Category: Political Science Notes

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Meaning of Pressure Groups 2. Characteristics of Pressure Groups 3. Salient Features of Pressure Groups in India 4. Techniques of Pressure Groups 5. Critical Evaluation of Pressure Groups in India.

Meaning of Pressure Groups:

Today there is no country in the world which is free from pressure groups. These groups try to influence and pressurise every political institution to serve their own interests and to ensure that at least in no case their interests suffer, if at all these are not promoted.

Prof. S. Finer has characterised these groups as ‘anonymous empire’ whereas Richard D. Lambert is of the view that these are unofficial government, which implies that no government can run without taking their view point into consideration.

These groups influence both public policy as well as administration and go a long way in determining political structure of the society and the form of government. In India Prof. Rajni Kothari has made a significant study of working and organisation of these groups.

Pressure groups are concerned primarily with certain issues and thus may not field their candidates at the time of elections. But those who have some common interest come together and try to change the course of public affairs.

If taken in this sense any social group which seeks to influence the behaviour of any political officer, both administrative as well as legislative, without attempting to gain formal control of the government can be called a pressure group.

It exerts persuasive powers to get certain political decisions in its favour. These groups have no public but only private interests and also these are organised groups of people who have some common interests for solving their own problems.

Characteristics of Pressure Groups:

Pressure groups everywhere have certain characteristics. Each group organises itself keeping in view certain interests and thus tries to adopt to the structure of power in the political system. But in every government and political party there are clashing interest groups and as such not only that they wish to dominate the political structure, but also try to brush aside those groups which are opposed to their interests.

Thus, each political system and party which is either in or out of office is pressurised by certain interest groups, which many a time inter-act, counter-act and react to each other. In India there is multi-party political system and in each party there are several pressure groups. In the unification and bifurcation of these parties, these groups go a long way i.e., play a considerable role.

Then another feature of the pressure groups is that these very quickly change political allegiance, as that suits to their conditions and protects their interests. The groups being both big or small, appear as well as disappear depending on the situations and the then prevailing conditions.

Accordingly difficult to catalogue these groups either on the basis of their size, or duration, or political allegiance or even the purpose for which these are organised.

Then another characteristic or feature of these pressure groups is that these try to follow modem means of exerting pressure, without boldly renouncing old methods. But their sole purpose of adopting old and modem methods is to promote as well as protect their own interests.

They adopt techniques like financing of political parties, sponsoring such candidates at the times of elections which are their close associates and who can be depended upon and to ensure that such persons hold executive jobs in the government who look after their interests.

These groups also keep bureaucracy and top high officials in good humour and pay them for the services which they get either from the political bosses or permanent executive. The pressure groups, in order to protest their interests, also employ traditional means of exploiting caste, creed and religion and in their name try to win their co-operation.

They finance caste and religious organisations, bodies and donate money at public meetings to become popular with them. While doing so they forget national interests or the cause of national integration. They keep their group interests above national interests.

Pressure groups have no political commitments. These try to side with the government of the day. These guess with which party to side, which can in the long run be to its advantage. Thus for this no norms can be laid down.

If any pressure group has any permanent political affiliation that can be only due to compelling circumstances. Not only this, but pressure groups will try to have their lobbies in every wing of the political hierarchy.

Still another feature of pressure groups is that these always try to see that there is no political stability and perfect law and order situation does not prevail in the country. In case that happens then both political bosses and bureaucracy will be in complete grip of the situation and the groups will have to play to their tune.

On the other hand, if there is instability and lack of law and order, then role of pressure groups will be more dominant These will then have upper hand in every walk of life.

These groups, in order to have an upper hand, create a situation of uncertainty, help creating explosive situations where violence becomes unavoidable or encourage strikes, etc. and in order to embarrass political bosses see that the people demonstrate, observe fasts and hartals and so on.

Salient Features of Pressure Groups in India:

In India pressure groups though comparatively of recent origin have so organised themselves that they neither openly support nor oppose any political party. Each such group tries to thrive on the support of some political party or power. These have a sort of fear psychology.

These always try to remain neutral in politics. In fact, in India political parties try to have pressure groups with them and wish to win their co-operation. One finds that at the time of elections political parties approach religious and trade union leaders for their active support.

The bigger the political party, more it shall be able to absorb and adjust pressure groups. In a weak political system pressure groups try to become equal partner with political bosses.

Pressure groups in India are required to work in multi-party system and thus they are forced to keep shifting their loyalties. They do not work independently but each one functions under the patronage of some political party. These pressure groups are forced to pay consideration to region, religion and caste rather ideology and national integrity and even political honesty.

They feel interested in creating a situation of disorder and lawlessness for having group advantage out of political instability. They use both modern and old techniques of putting pressures on the powers that be and thus they do not adhere to anyone method. No group has political commitment and thus many groups become anomic organisations.

In the words of Kochanak, “As the Indian case reveals, the political system itself sets the parameters for group activities and groups can be understood as part of a larger and more complex set of relationships which composes the larger political system.” Quite often in India pressure groups are over weighed by religion, caste and language rather than ideological considerations.

