Contents

The Marxist theory Of State.................................................................1

Introduction......................................................................................1

Research Questions...........................................................................2

1. How did Marx view the state?................................................2

2. Is the state, a necessity irrespective of the class division

model?...............................................................................................5

Conclusion........................................................................................7

Bibliography.....................................................................................8
 The Marxist theory Of State
Introduction
According to Schmitter, “The modern state is an amorphous complex of agencies with ill-
defined boundaries performing a variety of not very distinctive functions.” 1 The state is an
institution that might seem a bit reclusive when viewed from an individual perspective. But
when looked at collectively, the state's influence on an average citizen's schedule is entirely
apparent.

This paper tries to discuss the theory of the state from a Marxist viewpoint. The Marxist
theory imagines the state in various contexts, each of them providing a way through which
one can define and theorise a state. It is like watching the world through different coloured
glasses, each providing a different view. While looking at the world through a single glass
would only lead to a narrow interpretation which is not the intention of this particular paper.
The primary predicament with Marxist writings, in general, is that although the ideas are
fleshed out beautifully, the execution of the said ideas in writing is, unfortunately, haphazard.
(Colin Hays) This paper, in particular, shall carry a specific flow so as to make things easier
for the reader.

We will first attempt to introduce the idea of the ‘state’; then, we shall discuss the class
divisions as envisioned by Karl Marx himself. Soon, we will briefly touch on the influence
Hegelism had on Marx. We shall then move to various contexts discussed earlier and attempt
to answer the research questions at hand.

Research Questions
1. How did Marx view the state?
2. Is the state, a necessity irrespective of the class division model?

1. How did Marx view the state?

To present a paper on the Marxist Theory of State, we first have to define a term often
considered unnecessarily convoluted. The term ‘state’ might seem pretty simplistic at an
initial glance, but the definition of this term changes depending on the interpretations. As
Hays puts it, “ There is no more arduous task in the theory of the state than defining this

1
Schmitter, Philippe C. (1985): "Neo-corporatism and the State." The political economy of
corporatism 32, ,Macmillan p 33
notoriously illusive moving target.”2 The state is an institution that carries a sense of
influence against its subjects. The most prominent conceptualisers of the state were Karl
Marx, Max Weber, and Friedrich Engel. All were primarily German-born political thinkers,
thus, influenced by a culture of state control, capitalism, and coercion, a commonality in the
Prussian traditions of that time.3 The Marxists had a very convoluted view of the state, but in
a general sense the Marxists view the state as a “machine for the oppression of one class by
another.”4

 Social division, according to Marx.

According to Marx, human society can be divided into certain stages of development,
presumed from the means of production of that particular time. The history of a society can
be divided into the following stages.

1. The Tribal form.

2. Primitive Communism.
3. Feudal states.
4. Capitalism.

Marx says that during the times of Primitive communism, small tribes started to develop into
cities through agreements or through conquests.5 The concept of private property soon starts
to develop. “With the development of the private property, we find here for the first time the
same conditions which we shall find again, only on a more extensive scale, with modern
private property. On the one hand, the concentration of private property, on the other hand,
coupled with this, the transformation of the plebian small peasantry into a proletariat.”6
Soon, after the English and French Revolutions of 1640 and 1789, the society moved towards
an industrial age wherein the intention was to acquire unsurmountable profits. This is the
capitalist society that Marx critiqued while in exile from Germany. The means of production
were owned by a few while the Proletariats were fooled into believing their labour was

2
Hay, Colin. Re-stating social and political change. Open University Press, 1996 p 2
3
Solo, Robert. “The Neo-Marxist Theory of the State.” Journal of Economic Issues 12, no. 4 (1978): 829–42.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4224747 (last visited 6th October, 2022)
4

5
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 2001. The German Ideology Part One, with Selections from Parts Two and
Three, and Marx's "Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy." New York: International Publishers,
6
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 2001. The German Ideology Part One, with Selections from Parts Two and
Three, together with Marx's "Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy." New York: International
Publishers,
worth something as they were getting paid for it. The reality was that their labour was bought
and sold like a market commodity which unfortunately was detrimental for the Proletariat
and was benefitting the few who took hold of the commodities of the capitalistic world, i.e.
Bourgeoisie.7 A precise observation on the matter makes us realise that Marx had divided the
social order into the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Bourgeoisie is the elite class owning
the means of production of the free world while the Proletariat is the working class,
functioning under the domination of the Bourgeoisie, who paid them meagre wages for
sustenance. The state arose in the midst of class struggles. According to Engel, the state
wasn’t always a necessity and that the state only came into being in the period of economical
development, which involved “the cleavage of society into classes.”8

 Materialism and Hagel’s influence on Marx

It is rather ironic that both Marx and Engel in their initial years were followers of the society
called the Young Hegelians. Friedrich Engel soon met the proletariats in France and this was
a turning point wherein both Marx and Engel started to sway away from the Hegelian
influence that they initially had.

