Socialist Dave
8th October 2010, 15:43
The Marxist view of the state is one that is virtually unique in political ideologies. Briefly, Marx views the state as a tool of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, used to legally legitimise the exploitation of the proletariat, the working class. In this essay, I intend to describe in detail Marx’s view of the state, analyse criticisms from the other major political ideologies, and conclude that Marx is correct in his evaluation of the capitalist state.
To understand Marx’s definition of the state, I think that it is necessary to understand where Marx derives his definition from; what led him to make the conclusion on the state which he did. Firstly, Marx begins with his analysis of history (known philosophically as dialectical materialism). :-
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, p3)
Marx contends that throughout the history of society, the economical systems in place were defined by the many classes and subsequent class struggles that existed in those systems. For example, “in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild masters, journeymen, serfs” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, p3). Marx asserts that these past economical systems were built upon each class exploiting their subordinate class, with the obvious exception of the bottom group. Economic development was built on the conflict between these classes, which would in turn lead to revolution and/or political upheaval, leading to new economical systems and thus the formation of new social classes. According to Marx this pattern of history has been constant, leading to the birth of capitalism, and with it the two modern classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie are the wealthy minority that own capital, such as land or industry etc. The proletariat are the impoverished (at the very least in comparison to the bourgeoisie) majority that own no capital, and as such are forced to sell their labour, at an exploitative pre-determined price that is less than its actual worth, in order to survive. During the time Marx was writing, although to a far reduced extent today, this made social mobility virtually non-existent. :-
“For the proletarians, on the other hand, the condition of their existence, labour, and with it all the conditions of existence governing modern society, have become something over which they, as separate individuals have no control, and over which no social organisation can give them control. The contradiction between the individuality of each separate proletarian and labour, the condition of life forced upon him becomes evident to himself, for he is sacrificed from youth upwards and, within his own class, has no chance of arriving at the conditions which would place him in the other class.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The German Ideology, 1846, p85)
It is from here Marx is able to give his account of the State in modern capitalist society. Marx argues that the State in capitalism has been inherited into the hands of the bourgeoisie from the old, redundant ruling class of the past, prime examples being the French revolution, in which power was forcibly taken from aristocracy by the bourgeoisie, or Cromwell’s glorious revolution in which ultimately resulted in much of the aristocracy being transformed into bourgeoisie. It is by this reckoning that Marx can conclude that the State is not a neutral party in the class struggle, but in fact a bourgeoisie organisation, actively fighting against the proletariat. :-
“In reality, so the Marxist argument has always been, the state is an essential means of class domination. It is not a neutral referee, arbitrating between competing interests: it is inevitably a deeply engaged partisan. It is not ‘above’ class struggles but right in them. Its intervention in the affairs of society is crucial, constant and persuasive; and that intervention is closely conditioned by the most fundamental of the states characteristics, namely that it is a means of class domination- ultimately the most important by far of any such means.” (Ralph Miliband, Marxism and Politics, 1977, p66-67)
It is from this definition that Marx is able to give his opinion on what the role of the proletariat is in relation to the State. Marx rejects what he calls ‘bourgeois democratic’ means in order for the proletariat to gain power; he sees it as a pointless exercise. The State and its laws are biased against the proletariat; it serves only as a weapon to be used against them by the bourgeoisie. Marx concludes that the only viable option the proletariat has against the State is to other throw it through revolution. :-
“…the proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, will have to abolish the very condition of their existence hitherto…Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must other throw the State.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The German Ideology, 1846, p85)
There are, however, many criticisms of Marx’s definition of the State, from many different political ideologies. One such example of this is the critique that comes from Socialists/Social Democrats. Although Marxists and Socialists hold very similar views in relation to the Marx’s analysis of history, class, and society, they hold different opinions on the nature of the State and on the question of revolution. While, as mentioned, Marx regards the State as a powerful weapon used by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat and calls for its overthrow, Socialists are much more moderate in their attitude towards the State. Socialists believe that there is no credible reason why a political party representing working class people, such as the Labour Party in the UK, cannot participate in a fair democracy, forming a government that would further the interests of ordinary working class people, namely by promoting values such as economic equality, universal education, and universal healthcare. :-
“Socialism, it was argued, is concerned with reforms, not revolution: it must develop through parliamentary democracy, not through workers councils or soviets. It must express itself through electoral victory, not a seizure of power: nor should socialists tie themselves to the leadership of the working class. Socialism involves the whole nation- not simply a part of it- and socialism must be realistic, attained through piecemeal reforms and in a manner that works with, and respects, the liberal tradition.” (John Hoffman and Paul Graham, Introduction to Political Ideologies, 2006, p76)
Another, fairly similar to the Socialist criticism of Marx’s account of the nature of the capitalist State comes from the Liberals. Liberalism is ideologically similar to Socialism/Social Democracy in that it also favours the system of a fair democracy, however it does so for different reasons than the Socialists. Unlike Socialism, and Marxism, Liberalism does not value economic equality as the main objective of the society, but freedom of the individual, including the freedom to economically better oneself. In this respect, Liberalism is not anti capitalist, but favours a meritocracy, and because of this the Liberal sees it as essential that there is maximum opportunity for social mobility. Therefore, for the Liberal it is a must that the State is neutral, whilst simultaneously protecting the lower end of society, to allow the opportunity for social mobility. :-
