A few days ago, I endorsed Marx's claim that the state is "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." There is, however, evidence against this. The government's promise to hold a referendum on EU membership and its postponement of a decision on Heathrow's expansion both add unnecessary uncertainty to business decisions. Immigration controls are hurting firms. And one could easily argue that, in depressing demand, fiscal austerity has depressed profits.

How, then, can one maintain that the state manages the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie?

One answer is whilst some individual policies might not serve the bourgeoisie, the basic structure of the state does, as, for example, Gary Chartier has argued (ch 3 of this pdf). For example, the state protects forms of property rights such as patents and limited liability that serve capitalists well. It implicitly subsidizes banks by promising to bail them out. It sustains demand through the welfare state and procurement policies. And state education socializes people to become "good" workers.

Perhaps, therefore, the relationship between the state and capitalists is like that between brothers. They might bicker and get on each others' nerves. But they are fundamentally on the same side. This is more or less Miliband's theory of the relative autonomy of the state.

This, though, poses the question: what might possibly falsify the Marxian theory of the state?

In The Fiscal Crisis of the State, James O'Connor argued that the capitalist state served two functions: accumulation, or helping capitalists' profits; and legitimation, or policies that buy social harmony and so create the political stability businesses require. However, pretty much any policy can be claimed to fulfill one of these functions. For example, a generous welfare state creates legitimacy whilst a mean one creates sharp work incentives. Or a loose fiscal policy supports profits by generating high demand, whilst a tight one helps capitalists by weakening workers' bargaining power. From this perspective, the Marxist theory of the state becomes non-falsifiable. Fanatics can believe it, whatever the evidence.

But perhaps there is a test. The theory does make a falsifiable prediction - that where there is a choice between promoting human flourishing and the interests of capital, the state will opt for the latter.

And in (at least) two senses, the British state does this. First, it subsidizes financialization rather than good financial innovation. Secondly, its refusal to adopt a high basic income that would allow workers to opt out of degrading work shows that it prefers to ensure that capitalists get a big supply of labour than that people get real freedom.

If we were to see meaningful and sustained change on these two fronts, the Marxist theory of the state would be falsified. As things stand, however, the theory is both falsifiable and largely true.