The Marxist Perspective of State

Commentary The Marxist Perspective of State Kunal Debnath1 and Tanmoy Saha2 Abstract The Marxist perspective of state offers a critical analysis of its origins, functions, and eventual dissolution within class-based societies framework. Marxists view the state not as a natural entity but as a product of societal transformations, serving the interests of the ruling class. Engels, in particular, highlighted the state's role in protecting the interests of property owners and regulating society. Marxist theory distinguishes between two models of state: the Instrumentalist Model, viewing the state as a tool for class oppression, and the Relative Autonomy Model, acknowledging the state's partial autonomy from direct class control. In contrast to the Hegelian and liberal perspectives, which view the state as a necessary institution, Marxism envisions a classless, exploitation-free society devoid of a traditional state apparatus. Keywords: Marx, Engles, state, class, relative autonomy, instrumentalism. Introduction The Marxist theory, with key figures like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Lenin, later has emerged by with the thoughts of Gramsci, Althusser, Miliband, and Laclau among prominent Western Marxists (McLellan, 2007). In contrast to liberal thinkers, Marxist critically examines the state with a fundamentally negative perspective. Understanding the Marxist sociological philosophy is essential for a thorough analysis of the Marxist perspective of the state. First and foremost, it needs to be said that in Marxist ideology, it is believed that the state is not a natural institution but rather emerges at a specific stage of societal transformation with particular objectives for the establishment of a political institution called the state. Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto (1848) that the modern state's executive functions as a committee to oversee the collective interests of the bourgeoisie, representing the ruling capitalist Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, India. 2 MA in Political Science, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, India. Corresponding author: Kunal Debnath, PhD (debnathkunal@ymail.com). 1 Published in SSRN: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4711122 January 2024 Debnath and Saha 2 class. By the time, in The German Ideology (1846), Marx perceived the state as a product serving the interests of the bourgeoise. This notion was further elaborated two years later in The Communist Manifesto. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie's dominance in the economy translates into control over the state. In this perspective, the state functions as a tool for class domination or exploitation. For instance, laws regulating working hours aimed to curb the excessive exploitation of labour and were influenced by the escalation of working-class movements posing a threat to capitalist interests (Marx, 1867). Origin and nature of the state From the above discussion, it is inferred that the state does not naturally emerge as an institution. Through the lens of dialectical materialism, Marx and Engels analysed the changes in social history, which are recognised as a materialist interpretation of history. It is noteworthy, the term historical materialism, coined by Plekhanov, refers to the social theory of Marxism, emphasizing the role of economic factors and material conditions in shaping historical development (Bottomore, 1991; Oittinen, 2014). Plekhanov, regarded as the father of Russian Marxism, introduced this concept to understand the significance of material forces in driving societal changes within the Marxist framework (Oittinen, 2014). The development of productive forces in the future, coupled with the emergence of class-based relation of production, leads to the birth of private property. Two classes arise from this – the owners of private property and the proletariat. When the conflict between these two classes intensifies, the class that centralises power becomes the state. The state is the product of antagonistic class relations. It holds coercive measures such as police, judiciary, military, etc. In his book Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884), Engels analysed how the emergence of personal property led to the creation of the state as a product of society. According to Engels, the primary functions of the state created by such individuals are to protect the interests of the property-owning class or the class controlling the means of production, and to collect taxes from the members of society. Despite emerging from within society, Engels believed that the state soon acquires dominant power and becomes the regulator of society. Engels' work delves into early human history, tracing the shift from primitive communal living to a class-based society centred around private property. He explores the origins and nature of the state, predicting its eventual dissolution, leading to a classless society. Engels also offers a structured social analysis of the emergence of women's oppression, including the advent of private property, and the establishment of the state. He draws heavily from the research of predecessors like Johann Jakob Bachofen, John Ferguson McLennan, and Lewis Henry Morgan, whose works on mother right, primitive marriage, and ancient society inspired Engels' narratives. Debnath and Saha 3 Two models in the Marxist perspective of state The Marxist theory of state has evolved into two major models: the Relative Autonomy Model and the Instrumentalist Model. Most of the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and subsequent Western Marxist theorists advocate the instrumentalist theory of the state, which posits that the state primarily serves as a tool for the oppression of the ruled class by the ruling class. In other words, the state is organised to maintain control over the labour and the masses by the owners of property or the bourgeoisie. Thus, the state is structured to serve the interests of the ruling elite in feudal societies, the lords, and in capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie, safeguarding their interests. In later writings, such