“For each of them it is the right to be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, choose a profession and practise it, to dispose of property, and even abuse it; to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings… Finally it is everyone’s right to exercise some influence on the administration of government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed.” (Benjamin Constant, The Liberty of The Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, p310-11)
A different, but arguably more vitriolic critique of Marx comes from the Conservative political tradition. The Conservative political movement takes the view that established institutions of the nation-state, such as the language, religion, and economical system are what defines society as whole. Therefore the State cannot be neutral, and its objective must be maintain these institutions, and promote patriotism, in order to preserve national identity. Hence, it follows that if the State’s role is to maintain, this will include social position. Conservatives view the nation-state as one large organisation, with each person playing their own individual role. In this respect, Conservatives oppose the economic equality demanded by Marxism. :-
“To avoid therefore the evils of inconstancy and versatility…we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion; that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude.” (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolutions in France, 1790, p192)
In conclusion, all the definitions presented are rational arguments; they all make valid points about the role of the State in a capitalist society. However, as stated in the introduction, I do believe that Marx’s definition is most compelling. It seems obvious to me that in a capitalist society it is inevitable that there will be massive gulf between the richest and the poorest, and as stated earlier, the richest will always be the minority. Therefore, it is my opinion that the capitalist system is unfair a priori. There have been Socialist/Social Democratic governments in capitalist societies many times in the past, and there are Socialist/Social Democratic parties in power today. Yet while some of these parties have made progress towards economic equality, none have completely succeeded. Therefore, I agree with Marx; that the State as it exists in capitalism is inherently anti-proletariat, and impossible to completely and successfully reform to be run in favour of the majority in society; the only possible solution to gain total economic equality, in my eyes, is the end of capitalism, and with it the capitalist state.
Bibliography
1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, Oxford University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-19-283437-1
2. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The German Ideology, 1846, Lawrence and Wishart Limited, 1999
3. Ralph Miliband, Marxism and Politics, Oxford University Press,1977 ISBN 0-19-876059-0
4. John Hoffman and Paul Graham, Introduction to Political Ideologies, Pearson Education Limited, 2006, ISBN 978-1-4058-2439-2
5. Benjamin Constant, The Liberty of The Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Political Ideologies, Matthew Festenstein and Michael Kenny, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-924837-7
6. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolutions in France, 1790, Political Ideologies, Matthew Festenstein and Michael Kenny, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-924837-7
To understand Marx’s definition of the state, I think that it is necessary to understand where Marx derives his definition from; what led him to make the conclusion on the state which he did. Firstly, Marx begins with his analysis of history (known philosophically as dialectical materialism). :-
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, p3)
Marx contends that throughout the history of society, the economical systems in place were defined by the many classes and subsequent class struggles that existed in those systems. For example, “in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild masters, journeymen, serfs” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, p3). Marx asserts that these past economical systems were built upon each class exploiting their subordinate class, with the obvious exception of the bottom group. Economic development was built on the conflict between these classes, which would in turn lead to revolution and/or political upheaval, leading to new economical systems and thus the formation of new social classes. According to Marx this pattern of history has been constant, leading to the birth of capitalism, and with it the two modern classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie are the wealthy minority that own capital, such as land or industry etc. The proletariat are the impoverished (at the very least in comparison to the bourgeoisie) majority that own no capital, and as such are forced to sell their labour, at an exploitative pre-determined price that is less than its actual worth, in order to survive. During the time Marx was writing, although to a far reduced extent today, this made social mobility virtually non-existent. :-
“For the proletarians, on the other hand, the condition of their existence, labour, and with it all the conditions of existence governing modern society, have become something over which they, as separate individuals have no control, and over which no social organisation can give them control. The contradiction between the individuality of each separate proletarian and labour, the condition of life forced upon him becomes evident to himself, for he is sacrificed from youth upwards and, within his own class, has no chance of arriving at the conditions which would place him in the other class.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The German Ideology, 1846, p85)
It is from here Marx is able to give his account of the State in modern capitalist society. Marx argues that the State in capitalism has been inherited into the hands of the bourgeoisie from the old, redundant ruling class of the past, prime examples being the French revolution, in which power was forcibly taken from aristocracy by the bourgeoisie, or Cromwell’s glorious revolution in which ultimately resulted in much of the aristocracy being transformed into bourgeoisie. It is by this reckoning that Marx can conclude that the State is not a neutral party in the class struggle, but in fact a bourgeoisie organisation, actively fighting against the proletariat. :-
“In reality, so the Marxist argument has always been, the state is an essential means of class domination. It is not a neutral referee, arbitrating between competing interests: it is inevitably a deeply engaged partisan. It is not ‘above’ class struggles but right in them. Its intervention in the affairs of society is crucial, constant and persuasive; and that intervention is closely conditioned by the most fundamental of the states characteristics, namely that it is a means of class domination- ultimately the most important by far of any such means.” (Ralph Miliband, Marxism and Politics, 1977, p66-67)
