Is the state an instrument?

[Post-Something]

The way I've read Marxism, was unfortunately without a lot of concrete evidence. Mainly just theoretical stuff. This is of course entirely my fault in that I have not looked around enough etc. So I was hoping to get some evidence on certain issues and ideas that I've seen posted on here a number of times.

I've been wondering if the state really is an "instrument" to be used by the ruling class, and if it functions necessarily in the interests of one class. How did we come to this conclusion? Is it simply because one class may have better access to it? How can it be proved that the state has never acted in favour of the working class, without being of direct benefit to the ruling class? Does this still apply today?

Thanks in advance.

[Yehuda Stern]

Marxism treats each state as an instrument set up by a class to perpetrate its rule by controlling the contradictions between the interests of the different classes. In this capacity, it first and foremost means that the state is the repressive organs which protect the ruling class from the other classes - those old "bodies of armed men." This state is not necessarily negative - a communist, stateless society would, of course, be far more progressive, but a workers' state is still progressive compared to a capitalist state, while a capitalist state could be progressive when capitalism was not yet a rotten mode of production.

The conclusion that the state is the instrument of the ruling class is not that hard to come to - even non-Marxists speak vaguely about the enormous influence that some parts of the bourgeoisie (they usually speak only of banks and corporations) have on the state. Historically, Marxism traces the creation of the state back to the birth of class society, and shows how the rising of each class throughout history was accompanied by its creation of a state apparatus of its own.

By the way, under pressure, the bourgeois state may accede to a demand of the workers, and in that sense it may be said that the state acted in their interests, though obviously that would be a very flawed way of looking at it. But even when the state does that, it does it in a way which serves capital in the end. For example, social reforms are given to the workers only to foster the illusion that there is no need for revolution, that gains can be made and preserved under capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

For a non-Marxist position (and using a non-Marxist definition of the state):

Yes, the state is an instrument. An instrument of minority class rule. It is an instrument of oppression and hierarchy.

All leftists should oppose and try and ultimately destroy "the state".

----

To continue from a non-Marxist perspective:
The state can, and does, provide benefits for those who aren't in power. Prussia/Germany under Bismark was the first country to provide welfare. Welfare, in that case, was used as a means of quieting social discontent, and reducing the effect of radicals on the minds of the mass of working class folks. Now, you'll see the same sort of ideas justifying welfare (but not publically), and more often, you'll see vaguely socialist ideas justifying welfare. But remember, just because they use socialist rhetoric, doesn't mean that they are on our side. The state is our enemy, and the ruling classes are our enemies. It doesn't matter who they are, or if they claim to represent us or not.

[Post-Something]

Thank you both for your answers. And although you both cleared up a couple of things, I was hoping you could give me examples as well. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but at the start I said I wanted evidence most of all, for example, education for the masses was only introduced in Britain when the industrial revolution came round, so that people would be smart enough to run the machines.

I want to know if this analysis applies to all states, if it truly only serves one class, and if all advancements been in favour of the capitalist class? For example, could it not be the case that social reforms have just come about democratically? That a lot of these reforms aren't any good to the capitalist class at all? Because it seems more like a game of tug of war, an uneven one, but nonetheless not a gadget in the pocket of the ruling class.

[Yehuda Stern]

Examples? Give me a country and I'll give you examples. Let's take the US: both the Democrats and the Republicans have supported a criminal war in Iraq based on false claims of wanting to disarm it of WMDs which it never had. Did any of them suffer for this lie? Were they judged? Was there ever any danger of them getting tossed in jail? Of course not. Only people who protested against the war, against the criminal policies of the ruling class, were jailed. Only when some of the ruling class began to oppose the war did this opposition receive some legitimacy. But there are countless other examples, especially from the first half of the 20th century. Just look at where the state stood in the confrontation between revolutionary workers and the capitalists in the revolutionary wave in Europe in the 1920s and the 1930s.

As far the second part of your post, I already answered that. Take a look at the 8 hour work day - it has been won by the working class only after intense and bloody struggles, for which we have May Day today. And even this great achievement is used to supposedly show that we can make gains without a revolution by reformist union bureaucrats.

[Post-Something]

Ahh, I see now. What about in a country which is a bit more of a mixed economy, like Norway, or other scandanavian countries? Is this only because of bloody struggles?

Anyway, thanks for helping me understand the concept a bit better.

[trivas7]

From a Marxist POV the state is the result of the division of labor. As soon as you produce a surplus of something valuable in society and keep it for the ruling elite you've created private property. Theft, violence, and expropriation are the origins of private property. Read Capital's chapter on primitive accumulation for the origins of bourgeois property.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, the Scandinavian working class has historically been very militant - it even stopped a war at least once in its history, though I must admit that I know a lot less about that part of the world. I don't see why you say the economy is 'mixed' there, though - its a normal capitalist economy, just more welfare than other imperialist states.

