 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
| Part ofa series on | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Marxism | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Outline | ||||||||||||||||||||
Foundations | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Related topics
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Marx's thought envisages dividing the history of the State into three phases:pre-capitalist states, states in thecapitalist (i.e. present) era and the state (or absence of one) inpost-capitalist society. Complicating this is the fact that Marx's own ideas about the state changed as he grew older, differing in his early pre-communist phase, in theyoung Marx phase which predates the unsuccessful1848 uprisings in Europe, and in his later work.
Marx initially followed anevolutionary theory of the state. He envisioned a progression from astateless society marked by chaos to the emergence of organized communities as nomadic groups settled due to agricultural developments. With settlement came thedivision of labor,gender roles, and territorial boundaries, sparking disputes that birthedslave societies where vanquished people were subjugated.
Subsequently, feudal societies arose, characterized by a hierarchy involving nobility, clergy, and peasantry, wherein power predominantly resided with the former two. The growth of commerce introduced a new player, thebourgeoisie, within the peasantry, catalyzing a power-shift throughrevolutions, and birthingcapitalist societies.
Marx's narrative anticipated theproletariat rising against capitalist exploitation, fostering asocialist society through theirown revolution. Ultimately, he envisioned the dissolution of the state,[citation needed][a] paving the way for a classless, communist society to flourish.
In Marx's 1843Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, his basic conception is that the state andcivil society are separate. However, he already saw some limitations to that model, arguing:
The political state everywhere needs the guarantee of spheres lying outside it.[1]
He as yet was saying nothing about the abolition of private property, does not express a developed theory of class, and "the solution [he offers] to the problem of the state/civil society separation is a purelypolitical solution, namely universal suffrage." (Evans, 112)
By the time he wroteThe German Ideology (1846), Marx viewed the state as a creature of thebourgeois economic interest. Two years later, that idea was expounded inThe Communist Manifesto:[2]
The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.[3]
This represents the high point of conformance of the state theory to aneconomic interpretation of history in which theforces of production determine peoples' production relations and their production relations determine all other relations, including the political.[4][5][6] Although "determines" is the strong form of the claim, Marx also uses "conditions". Even "determination" is not causality and some reciprocity of action is admitted. The bourgeoisie control the economy, therefore they control the state. In this theory, the state is an instrument of class rule.
The Communist Manifesto of 1848 was a shortpolemical work; more detail on the theories concerned can be obtained by going back toThe German Ideology of 1846, where Marx wrote:[6][7]
The Relation of State and Law to Property
In the case of the nations which grew out of theMiddle Ages, tribal property evolved through various stages —feudal landed property,corporative moveable property, capital invested in manufacture — to modern capital, determined by big industry and universal competition, i.e. pure private property, which has cast off all semblance of a communal institution and has shut out the State from any influence on the development of property. To this modern private property corresponds the modern State, which, purchased gradually by the owners of property by means of taxation, has fallen entirely into their hands through the national debt, and its existence has become wholly dependent on the commercialcredit which the owners of property, thebourgeois, extend to it, as reflected in the rise and fall of State funds on thestock exchange. By the mere fact that it is a class and no longer anestate, the bourgeoisie is forced to organise itself no longer locally, but nationally, and to give a general form to its mean average interest. Through the emancipation of private property from the community, the State has become a separate entity, beside and outside civil society; but it is nothing more than the form of organisation which the bourgeois necessarily adopt both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests. The independence of the State is only found nowadays in those countries where the estates have not yet completely developed into classes, where the estates, done away with in more advanced countries, still have a part to play, and where there exists a mixture; countries, that is to say, in which no one section of the population can achieve dominance over the others. This is the case particularly inGermany. The most perfect example of the modern State isNorth America. The modernFrench,English andAmerican writers all express the opinion that the State exists only for the sake of private property, so that this fact has penetrated into the consciousness of the normal man.[8]
Economic Dependence of the State on the Bourgeoisie
With the development and accumulation of bourgeois property, i.e., with the development of commerce and industry, individuals grew richer and richer while the state fell ever more deeply into debt. This phenomenon was evident already in the firstItalian commercial republics; later, since the last century, it showed itself to a marked degree inHolland, where the stock exchange speculatorPinto drew attention to it as early as 1750,[9] and now it is again occurring inEngland. It is therefore obvious that as soon as the bourgeoisie has accumulated money, the state has to beg from the bourgeoisie and in the end it is actually bought up by the latter. This takes place in a period in which the bourgeoisie is still confronted by another class, and consequently the state can retain some appearance of independence in relation to both of them. Even after the state has been bought up, it still needs money and, therefore, continues to be dependent on the bourgeoisie; nevertheless, when the interests of the bourgeoisie demand it, the state can have at its disposal more funds than states which are less developed and, therefore, less burdened with debts. However, even the least developed states of Europe, those of theHoly Alliance, are inexorably approaching this fate, for they will be bought up by the bourgeoisie; thenStirner will be able to console them with the identity of private and state property, especially his own sovereign, who is trying in vain to postpone the hour when political power will be sold to the "burghers" who have become "angry".[10]
By the early 1850s, political events in Europe, which he covered in articles for theNew-York Daily Tribune as well as a number of more substantial pieces, were forcing Marx to modify his theory to allow considerably more autonomy for the state. By 1851, the mid-century rebellions had all given way toconservatism and the principal countries of Europe hadautocratic oraristocratic governments, namelyNapoleon III inFrance,Frederick Wilhelm IV inGermany and inEngland aparliament populated mainly by members of thearistocratic class, whetherWhig orConservative. Yet at the same time, thebourgeoisie had economic power in places. For Marx, this was clearly an anomalous situation and gave it considerable attention.[11]
His solution is whatJon Elster has described as the "abdication" or "abstention" theory.[12] It contends that the bourgeoisie found that the advantages of wielding direct power were under the circumstances outweighed by various costs and disadvantages, so they were willing to tolerate an aristocratic ordespotic government as long as it did not act too detrimentally to their interests. Marx makes several points. Regarding England, he says of the bourgeoisie that "if the aristocracy is their vanishing opponent the working class is their arising enemy. They prefer to compromise with the vanishing opponent rather than to strengthen the rising enemy, to whom the future belongs".[13]
Marx also suggests that it would be better for the bourgeoisie not to wield power directly because this would make their dominance too obvious, creating a clear target for proletarian attack.[14] It is better to make the workers fight a "two front war" (Elster) against the aristocracy in government and the bourgeoisie in the economy. Among other things, this would make it difficult for the proletarians to form a clear conception of who was their principal enemy. Regarding France, he suggests that the bourgeoisie recognized that they had been better off under themonarchy (1830–1848) than during the brief period when theywielded power themselves (1848–1851) "since they must now confront the subjugated classes and contend against them without mediation, without the concealment afforded by the crown".[15]
Korsch's statement uncritically follows the Leninist line that the concept of the withering away of the state is attributable to both Marx and Engels, whereas in fact it is traceable [...] to Engels alone. [...] There is no further evidence [...] to support the inference that Marx himself ever held such a view.
