The Marxian theory of the origin of the State is historical and materialistic. It is historical because it traces the origin of the State at a particular stage in history as a result of origin of opposing classes. It is materialistic because the State with its force, and anything political, is treated as a reflection of economic/class relations in society. The State, in short, is the protector of the interest of the economically dominant class.
If the historical–evolutionary perspective, which attributes the origin of the State to multiple factors, is to be relied, identification of a single cause of opposing class interest as the only factor in origin of the State may look oversimplification. MacIver and others have recognized the role of property and economic conflict in emergence and evolution of the state. But to give primacy to one factor at the exclusion of others in emergence of the State is unacceptable to many. Plamenatz argues that emergence of class structure is ‘a post-state phenomenon’95 and classes emerged when the State had already come into being. Engel’s survey on the origin of the State is limited to the instances in Athens and Roman society, which may not tell about the nature of public power in many parts of Asia.
Nevertheless, by establishing the linkage between the origin and existence of the State with the class interest in society, the Marxian theory seeks to counter and reject the claim that the State and the state power could be an arbitrator or reconciler of different interests in society. Of course, this position is not acceptable to the liberal theorists. The liberal view that the State is a ‘neutral umpire’ and is based on the principles of consent and representation and is a mechanism of welfare is opposed to the Marxian theory.
Leave a Reply