as The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852) and Civil War in France (1871), Marx discussed the relative autonomy of the state. He argued that the state enjoys a certain degree of relative autonomy, not being merely a tool of the ruling class's internal interests. Instead, the state, including its administration, sometimes operates independently to some extent, becoming its own controller rather than solely serving the ruling class. This is the theory of the state's relative autonomy. In the period following Karl Marx's death, Gramsci, Althusser, and particularly Poulantzas popularised the theory of the relative autonomy of the state. The concept of the “relative autonomy of the state” emerged as a response to the reductionist view of the state as merely an instrument of class domination. This concept acknowledges that the state possesses some level of independence from direct class control and economic determinants. Two influential books that contributed to this newer understanding of politics and the state are The State in Capitalist Society (1969) by Ralph Miliband and Political Power and Social Classes (1968) by Nicos Poulantzas. Miliband argued that in capitalist societies, it is essential to differentiate between the ruling class of civil society and the governing class entrenched within state institutions. He recognised a genuine gap between the state and society, albeit one that often closes due to the social and economic ties between state personnel and the capitalist class. Poulantzas, on the other hand, focused on structuralist interpretations of the state. He emphasised objective structural relations linking the state to class struggle. Poulantzas suggested that the relative autonomy of the state in capitalist modes of production stemmed from a spatial separation between the legalpolitical sphere and the economic sphere. Moreover, he argued that in specific historical contexts, the state could exhibit autonomy from the power bloc representing the capitalist class. This autonomy allowed the state to provide guarantees to certain subordinate classes, even if they contradicted the short-term economic interests of the dominant classes, while aligning with their political interests and hegemonic control. Poulantzas also noted that the state could maintain a facade of neutrality among powerful groups vying for power (Albo & Jenson, 1990). Debnath and Saha 4 Theory of withering away of state According to Marxist theory, since the state is solely controlled by the bourgeoisie for their own interests, the longer the state exists, the less likely society will achieve equality. State being the guardian of personal property, obstructs classless, exploitation-free socialism. Marxist argue that proletariat must seize control of the state through revolution, establishing the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and communist society. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, personal property will be abolished, and class divisions will cease to exist. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels do not explicitly mention the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” or the complete elimination of state power. Instead, they advocate for the “political rule of the proletariat,” encouraging workers to seize control of the state, dismantling the privileges of the existing class, and lay the groundwork for the state's eventual dissolution (Draper, 1977). The emphasis is on the transformative role of the working class in shaping a society that leads to the “withering away of the state.” Marxists argue that since the emergence of the state is primarily to protect personal property, the abolition of personal property will render the state unnecessary. Consequently, the state will gradually wither away, and communism will be established. Engels in his book Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880) arrives at the conclusion that the state's involvement in social dynamics gradually becomes unnecessary in various spheres, eventually leading to its natural decline. The government of persons is substituted by the administration of things and the management of production. The state is not abolished but rather withers away over time. Conclusion In the history of political theory, the Marxist perspective on the state presents a distinct doctrine. Despite unwillingness, both idealists and liberals acknowledge the importance of the state. Hegel contended that the state, formed through moral actions and individual freedom, embodied the unity of rational will. He believed it represented the pinnacle of moral behaviour, emphasising how individual liberty fosters the well-being of society as a whole. According to the liberal thinker John Stuart Mill, the state is “evil” but “necessary”. In Marxist theory, the state is seen as a political organisation of the bourgeois. Therefore, according to Marxist theory, the existence of the state is necessary for the ruling class. Similarly, withering away of the state is essential for a classless, exploitation-free, and stateless socialist society. Hence, a state in the sense of a communist state does not exist; what exists is a communist society. Debnath and Saha 5 References Albo, G., & Jenson, J. (1990). A Contested Concept: the Relative Autonomy of the State. In W. Clement, & G. Williams (Eds.), The New Canadian Political Economy (pp. 180-211). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Bottomore, T. (ed.). (1991). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. 2nd revised ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Draper, H. (1977). Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution: State and Bureaucracy. New York: Monthly Review Press. Marx, K. (1967/1867). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1): The Process of Capitalist Production. Trans. S. Moore and E. Aveling. New York: International Publishers. McLellan, D. (2007). Marxism After Marx. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Oittinen, V. (2014). Historical Materialism. In M.T. Gibbons (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Political Thought. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0470