State as an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class

We have discussed Engels’s view on the origin and nature of the state earlier. Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State treats the State as a product of irreconcilable class differences arising out of emergence of private property at a particular stage in historical evolution. The State as a public power is there to keep the conflict arising out of this irreconcilability under control and maintain order in the interest of the propertied classes. This irreconcilability is, in essence, due to the exploitative nature of economic/social relationship. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are engaged in class struggle, as their respective interests are antagonist. This antagonist nature of interest arises out of the pattern of ownership of the means of production where the capitalist economy thrives on the labour and exploitation of the workers. The State being part of the superstructure acts as an instrument to support the relationship that prevails at the base. As such, the State becomes an instrument in exploitation and oppression of the proletariat.

Lenin in his The State and Revolution endorses this view of Engels and develops it further, taking into account the Marxian perspective of the State as ‘executive committee’. Lenin terms the State as an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class. For him, the State is a machine for oppression of one class by another, a special repressive force. Summarizing Marx’s view, Lenin says, ‘the State is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is creation of order, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between the classes.’⁹⁰

Thus, the State as part of the superstructure represents political and ideological power. Political and ideological power is used for exploiting the proletariat and ‘reproducing the condition of productions’, i.e., maintaining a general opinion suitable for maintenance of capitalist system. In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote, ‘political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another’. Lenin was equally vocal in his opposition and rejection of the bureaucratic set-up consisting of bureaucracy and army, amongst others. He feels that it represents ‘crystallization of class power within the organs of the state administration’. This is also based on the executive committee view of the State and its bureaucracy. For Lenin, existence of the State and bureaucracy cannot allow freedom. He says, ‘so long as the State exists, there is no freedom. When freedom exists, there will be no state.’⁹¹

In short, the Marxian theory put forward in the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin hold that the State is an oppressive machine, a class rule and repository of injustice. There is no way to mitigate its oppressive nature and use it for the benefit of the proletariat, as social democrats like Bernstein would like. The state cannot be an agency of reconciling different interests, as its very existence is to serve the interests of the dominant class.

If this is the case, then what is the fate of the State as per the Marxian theory? The answer is simple: destroy the State if liberation and freedom from oppression of all is to be achieved. Engels and Lenin say the state, in fact, must ‘wither away’.