Abstract: How to conceive the relative autonomy of the state, or the relationship between state power and class power, based on historical materialism is a critical issue that must be addressed in the study of Marxist state theory. In the 1960s and 1970s, Poulantzas and Miliband engaged in a debate around this issue, building upon their respective research. In Marxist intellectual history, this debate is often referred to as the controversy between “structuralism” versus “instrumentalism”. This paper, by tracing the development process of theories of the two, points out that such an evaluation not only artificially creates a binary theoretical predicament but also overlooks their intellectual developments. From constructing a “regional” theory of politics to proposing the theory of the state as a social relation, Poulantzas ultimately provides a new perspective different from structuralism. Miliband, starting from criticizing the state elite theory, turns to emphasize the structural constraints of the mode of production on the functions of the state, and conducts a critical reflection on the instrumentalist view of the state. Overall, the PoulantzasMiliband debate reveals the convergence of their understanding on the issue of the relative autonomy of the state, and their intellectual legacies provide valuable theoretical resources for further developing a more systematic Marxist theory of the state.

Key words: state theory, relative autonomy, Poulantzas, Miliband, structuralism, instrumentalism

摘要： 如何基于唯物史观看待国家的相对自主性，抑或国家权力和阶级权力的关系，是马克思主义国家理论研究必须破解的疑难问题。20世纪六七十年代，普朗查斯和密利本德在各自研究的基础上，围绕上述问题展开了争论。在马克思主义思想史上，这场争论经常被人称作“结构主义”与“工具主义”之争。本文通过梳理两人理论的发展过程，指出这种评价不仅人为制造了二元对立的理论困境，而且忽略了普密前后期的思想变化。从建构政治的局域理论到提出国家作为社会关系的学说，普朗查斯最终提供了不同于结构主义的新理论。密利本德则从批判国家精英论出发，转而强调生产方式对国家职能的结构性约束，对工具主义国家观进行了批判性反思。整体来看，普密之争最终使得两人在国家的相对自主性问题上呈现出趋同倾向，他们的思想遗产为进一步发展更为系统的马克思主义国家学说提供了宝贵的理论资源。

关键词: 国家理论, 相对自主性, 普朗查斯, 密利本德, 结构主义, 工具主义