of the

systems is that in a formal sense either of the two flanking systems

can achieve autonomy and so come to dominate the economic system. But

the absence of a defined principle of the normative system means that

Offe cannot account for the hypothetical case of normative system

autonomy. Offe would argue that the issue here is one of substantive

content, the point being that hypothetical problems are best left as

such. We agree but Offe cannot argue 'content' as a resolution because

the problem actually exists in the pre-conditions of his argument, in

37



the reduction to the organizing principle that facilitates the concept of

crisis.

The point here is that Offe's model of capitalist society is based

on reductions of content. The reductions lend coherence to the theory

but Offe is unable to account for the potential relationships which

could pertain in the model. If we ask why these potential relation-

ships are not explored the answer will also tell us why the political

system has the role described by Offe. However, the only answer that

Offe provides rests upon the assumption of functional necessity and

thus the analysis of system relations becomes teleological.

Turning now to the specific analysis of the economic system we

recall that a basic system problem is the tendency for less and less

social labour to be organized in the commodity form (where this form

is the 'natural' basis of the exchange principle). Offe argues that:

The pre-requisite for the conversion of ever larger qu?ntities

of labour power into the commodity form inherent to the

wage- labour relation was, from the emergence of capitalist

society, the organization of labour power within a non-

commodity form, that is, the existence of the bureaucratic

worker (1973: 109).

This formulation clearly states the relationship of functional necessity

between the political and economic systems. Offe holds that capital

accumulation is functionally dependent on the state in that the state

has the role of '...creating the conditions under which values can

function as commodities' (1975: 143). Offe's view of the developmental

processes of late capitalist societies is that within them '...values

cease to operate in the commodity form' (1975: 141). In these societies,

the state (upon which the existence of the commodity form is dependent)

is not a part of the economic system as it is organized on the basis of

a principle foreign to exchange. By virtue of this Offe concludes that

labour performed 'in' the state is not of the commodity form.

38



In the above formulation, 'non- commodity' labour is a form of labour

which is, in some way, not determined by the exchange principle. A

closer examination of the 'commodity form of labour' is required here.

Offe holds that 'commodified' labour is only that labour which is

directly productive of surplus value for capital accumulation ,i .e. only

labour organized on the basis of the exchange principle exists as a

commodity (1973: 109). Thus, as the state does not accumulate surplus-

value its 'workers' must not exist in the commodity form.

We have located the problem. Offe has confused the commodity with

productive labour. As Laclau points out, the commodity and productive

labour (the latter being an aspect of the labour process) are two

different sets of abstract conditions of the theory of the capitalist

mode of production, and are entirely different theoretical and empirical

categories (1975: 106).

Offe says of state labour power:

Such labour is not abstract, it is not a commodity and
produces no commodities. The social utilization of this
kind of labour is determined by its concrete results; it is
deployed with regard to its use-value and to the use-value
of its performance and not, as is the case of abstract labour,

with regard to its exchange value, where use-value is not the
primary factor but only a necessary by-product (1973: 109) •

Here the use-value and the exchange-value of labour as the producer of

commodities (which have both use and exchange value) is confused with

the use-value and exchange-value of a commodity in itself. Offe has

totally misunderstood capitalist production. Just because labour power

is not productive of surplus value does not imply that such labour power

does not exist in the commodity form. The 'productivity' of labour is

a matter of '...the definite social form, the social relations of

production, within which the labour is realized' (Marx, 1963: 157).

The productivity of labour (that is, productive labour) cannot be

39



identified with the existence of labour power as a commodity because

labour power in the capitalist mode of production is a commodity by

virtue of the value of labour being a function of socially necessary

labour time.

Offe has missed the crucial role of the relations of production

which serve to constitute labour as productive or unproductive of surplus

value. We may see this as an effect of the reduction of the economic

system, as this reduction dispenses with the concept of relations of

production upon which the concept of productive labour rests. Therefore,

to say 'commodity form of value' and apply the term to the labour force

is to state a redundancy and then to look for precise differentiations

within it. The real question is (as we shall see) one concerning

productive labour, but Offe's invalid equation of the commodity and

productive labour prevents him from seeing ihis.as he cannot differentiate

between the two.

