Marxist Critique of State Sovereignty

Central to the Marxist understanding of society is the differentiation between infrastructure and superstructure. The Marxian theory gives primacy to the economic structure of society, which consists of forces and relation of production. Forces of production imply the capacity of society to produce and may include organization of human labour, scientific and technical knowledge, technological equipments and forces, etc. Relation of production, arising out of the productive process, implies relations in ownership of the means of production. For example, in a capitalist society, proletariat or the working class represents the human force of production and capitalist ownership defines the relations of production. For Marx, it is this ‘infrastructure’ or the ‘base’ consisting of forces of production and relation of production that determines all other aspects of society. These all 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. Generally, notwithstanding variations in treatment of state by different theorists within the Marxist fold, it is agreed that the State belongs to the ‘superstructure’. Though ‘Marx did not develop a systematic or coherent theory of the state … In general sense, he believed that the state is part of a “superstructure” that is determined or conditioned by the economic “base” …’¹²⁴

It follows that whosoever owns the means of production and has a dominant position in relations of production will determine the nature of the superstructure. In the capitalist society, the capitalist, as a class, owns the means of production and its interests will be the primary concern that the superstructure will reflect. The State as part of the superstructure is an instrument to serve the interests of the dominant class. Since the capitalist relation of production is exploitative, the State is a coercive apparatus, which help maintain and sustain capitalist means of production. In The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx declares, ‘Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. … the bourgeoisie has at last, …, conquered for itself in the modern representative State, exclusive sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.’¹²⁵ This view of the State as product of need of and dependent on the dominant class and as instrument of class exploitation finds its support in Engels in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State and in Lenin in his book The State and Revolution. Engels writes,¹²⁶ ‘The state is, …, by no means a power forced on society from without; …, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development …’and further,

Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonism in check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of conflict of these, it is as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class.

Similarly, Lenin¹²⁷ also describes the state as ‘a Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonism’ and ‘an Instrument of the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class.’ It means that when the need for and condition of exploitation ends, state may not be necessary. With the triumph of the proletariat and social means of production, state shall, what Engels calls, ‘wither away’.

From the above orthodox Marxian position on state, we may summarize and imply the following criticism of state and sovereignty:

• State is a historical product and has emerged due to emergence of antagonist classes in society.
• State belongs to superstructure which is conditioned by the relations obtaining in the economic structure (base or infrastructure), it serves the interests of the dominant class.
• State is a coercive and exploitative instrument which is used against the proletariat.
• State is used to coerce the working class and maintain order so that unequal capitalist relation and exploitative conditions are maintained.
• State is neither natural nor essential; when class antagonism ends with the triumph of the majority, i.e., the rule of the working class and social means of production is installed after the revolution, state will ‘wither away’.

However, before the State withers away, the proletariat will use the State during the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to repress and subdue the other classes. This is primarily because ‘The dictatorship of proletariat was seen as a means of safeguarding the gains of the revolution by preventing counter-revolution mounted by the dispossessed bourgeoisie.’¹²⁸ Lenin while discussing the withering away of the State, and violent revolution says, ‘The proletariat seizes state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonism, and abolishes also the state as state.’¹²⁹ We find that the capitalist state will not wither away as such unless it has been taken over by the proletariat as a consequence of the revolution and used in the transition phase for bringing what Lenin calls ‘complete democracy’. State as complete democracy is characterized by rule of the proletariat, taking possession of means of production in the name of whole society, removing any presence of bourgeois class and abolition of all classes. According to Lenin, ‘the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy.’ And he adds, ‘the state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy can only “wither away’”¹³⁰ Thus, Marxian view of state treats it as an instrument of power and force and seeks to use it as such before writing its epitaph. Sovereignty in the Marxian sense is nothing but coercive power of the State that is used by each dominant class. So will the dominant class of the proletariat use it after the revolution and before both the class distinction and the State vanish.

An alternative view of Marx relating to the state and its position in the mode of production where it has been hinted that the State could be ‘relatively autonomous’ from the class system and which has been further elaborated by neo-Marxists like Miliband, Poulantzas, Althusser and Gramsci will be taken up later in this book. Suffice it to say here that these theorists have argued that by maintaining a position of relative autonomy, the state creates a position of hegemony, which largely helps maintain bourgeois domination. Hegemony can be defined as ‘the ability of a dominant class to exercise power by winning the consent of those it subjugates, as an alternative to the use of coercion.’¹³¹ Thus, both the Marxian positions—state as class instrument and state as relatively autonomous, emphasize that state can be understood only in terms of unequal class relations and as a means either of oppression or subtle hegemony. In both the cases, it serves the capitalist society and the capitalist class.