Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2010
Marx did not approach the state in answer to some such broad and abstract philosophical question as: What is the state? Nor did he offer a full sociological or historical or analytic account of state institutions and functions, and there are hence clear and substantial dangers in extrapolating to all or most conditions an account which is, in large part, specific to bourgeois society. Failing a comprehensive and formal treatise on politics and the state, Marx's own discussion consists of a number of scattered and not altogether consistent general observations and some detailed investigation of the role and character of the state in particular historical situations. It seems sensible, then, to begin an elucidation of his account of the state with a comment on the nature of his interest in the subject. Why did he need a theory of the state? At what points does it become important to his explanatory and his revolutionary doctrines?
1 Marx, and Engels, , The German Ideology (Moscow, 1964), 357.Google Scholar
2 Marx, and Engels, , The Holy Family (Moscow, 1956), 163.Google Scholar
3 Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in Marx, K. and Engels, F., Selected Works, I (Moscow, 1958), 363.Google Scholar
4 For a determined defence of a hard technological version of Marx's historical materialism, see Cohen, G. A.'s Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (London, 1978).Google Scholar
5 K. Marx to the Editorial Board of the ‘Otechestvenniye Zapiski’, 11 1877Google Scholar, in Marx, and Engels, , Selected Correspondence (Moscow, undated), 329.Google Scholar
6 Marx, , GrundrisseGoogle Scholar, quoted by Anderson, Perry, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism (London: New Left Books, 1975), 27.Google Scholar
7 28 December 1862.
8 Capital, Vol. IIIGoogle Scholar, extract in Bottomore, and Rubel, (eds), Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy (London, 1961), 99–100.Google Scholar
9 There are difficulties in defining these limits in general, as an objective definition, e.g. what is necessary to the survival of capital, itself raises contentious issues and may not be accepted by particular groups of capitalists, while a subjective one, in terms of what particular groups of capitalists or particular capitalist states want, may be lost in diversity and confusion. It is, on the other hand, easy to demonstrate various interventions designed to protect capitalist interests against working class (and other) threats and challenges. The limits to working class progress are, presumably, both material or economic and moral (concerning the possible development of their human capacities.)
10 See Holloway, and Picciotto, , State and Capital: A Marxist Debate (London, 1978), Introduction.Google Scholar
11 The German Ideology, quoted Evans, M., Karl Marx (London, 1975), 113.Google Scholar
12 Marx, Karl, ‘The Class Struggles in France’, Selected Works, I, 162.Google Scholar
13 Engels, , ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’, Selected Works, II, 150.Google Scholar
14 Avineri, S., The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge, 1970), 203.Google Scholar
15 Marx, , The Poverty of Philosophy (Moscow, undated), 93.Google Scholar
16 Miliband, R., Marxism and Politics (Oxford, 1978), 71–74.Google Scholar
17 Ibid., 72.
18 The Poverty of Philosophy, 137–138.Google Scholar
19 ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire’, Selected Works, I, 329.Google Scholar
20 Marx, , ‘The Civil War in France’, Selected Works, I, 522.Google Scholar
21 Engels, , 1891Google Scholar Introduction to ‘The Civil War in France’, Selected Works, I, 485Google Scholar (different translation).
22 For some typical assaults on the dangerous side of Marx's utopianism, see Tucker, R., Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx (Cambridge, 1964)Google Scholar, Rossiter, C., Marxism: The View From America (New York, 1960)Google Scholar and Parkes, H. B., Marxism: An Autopsy (Boston, 1939).Google Scholar