Returning now to Offe's argument regarding system relations,

we see that he cannot proceed from an analysis of production as his

approach to the economic system expunges production and replaces it

with a flawed analysis of the commodity, an analysis which is then

incorporated into the functional logic of system relations. We can

see the pernicious effects of Offe's misunderstanding of the commodity

in his model. In Offe's usage, for labour to be a commodity it must

(a) be directly productive of surplus-value and (b) have its value

determined solely on the basis of exchange. This double definition

makes it easy to discover a decline in the organizing potential of the

exchange principle as any indication that labour value is determined

by non-economic forces is sufficient to disqualify that labour from

existence as a commodity.

40



Labour which is organized through the exchange principle is

characterized by the fact that:

...all coercion to which labour power is subjected emanates

from an organization with which it is simultaneously linked

through the relationship of exchange. .. (1976: 41).

To say 'exchange relationships' means that '...all determinants of the

individual's chances in life... 1 are based in exchange (1976: 40).

As Offe says:

...labour power is here incorporated into a relationship of
coercion (namely the structure of domination of the large

scale industrial establishment) that is in all aspects the

object of the exchange relationship. . .Here labour power is

in all its aspects a 'commodity' - and not the object of

administrative coercion (1976: 40-41; Offe's emphasis) .

As Offe's argument is that the amount of labour existing in such a

relationship tends to decline, a direct implication is that the amount

of labour given over to the production of surplus value is declining,

the corollary being that the amount of labour which drains surplus

value grows. Clearly then, Offe points to the need of late capitalist

societies to increase the amount of surplus value and this is the

real issue. Offe's concern, because of his usage of the concepts of

labour power and the commodity can only approach the question of how

many people are producing surplus value. This involves an under-

utilization (if not misunderstanding) of the concept of surplus value.

Offe's idiosyncratic understanding of labour power as a commodity

makes it easy for him to argue its decline when that understanding is

conjoined to the argument that political intervention represents

•administrative coercion' and therefore the 'de-commodifi cation' of

labour. This coercion refers to the effects of state intervention and

alters exchange relationships in that competition is no longer the

basis of determination of exchange. Thus, in Offe's view, the material

conditions of exchange are no longer directly linked to exchange.

But here Offe demonstrates his misunderstanding of the determination

41



of labour value.

Offe does not imply that exchange relationships no longer obtain;

he has correctly identified some of the dynamics of the determination

of exchange in late capitalist societies. If we see, following Marx,

that all labour power is a commodity and that Offe is actually dealing

with the problem of productive and unproductive labour, then we can see

the 'administered coercion' does not alter the nature of value deter-

mination. Offe, however, thinks that the return to labour is strictly

an economic process, hence, the importance of establishing exchange in

his analysis. We may conclude that Offe utilizes a neo-classical

meaning of the economic system. Leaving aside the intracacies of Marxist

economics, we see that the value of labour power is the result of the

social process of class struggle, and this process has never been con-

cerned solely with exchange as it is a social as well as an economic

process. This calls into question Offe's understanding of class and

transformation of class struggle. Offe states:

Because the lines of conflict are no longer drawn between
classes but between vital areas affecting the same individuals,
disjunctions in living standards are no longer a fit basis for
the organization of conflicts of broad social relevance (1973:
103).

Given our demonstration that Offe's theory points to the continued

importance of the pool of surplus value and that (from Marxist theory)

surplus depends on productivity, we suggest that Offe's contention is

misinformed. The surplus value pool is drained through strictly economis-

tic strategies on the part of trade unions. The immediate object of

such a strategy is the living standard.

As well, in Offe's argument, the level of labour process (labour

power as a 'commodity') and the level of state/economy relations are

mixed. If we are to follow Offe's logic to its conclusion then we must

say, by virtue of the functional definition of the state, all capitalism

42



is 'de-commodified' . Obviously we have the problem of drawing boundaries

here. Our point is that the simplicity of the reductions employed by

Offe in order to establish his analysis make the drawing of such boundaries

intensely problematic. Even if we accept the pssibility of boundaries,

certain problems still pertain. For example, a monopoly sector firm

may exist by virtue of government contracts. Now while the exchange

relation may exist within the firm, is this existence not the product

of an administrative coercion? Further, the boundaries make it impossible

to analyse the social determination of labour value; thus even if Offe's

political economy refers to new forms of the determination of the value

of socially necessary labour, he cannot elaborate on these forms

because of his concern with the interaction of principles.