It is from this definition that Marx is able to give his opinion on what the role of the proletariat is in relation to the State. Marx rejects what he calls ‘bourgeois democratic’ means in order for the proletariat to gain power; he sees it as a pointless exercise. The State and its laws are biased against the proletariat; it serves only as a weapon to be used against them by the bourgeoisie. Marx concludes that the only viable option the proletariat has against the State is to other throw it through revolution. :-
“…the proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, will have to abolish the very condition of their existence hitherto…Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which, hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the State. In order, therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must other throw the State.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The German Ideology, 1846, p85)
There are, however, many criticisms of Marx’s definition of the State, from many different political ideologies. One such example of this is the critique that comes from Socialists/Social Democrats. Although Marxists and Socialists hold very similar views in relation to the Marx’s analysis of history, class, and society, they hold different opinions on the nature of the State and on the question of revolution. While, as mentioned, Marx regards the State as a powerful weapon used by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat and calls for its overthrow, Socialists are much more moderate in their attitude towards the State. Socialists believe that there is no credible reason why a political party representing working class people, such as the Labour Party in the UK, cannot participate in a fair democracy, forming a government that would further the interests of ordinary working class people, namely by promoting values such as economic equality, universal education, and universal healthcare. :-
“Socialism, it was argued, is concerned with reforms, not revolution: it must develop through parliamentary democracy, not through workers councils or soviets. It must express itself through electoral victory, not a seizure of power: nor should socialists tie themselves to the leadership of the working class. Socialism involves the whole nation- not simply a part of it- and socialism must be realistic, attained through piecemeal reforms and in a manner that works with, and respects, the liberal tradition.” (John Hoffman and Paul Graham, Introduction to Political Ideologies, 2006, p76)
Another, fairly similar to the Socialist criticism of Marx’s account of the nature of the capitalist State comes from the Liberals. Liberalism is ideologically similar to Socialism/Social Democracy in that it also favours the system of a fair democracy, however it does so for different reasons than the Socialists. Unlike Socialism, and Marxism, Liberalism does not value economic equality as the main objective of the society, but freedom of the individual, including the freedom to economically better oneself. In this respect, Liberalism is not anti capitalist, but favours a meritocracy, and because of this the Liberal sees it as essential that there is maximum opportunity for social mobility. Therefore, for the Liberal it is a must that the State is neutral, whilst simultaneously protecting the lower end of society, to allow the opportunity for social mobility. :-
“For each of them it is the right to be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, choose a profession and practise it, to dispose of property, and even abuse it; to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings… Finally it is everyone’s right to exercise some influence on the administration of government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed.” (Benjamin Constant, The Liberty of The Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, p310-11)
A different, but arguably more vitriolic critique of Marx comes from the Conservative political tradition. The Conservative political movement takes the view that established institutions of the nation-state, such as the language, religion, and economical system are what defines society as whole. Therefore the State cannot be neutral, and its objective must be maintain these institutions, and promote patriotism, in order to preserve national identity. Hence, it follows that if the State’s role is to maintain, this will include social position. Conservatives view the nation-state as one large organisation, with each person playing their own individual role. In this respect, Conservatives oppose the economic equality demanded by Marxism. :-
“To avoid therefore the evils of inconstancy and versatility…we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion; that he should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude.” (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolutions in France, 1790, p192)
In conclusion, all the definitions presented are rational arguments; they all make valid points about the role of the State in a capitalist society. However, as stated in the introduction, I do believe that Marx’s definition is most compelling. It seems obvious to me that in a capitalist society it is inevitable that there will be massive gulf between the richest and the poorest, and as stated earlier, the richest will always be the minority. Therefore, it is my opinion that the capitalist system is unfair a priori. There have been Socialist/Social Democratic governments in capitalist societies many times in the past, and there are Socialist/Social Democratic parties in power today. Yet while some of these parties have made progress towards economic equality, none have completely succeeded. Therefore, I agree with Marx; that the State as it exists in capitalism is inherently anti-proletariat, and impossible to completely and successfully reform to be run in favour of the majority in society; the only possible solution to gain total economic equality, in my eyes, is the end of capitalism, and with it the capitalist state.
Bibliography
1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The Communist Manifesto, 1848, Oxford University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-19-283437-1
2. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, The German Ideology, 1846, Lawrence and Wishart Limited, 1999
3. Ralph Miliband, Marxism and Politics, Oxford University Press,1977 ISBN 0-19-876059-0
4. John Hoffman and Paul Graham, Introduction to Political Ideologies, Pearson Education Limited, 2006, ISBN 978-1-4058-2439-2
5. Benjamin Constant, The Liberty of The Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Political Ideologies, Matthew Festenstein and Michael Kenny, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-924837-7
6. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolutions in France, 1790, Political Ideologies, Matthew Festenstein and Michael Kenny, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-924837-7