According to Hagel “the state is the march of God on earth”, and the state is the divine
incarnation of order and morality. He thought that whenever an individual follows the state,
they are essentially following the will of God and the divine. This is an idealistic view that
Marx critiqued. Marx was a believer in materialism and said that philosophy cannot answer
the questions that philosophy has brought up in the first place. 9 Thus, the answers to
philosophical questions are to be found in the world of practicality. 10 In Hegel’s work of
mystical idealism and the distinction between the universal and the particular and the state
and civil society, the resolution is found in the state. This is seen as a pure mystification by
Marx.11 Marx believed that the state can never function in universal interest but would work
7
Felluga, Dino. "Modules on Marx: On the Stages of Economic Development." Introductory Guide to Critical
Theory. Purdue University. <http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/marxism/modules/marxstages.html>. last
visited 13th October,2022
8
ROHIO, SAMUEL W. “THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM FROM UTOPIANISM TO SCIENCE.”
Journal of Eastern African Research & Development 5, no. 2 (1975): 101–17.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43663911. Last visited 7th October, 2022
9
Smith, Cyril. “ Marx critique of Hagel”. Hegel seminar June 18th, 1999
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/smith5.htm last visited 9th October, 2022
10
Smith, Cyril. “ Marx critique of Hagel”. Hegel seminar June 18th, 1999
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/smith5.htm last visited 9th October, 2022
11
Marx. K. (1843a ll~n5J). 1975.'Critique of Hegel's Doctrine of the State', in L. Colletti (ed.). Karl Marx: Early
Writings (London: Pelican)
for the discourse of property rights. The state would inevitably perpetuate distinction amongst
societies based on property and materialistic markers. According to Marx, true democracy
was the only way of balancing the universal and the particular.12

Schlomo Avineri, an Israeli political scientist believed that this concept of true democracy is
what soon became the concept of what came to be known as “communism”. 13 The shift from
idealism to materialism is what changed the conception against the divine rights of the state
prevalent amongst the Hegelians. Marx was against the concept of private property.

 The Instrumentalist Theory of the State

The Communist Manifesto, which is quite possibly the most prominent document written by
Marx talks about the state. Marx defines the state in the Manifesto as “a committee for
managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” 14 and then in German ideology as
“the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests”.15
This presents us with the widely acknowledged instrumentalist theory of the state. This
theory presents the idea that the ‘state’ is in actuality an instrument used by the Bourgeoisie
to control the Proletariat. Ralph Miliband propounded on this idea and presented the
instrumentalist theory as a whole, based on the ideals of Marx. The extent to which members
of the capitalist class have interlocking positions in the political, administrative, coercive, and
other apparatuses of the state is one of the most obvious signs of ruling-class dominance over
the state. According to Miliband, "These institutions are where ‘state power' resides, and it is
through them that this power is wielded by the people who occupy the main positions in each
of these institutions in its various expressions."16 Miliband was conscious that, despite his
debt to Marx's writings, Marx "never attempted a comprehensive study of the state"17
equivalent to the one he carried out and left behind instead a body of uncoordinated,
incomplete, and occasionally conflicting political writings. Before Miliband, Paul Sweeny
had also touched upon this theory writing that the state is “an instrument in the hands of the

12
Marx. K. (1843a ll~n5J). 1975 'Critique of Hegel's Doctrine of the State', in L. Colletti (ed.). Karl Marx: Early
Writings (London: Pelican) p 88
13
Avineri, Schlomo, (1968). The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
14
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2015 The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Books
15
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 2001, The German Ideology Part One, with Selections from Parts Two and
Three, and Marx's "Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy." New York: International Publishers.
16
Miliband, Ralph. 1969 “The State System and the State Elite”. “The state in Capitalist society” . Basic Books
p 54
17
Miliband, Ralph. 1969 “The State System and the State Elite”. “The state in Capitalist society” . Basic Books
p5
ruling class for enforcing and guaranteeing the stability of the class structure itself.”18 The
members of the Bourgeoisie ensure that they remain the holders of resources and power while
dominating the workers (Proletariat) even though they are the majority.