[robot lenin]

In 'The State and Revolution', Lenin argued that the state was a 'special coercive force' used by the dominating class to oppress the dominated, and that when the workers took over the state would still be used to oppress, but this time to oppress the bourgeoisie.

In terms of actual governments giving concessions, in my opinion its not that the state actually wanted to help the workers (except rarely, eg Atlee in the UK), but more a case of being fearful that the workers would revolt, and appeasing them by giving them the minimum they could.

[Yehuda Stern]

Do you believe, then, that the Attlee government was looking to aid the workers? Or maybe, like any reformist government, it realized that they could subdue the workers with reforms instead of guns that time?

[ComradeOm]

Do you believe, then, that the Attlee government was looking to aid the workers? Or maybe, like any reformist government, it realized that they could subdue the workers with reforms instead of guns that time?Its rarely a question of deliberate intent. There is no secret camarilla of capitalists directing the policies of the state with an eye to keeping the people down

For example, I doubt that Attlee sat down one day and decided to stave off revolution by creating the welfare state. He was simply a good natured man who honestly sought to improve peoples' lives. That he was working within the framework of the bourgeois state does not alter this

[Yehuda Stern]

There is no secret camarilla - things are quite in the open. The needs of the capitalist class dictates the actions of the capitalist states. That much is ABC.

And I'm surprised at your great appreciation for good old Attlee. In fact, the Labour government knew full well that it had a ferment to diffuse on its hands, and that is the only reason why it carried through its welfare policies - just contrast the Attlee government with former Labour governments.

[ComradeOm]

There is no secret camarilla - things are quite in the open. The needs of the capitalist class dictates the actions of the capitalist states. That much is ABCThis is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a capitalist class, not a cabal of top industrialists meeting in a smoky room discussing their plans to quash the working class. Some people take "executive committee of the bourgeoisie" far too literally. The state is controlled by the bourgeoisie, it takes its form and structure of the bourgeoisie, but it is not simply an extension of individual capitalists


And I'm surprised at your great appreciation for good old Attlee. In fact, the Labour government knew full well that it had a ferment to diffuse on its hands, and that is the only reason why it carried through its welfare policies - just contrast the Attlee government with former Labour governments.With a relatively small number of exceptions, social-democratic programmes are typically not designed specifically to defuse social tensions. By and large reformist politicians believe what they say. Moving the left away from revolution is often a desirable side effect but there is more than one shade of bourgeois politician

[Yehuda Stern]

The state is controlled by the bourgeoisie, it takes its form and structure of the bourgeoisie, but it is not simply an extension of individual capitalists


The hell is your point then? I never said anything to that effect.


reformist politicians believe what they say.

Your firm belief in bourgeois politicians' good intentions is very endearing but has little to do with reality. Regardless, even when these people speak the truth they are quite clear about their opposition to revolution:


If the Kaiser abdicates, the social revolution is inevitable. But I do not want it, I hate it like sin.

~On the 1918 German revolution


I have never disguised that in a challenge to the constitution, God help us unless the government won.

~On the 1926 general strike


As far as Blair is concerned, what was positive at the time of Labour's founding was that “the delegates meeting in 1900 rejected class war” in favour of “blend[ing] the classes into one human family,” as its first leader Keir Hardie said.

~Britain's Labour Party Celebrates Hundredth Anniversary Amidst Gathering Storm Clouds

[ComradeOm]

Your firm belief in bourgeois politicians' good intentions is very endearing but has little to do with realitySo what is the alternative? That every social-democrat is in reality a thoroughly evil bastard whose politics are solely designed to cloak his true reactionary intentions? Perhaps he is in fact secretly in league with the other, more openly conservative, political factions as they all conspire against the honourable Marxists and the working class?

Here's a thought - not every politician has sworn a secret oath to oppress the working class and very few of them view the world from your black and white perspective. The actions they take are motivated by a variety of factors (many personal) but crucially they are shaped by their class and the state structures from which they operate. This does not exclude the possibility that many social-democrats genuinely believe that they are benefiting society

Yet again I am forced to do the job of common sense in dispelling vulgar Marxist notions of how the state, society, and people themselves operate


Regardless, even when these people speak the truth they are quite clear about their opposition to revolution:Social-democrats are always opposed to proletarian revolution. That's why they are social-democrats. In some cases this is due to the threat to their own property, in others its a commitment to the liberal values that they view as the foundation of a happy society

Either way it does not change the fact that I never suggested that social-democrats of any stripe favoured revolution. Again, this is a case of you projecting your own perspective onto others. Just because I feel that social revolution is the only way to improve society does not mean that this a view commonly shared by many. If it were then there would be a lot less social-democrats

[Yehuda Stern]

Yet again I am forced to do the job of common sense in dispelling vulgar Marxist notions of how the state, society, and people themselves operate

And failing miserably. No one says there's a sacred cabal or scheme - but reformists are very conscious of their of diffusing revolutions, as my quotes have shown.