Theories of State in Marx

[Guardia Rossa]

I have been studying the Theories of State in school and on my own (I just read something interesting from a Morenist [Academicist] Marxist in PSTU about Weber's theory of State) and in the schoolbook it says that Marx had some quite different theories along his life.

So, the book said they were:

- The anarchist theory that said the State was an abstract entity in contradiction with society
- The Modern State is the political-juridical expression (sic) of the bourgeois society
- " The Modern State is nothing but a comitee that manages the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"
- The State impedes the class antagonism and is therefore a tool of the dominant class, but can act as mediator in some situations of class struggle
- The State is an entity independent from the bourgeoisie and puts itself above society, but acts to guarantee the basic conditions for the development of the bourgeois society
- The book claims that after 1871 Marx comes back to an anarchist analysis

Thing is, I don't see how this theories contradict with eachother (Apart from bourgeois state vs autonomous state) as I would argue they only show the various "faces" or "parts" of the State. Is this correct?

Second question, which are the theories of State in Lenin and in today's Marxism?

Thank you for your time.

[Guardia Rossa]

Bumping this to keep this up, it's important for me, I'm not willing to let this die down.

Write down your ideas on this, any theory of State, it's just a matter that I don't understand completely and yet is fundamental to any theory

[Tim Cornelis]

Someone's asked a very similar question here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/analysis-collapse-real-t194841/index.html?t=194841

I don't see it as necessarily contradicting either, the non-anarchist theories. They maybe worded in ways that they don't exactly line up nicely, but this can well be chalked up to conveying a message somewhat sub-optimally, rather than a theoretical drift or something.

"he State is an entity independent from the bourgeoisie and puts itself above society, but acts to guarantee the basic conditions for the development of the bourgeois society"

This is in my view pretty much correct, if we define 'independent' as sort of reciprocally independent. The state is structurally constrained to facilitate the reproduction and expansion of capital, or to guarantee the basic conditions for the development of bourgeois society. Part of this is providing a legal framework in which this can occur, and provide political accommodation for the development of capital and capitalism (making the Modern State the political-juridical expression of the bourgeois society). It also means guarding social peace, warding off class struggle. But this expression is not simply the bourgeoisie being gathered in an assembly deciding on what suits their material self-interests best. Nevertheless, this makes "the Modern State is nothing but a committee that manages the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" as they are ultimately served by this.

[Guardia Rossa]

He made that thread after he thanked my post.

[Hit The North]

The state is only independent from the bourgeoisie if you think it is staffed by non-bourgeois functionaries. And whilst this is true at the office and street level, the commanding heights of the state, of the executive, of the judiciary, of the military, of the police, is staffed by individuals drawn from the bourgeois class, or those who have been co-opted into the bourgeoisie.

....

[Alet]

He made that thread after he thanked my post.

I thought my question was too different because I'm explicitly asking for writings concerning the collapse of "real socialism", so I decided to post a new thread.

The way I see it, there are no real contradictions, except that I don't understand what is meant by "anarchist theory" or "abstract entity". As for the independence, I would say that the government is relatively independent from the bourgeoisie insofar as it has (or can have) own interests but on the other hand the bourgeois state is unable to operate without the objective of accumulation of capital. Thus, it has to reproduce capitalism and class society. As Engels puts it in his letter to Danielson 1892: "All governments, be they ever so absolute seien sie noch so unabhängig which actually means "be they ever so independent"], are en dernier lieu [in the final analysis] but the executors of the economic necessities of the national situation. They may do this in various ways, good, bad and indifferent; they may accelerate or retard the economic development and its political and juridical consequences, but in the long run they must follow it." http://marx.libcom.org/works/1892/letters/92_06_18.htm
Lenin summarizes Marx's theory of state in "The State and Revolution" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/). He primarily focusses on class struggle and the transition into communism but I don't think that he disagrees with any of the "theories" above - except for the "anarchist theory" but I doubt that Marx ever had one.

[cyu]

Marx has "anarchist theory" envy? :lol:

I wouldn't say Marxism is just an empty shell though - I'm sure his soul was in the right place ^^

[Guardia Rossa]

The state is only independent from the bourgeoisie if you think it is staffed by non-bourgeois functionaries.

Thing is, that the Modern State is not a thing that the bourgeoisie hold in common or through a member that represent their interests (Like in some forms of State) but it theoretically represents all members of the society. Their interests can diverge (And often do) because who runs the State theoretically can do whatever he want (Provided he has legislative support and/or can maintain himself in power)


The way I see it, there are no real contradictions, except that I don't understand what is meant by "anarchist theory" or "abstract entity".

Me neither. State schools :mad:


Marx has "anarchist theory" envy? :lol:

I wouldn't say Marxism is just an empty shell though - I'm sure his soul was in the right place ^^

I don't get you. Marx had "hegelian theory" envy? Everyone has to start with something.

...Right...

You must be high.