Marxian (Class) Theory of Origin of the State

Marx did not dwell much on the origin of the State and did not develop any systematic or coherent theory of the state.⁸⁷ This is attributed to his main concern with political economy rather than politics and the state.⁸⁸

What has come to be identified as Marxian or Class theory of origin of the State draws heavily from Engels’s survey in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1894). Lenin in his The State and Revolution (1917) analysed Engels’s work and concluded that the State is ‘a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonism’ and is an instrument of exploitation.

Based on Morgan’s researches, Engels has given a detailed account of social organization of the Iroquois tribes to show that their social organization did not know the ‘state’. Engels’s survey reveals that gentes (smaller kinship groups) constituted phratry (kin-brotherhood), which in turn, constituted tribes. This type of social organization did not have a concept of an authority away from the social set-up. This implies that authority resides in the ranks and hierarchy of society, the elder, clergy, priest, tribal head etc. Engels calls this as ‘gentile constitution’. Many factors might have contributed to its end. For example, appearance of private property, division of gentes into privileged and inferior class and emergence of nobility, development of money system for exchange, trade and industry and division between town and country.

Engels traces the emergence of the State in Athens. Before Solon (Athenian law-giver and ruler, 638–558 BC), small territorial districts, twelve in each tribe were instituted. These were meant to furnish, equip and man a war vessel. According to Engels, this created a public power, and divided the people for public purposes territorially (as per common domicility) and was not based on kinship groups.⁸⁹ Territorial division of people and emergence of a public power away from and above the people led to emergence of state.

Engels considers the State a product of society, as it comes into being with the emergence of private property and classes. He says:

It (the state) is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interest, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it becomes necessary to have power seemingly standing above society that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ‘order’; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state.⁹⁰

Engels identifies not only the cause of origin of the state—classes with conflicting economic interests—but its nature and function, institutions standing outside the society to keep conditions of order. He links rise of the State with four elements.

Firstly, division of subjects according to territory was a departure from the older grouping of people based on kinship. This allowed people ‘to exercise their public rights and duties wherever they settled irrespective of their gens and tribes’. The organization of people according to locality appears to be a feature of all states now.

Secondly, establishment of a public power contributed to emergence of the State. Public power is an independent coercive power, not like population armed for its safety. Emergence of opposite classes, propertied and under-privileged, self-acting armed organization of the population is not possible. The extent of public power is related to strength of class antagonisms. It is exercised through policing, prisons, legal and quasi-legal agencies and various para-military forces. The public power is a feature of all states. One of the important functions of public power is to maintain order and mitigate the effect of class differences.

Thirdly, institution of taxes, a logical result of public power, also contributed to the emergence of the State. To maintain public power, resources are collected from the people mostly as taxes. In the ancient and medieval times, rulers and despots resorted to various coercive means for extractions, rents and unpaid labour. In contemporary times, taxation is legally enforced, as it is a means of welfare functions.

Fourthly, the officials are required to bring public power in effect and ensure order and also collect taxes and administer them. By virtue of public power, these officials enjoy authority. In a sense, officials become vehicles of power and alien to society and enjoy special sanctity and inviolability. Engels suggests that the officials become self-serving and away from society. Lenin in his The State and Revolution endorsed the view of Engels. According to Lenin: (i) the State emerges because class differences of the propertied and the under privileged are opposite and cannot be reconciled; (ii) public power, special bodies of armed men, prison, coercion are required to maintain order and stability; (iii) the State as wielder of public power serves as an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class; and (iv) with revolution, class differences will end and the State will start withering away. For Lenin, ‘the State is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The State arises where, when and insofar as class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled. And conversely, the existence of the State proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable’.⁹¹ Engels and Lenin find class interests and class antagonisms as the primary factor for origin of the State.

The State emerges due to class division and to check class antagonism, as a rule, it becomes the state of the economically dominant class. For Engels, and Marx and Lenin ‘the state of antiquity was the state of the slave owners’ against the slave, as ‘the feudal state was the organ of the nobility’ against the peasant and serfs and bondsmen and ‘the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage labour by capital’.⁹² As per Marxian views, the State has not existed from all eternity and will not exist forever. As soon as the class division and class antagonism ends, the State will ‘xswither away.’ However, the State after the takeover of the proletariat after revolution would be used to remove vestiges of the exploiting classes. Lenin would say, ‘the proletariat seizes state power and turns the means of production (factory, machine, equipments, assets) into state property to begin with’.⁹³

According to the Marxian view, origin of the State is a historical phenomenon. The State emerged at a particular time in history when class antagonism emerged. It is a product of society. However, when the very basis, class differences, ends, the State will wither away. The Marxian theory of origin of the State is also a theory of ‘withering away’ of the state.

Central to the Marxian understanding of society is the differentiation between infrastructure or base and superstructure. The Marxian theory gives primacy to the economic structure of society, which consists of forces and relations of production. Forces of production imply the capacity of the society to produce and may include organization of human labour, scientific and technical knowledge, technological equipments and forces, etc. Relations of production arising out of the productive processes, imply relations in ownership of means of production. For Marx, it is the ‘infrastructure’ or the ‘base’ consisting of forces of production and relations of production that determines all other aspects of society. All these other aspects of society constitute the ‘superstructure’ and include political and legal, social and cultural, religious and philosophical and ideological aspects and are determined by what happens to the infrastructure. It is generally agreed that the State belongs to the ‘superstructure’. The State acts as an instrument to serve the interest of the dominant class and its ideology. If this is so, what contributed to its origin and development as such an instrument?

The materialistic conception of history relates to the production and reproduction of immediate life—production of means of subsistence, food, clothing and shelter and the tools required for that; and reproduction of human beings for propagation of the species. For Engels, social institution of a particular historical period depends on both the stage of development of labour to produce and of the family. Society evolves from a stage of less development of labour, volume of production and a social order based on ties of sex to a more complex one. Within the initial stage, productivity of labour develops and also possibilities of utilizing labour of others, in turn giving rise to private property and its exchange. Engels says, ‘appearance of private property … led to exchange between individuals, to the transformation of products in commodities.’⁹⁴ With this, came differences in wealth, social classes and the basis of class antagonism. The interests of social classes are different and the interest of the dominant class has primacy. The State for Engels appears as public power for serving the dominant class to exploit the suppressed class. Emergence of private property and class differentiation led to emergence of the state.