As mentioned previously, Offe sees the attainment of legitimacy

(as a minimum of mass loyalty) as the basic problem facing the capitalist

state. As our previous lemarks show, Offe's analysis does not always

deal with what he thinks it does and this is the case for legitimacy.

Offe holds that legitimation problems arise as a function of state

intervention (1975c: 107). As intervention causes the ideology of equi-

valent exchange to decline (the fetishism of commodities is broken and

the new social relations are easily comprehended), a new basis of inte-

gration is required to legitimate the intervention. As shown, because of

the central ity of the state in the argument, Offe reduces legitimacy to

the provision of material goods and so turns his theory into one concerned

with economic stability—given stability, the legitimacy will, somehow,

follow naturally. In this sense, Offe treats legitimacy in a'residual'

fashion. Thus, instead of being the crucial problem we see instead that

when Offe's economic analysis is combined with his 'basic material level'

approach to legitimacy, the problem of legitimacy actually disappears from

Offe's work. Contrary to his own statement, the real problem is one of

43



economic stability.

In any case, the concept of legitimacy as such is problematical.

Offe's normative system does not seem to be an active process in the

same way that the economic and political processes are.

Additionally, given Offe's argument about legitimacy and his argument

that crisis is seen only in open conflict we can say, following Giddens 1

critique of functionalism (1976), that the very operation of the social

system indicates that the minimum level of legitimacy is met. Thus, the

concept and the attainment of the empirical state to which legitimacy

refers, is unimportant.

Even if one accepts Offe's analysis to this point, some further

problems exist. For example, like the analysis of the economic system,

Offe's treatment of the political system involves sweeping simplifications.

Proceeding from his definition of systems and principles, we can

ask Offe to identify processes within the political system whic'.- produce

strictly political instability. However, aside from a discussion of

policy determination we are not informed as to such processes and must be

satisfied with an indication of externally caused political instability

(i.e. the instability of the economic system to which the policies are

a reaction). In this case, however, apart from being told of the reaction

of the political as a system we are, again, not given clarification as

to the internal determination of this reaction. Symptomatic of this denial

of internal processes is the amcept of the state defining a general

capitalist interest. We are not told how this comes about and are given

only the clue of policy formulation. We suggest that while the concept

of selectivity seems fruitful, Offe has presented a view of the state

which takes the apparent unity as a homogeneity. By this we mean that

the processes which operate so as to create, in their apparent unity, the

state as such (or in a specific sense, a general capitalist interest)

44



may be sources of conflict (instability?) internal to the state. But

because Offe begins his analysis with the 'apparent unity' he cannot

approach the internal workings and this detracts from his work.

CONCLUSION

Our critique has avoided the supposition that Offe is a firmly

entrenched member of the critical school. An argument of this nature

implies the existence of a clearly defined discourse known as 'critical

theory' , whereas at most we can identify a 'critical tradition' and see

Offe's work as a part of this tradition.

The contemporary fount of the critical tradition is, of course,

Habermas. But our interest here is to analyse the work of Offe in and

of itself and not to 'locate' Offe in relation to Habermas. A comparison

of the two theorists would have turned a critique of Offe into an enumera-

tion of the similarities and differences with Habermas. At most we will

express our agreement with Woodiwiss that Habermas' theory of the state

(or rather, aspects of Habermas' theory of politics) clearly draws upon

concepts developed by Offe (Woodiwiss 1978: 175).

Nonetheless, a summary of the critical tradition sensitizes us to

Offe's concerns.

Generally, critical theory may be seen as a response to the classical

Marxist emphasis on production at the expense (so perceived) of an analysis

of the superstructure. It is argued that historical materialism must be

reformulated in order that, for example, political and cultural phenomena

may be accommodated.

One fashion of establishing this accommodation involves the claim

that the transition of capitalism from a competitive to monopoly form has

seen the collapse of base and superstructure. In this view, the production

process is no longer the locus of the class struggle. The argument is that

the class struggle has expanded to encompass all of society.