2. Is the state, a necessity irrespective of the class division model?

There was a general deviation amongst the Marxists when questioned on the necessity of the
‘state’. Engel although believing in the oppressive aspect of the state held that the state was
necessary for keeping the “class antagonism in check”19 and insisted that it is needed to keep
an “order” in conflicts. Vladimir Lenin held a different view altogether believing that the
state only modernizes class struggles to legalise and legitimize the oppression of one class on
another.20 Both Marx and Engel believed that, quite particularly in a capitalistic society there
comes a time when the productive forces of the society come into clash with the established
forces. Slowly, two camps start to develop which leads to a conflict between both the camps.
This leads to a fundamental shift in society, Marx called it the “Proletariat Revolution.” The
revolution doesn’t occur unless the old world is brought to its “final fulfilment.” 21 This
essentially means that the old system of the settled Bourgeoisie is dismantled with the
proletariat taking its place. A predicament thus rises, the new government that shall be
formed

Marx held in the Paris commune of his celebrated work called “The Civil War in France.”
“while the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its
legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over
society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society.”22

 Lenin and The 24-Hour Window

Vladimir Lenin as stated had always believed in the oppressive function of the state, Lenin
believed that a systematized resistance was not a necessity to transition into a socialist state.
18
Sweezy, Paul.1942, The Theory of Capitalist Development: Principles of Marxian Political Economy. New
York: Monthly Review.
19
Engel, Friedrich. 1942 The Origin of family, private property and state, New York International p 156
20
Lenin. 1932, State and Revolution, New York International
21
Marx, Karl Introduction to "Critique of Political Economy," in Capital and Other Writings, (New York:
Modern Library, 1932), p. 11.
22
Marx, Karl.1939 The Civil War in France Ch 3, International p 25
But, all that was needed was an “armed resistance”.23 Lenin believed that the newly formed
state should, as he writes
“be replaced-immediately, within twenty-four hours-by the simple functions of "managers"
and bookkeepers, functions which are now already within the capacity of the average city
dweller and can well be performed for "workingmen's wages." 24

Therefore we observe that the old state as we knew it starts to “wither away.” 25 The newly
formed state can never go back to it’s authoritative past. Lenin writes that the withering of the
state in 24 hours through “armed” means is entirely possible , intending to remove the
“bourgeoisie and the capitalists”26. He says that once the populace have grown accustomed to
this new form of life. That is when the full phase of communism is to be initiated with the
complete “withering of the state”.27 Karl Marx introduced the concepts of a lower and a
higher, phase of communist society.28 As time passed, the first phase came to be known as
socialism, and the second, communism. We must remember that the name "communism" also
applied to the first period in which the means of production were made public. Whatever the
terminology, the development of the new society moved from one phase to another in an
evolutionary fashion, without a qualitative jump, after the "qualitative leap" from one term to
another. envisioned a slow decline of the state and the gradual evolution of Communism.

Conclusion

The scope of the Marxist theory of the state is something which shall remain unfathomable
while new thinkers continue to ponder over it. The Marxist State is primarily for the
betterment of the workers and it imagines a state based on the ideas of equal opportunities.
Where the elite do not oppress the minority while owning the means of production. The State
theory also supports the acquisitions of the means of production for the newly formed
government (which we normally refer to as Public control.) It seems that the withering of the
old state is inevitable in the process. Although it seems that the practical exectution of a

23
Lenin. 1932, State and Revolution, New York International, p 75
24
Lenin. 1932, State and Revolution, New York International, p 83
25
Lenin. 1932, State and Revolution, New York International, p 84
26
Lenin. 1932, State and Revolution, New York International, p 83
27
Lenin. 1932, State and Revolution, New York International, p 85
28
Marx, Karl, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1970, Marx/Engels Selected Works, Volume Three Progress
Publishers, Moscow
Marxist state shall always remain flawed. Marx was a socialist and a revolutionary, but above
all, he was a humanist who supported true human emancipation and independence. He filed a
complaint against all forms of dominance. Karl Marx intended to give a coherent argument
on the institution of state, but due to his passing, he was unable to do so.

Bibliography

Online Websites

1. Jstor.com
2. Marxist.org
3. Purdue University.
4. Springer.

Books
1. The German Ideology ,by Marx and Engel.
2. Re-stating social and political change, by Colin Hay.
3. The political economy of corporatism , by Phillipe Schmitter.
4. Critique of the Philosophy of the Right, by Karl Marx.
5. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, by Scholomo Avineri.
6. The Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engel.
7. The state in Capitalist society, by Ralph Miliband.
8. The Origin of family, private property and state, by Friedrich Engels.
9. State and Revolution by V.I Lenin.
10. The Civil War in France, by Karl Marx.
11. Marxism and Social Science, edited by Gamble, Marx and Tant.

Journals
1. Journal of Economic Issues.
2. Journal of Eastern African Research & Development.
3. The American Slavic and East European review.
Monthly Reviews
1. The New York Monthly Review.

STYLE OF CITATION = Chicago.

NUMBER OF WORDS = 2517 approx.