45



Offe's analysis is within this tradition. His object is the

change wrought by state intervention into the accumulation process.

We may thus see Offe as exploring the relations of a totality where the

classic base/ superstructure distinction does not pertain.

Offe may thus be seen as presenting a theory of post-capitalist

society (this being quite apropos to his critical school heritage)

.

Offe's conclusions are not, however, linked to his theoretical approach.

Offe is free to argue that the attainment of a state of negative

subordination is the basic problem facing capitalist society but it

can be just as easily argued that the system autonomy which Offe

identifies means that we are beyond capitalist society. If this is

so then Offe's project of identifying the true class state is virtually

meaningless. The issue hangs on the meaning and direction of 'system

autonomy'. It is entirely plausible to think that a state of system

autonomy will operate in ^ fashion which actually redefines functional

imperatives. Offe's whole analysis points in this direction but he

is prevented from pursuing this argument because his assumption of the

nature of economic dominance forces him to view capitalist society as

obeying only a particular matrix of functional relations.

The problem is twofold. Offe's analysis is both ahistorical and

abstract; his functional approach can be applied to the Soviet Union as

easily as it is to any capitalist social formation. This is to say that

Offe's statement of functional relations cannot specifically identify

capitalist society. In addition the analysis of capitalism is, as

demonstrated, confused and this makes Offe's treatment of the outcome

of functional relations within capitalist society problematic as a basis

of research.

We conclude with the observation that Offe may be seen as presenting an

unsophisticated economic reductionism . Offe's political economy is at

46



once simplistic and confused; the integration of historical materialism

and systems theory fails miserably because Offe's systemic approach to

the economy involves stripping the concept of relations of production

from the economic

.

The systems approach requires that a system be seen as somehow

insulated from its environment, but the concept of relations of production

(which gives coherence to historical materialism) is 'inter-systemic'

and cannot, strictly speaking, be used in a systems approach. The use of

Marx'scategories of political economy in conjunction with a systems

approach requires that one or the other be massively simplified. In

Offe's case, Marx is simplified to the point where errors are made which

could have been avoided had Offe used the concept of relations of

production.

Department of Sociology and Anthropology/

Carleton University

NOTES

1) Legitimacy is a source of political power; its nature is one of
a minimum loyalty engendered through the normative system (1975a:
126).

2) The rather obvious resemblance to Parsons is noteworthy but will
not be pursued. Our interest in Offe's ideas about functional
relations lies in his economic reductionism.

3) The basis of critique in this section will be Laclau's contention
that:

A theory is false only to the extent that it is internally
inconsistent, i.e. if in the process of construction of its
concepts it has entered into contradiction with its post-
ulates. (Laclau, 1975: 94)

47



REFERENCES

Connerton, P.
1976

Giddens, A.
1976

(ed)

Critical Sociology . Harmondsworth: Penguin.

New Rules of Sociological Method . New York
Basic Books.

Laclau, E.
1975

Marx, K.
1963

Offe, C.
1972

1973

1974

1975a

1975b

1975c

1976

Woodiwiss, T.
1978

"The Specificity of the Political", Economy and
Society , Vol. 4, No. 1.

Theories of Surplus Value Vol. 1 . Moscow:
Progress Publishers.

"Political Authority and Class Structures",
International Journal of Sociology , Vol. 2, No. 1

"The Abolition of Market Control and the Problem
of Legitimacy", Kapitalistate , No. 1,2 .

"Structural Problems of the Capitalist State",
German Political Studies , Vol. 1, No. 1 .

'The Theory of the Capitalist State and the Problem
of Policy Formation", in Lindbergh, L. (ed.) Stress
and Contradiction In Modern Capitalism . Lexington:
Lexington Books .

"Thesis on the Theory of the State", New German
Critique , No . 6 .

"Comments on Muller and Neususs", Telos , Fall .

"Crises of Crisis Management: Elements of a Political

Crisis Theory", International Journal of Politics ,
Vol. 6, No. 3 .

"Critical Theory and the Capitalist State",
Economy and Society , Vol. 7, No. 2.

48