In India, however, pressure groups have made slow progress. Firstly, because Congress party though a political party, has been an important link between local groups and state governments. Then another reason for slow growth of these groups is that bureaucracy has seen these groups with distrust and t
hus never encouraged group people to come near it.

But in spite of this pressure groups in India have started playing important role. Hardgrave has said, “Interest groups not only are agents of interest articulation but they also increase political consciousness…. In addition, interest groups may be reservoirs of political leadership; this has been particularly true for trade unions of India.”

Techniques of Pressure Groups:

Pressure groups are very keen that their objectives should be achieved and for this they adopt various techniques in India. They try to go near those who can help them in achieving their objectives may he be an administrator or a politician. They, however, prefer the former over the latter.

They use caste, creed, religion, relationship and above all money power to go near the power that be Such an approach is made usually indirectly because under code of conduct public servants wish that their identity should not disclosed while because of party discipline, ordinary members of a House of a legislature cannot support a particular cause, against the established policy of the party.

The pressure groups try to have their representatives in various committees which are set up by the government from time to time, particularly when their interests are involved. They approach the experts to convince them of their view point and even establish their contacts with public servants at the low level.

They attach special importance who are either decision makers or can articulate effectively their view point. They provide funds to political parties at the time of election or when otherwise needed by them and for them that is an investment. Trade unions adopt the methods of strikes, demonstrations, gheraos, etc., for getting their demands met. Sometimes these even resort to violence.

Thus, in India pressure groups use different types of techniques but on the whole these are weak and at the developing stage.

Critical Evaluation of Pressure Groups in India:

Pressure groups in India, by and large, have no political commitment. They are weak and do not openly extent their support to the political party other than the one which is in power. They hesitate to displease authorities and government. It is hoped that these groups will always be non-violent and follow secular policies.

These groups try to strengthen only such parties, which they feel are likely to come to power, if already not in authority. For them their own interests are supreme and paramount and when they feel that these clash with those of the others, in order to preserve their interests, they go to the other extreme end.

Pressure groups in India have not been much success because of several reasons. The main reason for this is that they have failed to organise themselves as a second body. They have no well developed infrastructure which can help in regularly and vigorously pursuing their interests.

Single party dominant system at the centre is also considerably responsible for their slow growth. Political parties do not wish that any serious challenge be thrown to their authority even by powerful pressure group. Not only this, but even pressure groups have tried to develop under the patronage of political parties.

The funds are provided to them in a bid to go near them and directions are received from political bosses. Even political parties try to divide each pressure group and to have strong hold over one such group at least. Then by and large they follow negative method for getting their work done. As is well known such a method is negative rather than being the positive one.

Then another cause of their slow growth is that in India individual legislators have not been found very effective by the pressure groups. Each such group realises that because of party discipline and with the operation of Anti-Defection Act, each legislator must vote on party lines. Thus, contacts should be developed with the party and not with any individual legislator.

The pressure groups also realise that in India bureaucracy is very strong and can help them a lot. But somehow so far these groups, by and large, have failed to corrupt bureaucracy. There is also no unity in pressure groups. In fact, there is no group which is not a house bitterly divided in several factions and sub-groups one speaking openly against the other. In several cases there is also lack of good leader.

In several cases pressure group leaders try to become political leaders. Their political ambitions frustrate the basic character of the pressure group. Most of the pressure groups like trade unions, student organisations, etc., are not financially very sound and without finances these cannot function effectively.

Thus, on the whole, in India so far the impact of pressure groups on politics has not been felt and is also not going to be much deep rooted unless things radically change to their advantage. It is, however, being noticed that pressure groups are trying to get roots as in advanced western societies, though still these are in the initial stages.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about functions of the cabinet in the parliament. 

In India, both cabinet and Council of Minister are required to perform very many functions and these are increasing day-by-day; particularly in the case of cabinet, the work load has much increased and it is being lightened by the device of committees of the cabinet. Every cabinet in a parliamentary form of government is required to perform executive, legislative, financial, judicial, etc., functions.

These are:

Each Cabinet Minister is head of a department. It is his duty and responsibility to see that decisions taken by the Parliament are immediately implemented and these too in right spirit. In fact, executive infuses blood and skeleton in the decisions of the legislature. As executive head a Minister is to ensure that there is proper co-ordination and co-operation at different levels in the official hierarchy of his department.

He is to see that the work of the Ministry does not receive any set back for want to proper guidance. Not only this, but since the whole government functions as a co-ordinated whole, therefore, it is also his responsibility to see that work of different departments is properly co-ordinated.

Then as executive head of his department he is to advice the President through, of course, his Prime Minister, about all important appointments to be made in his department. He is to ensure that all available positions are timely and properly filled and persons of high standing and sound knowledge and integrity man the jobs.

Thus, he should rise above narrow considerations of nepotism and favouritism, while making recommendations about personnel for various available jobs in his Department.

Cabinet as a body makes all high appointments, including those of the Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Chairman and Members of the Union Public Service Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, etc. In addition, from time to time the government appoints certain Commissions/ Committees, etc.

The cabinet also approves and appoints the chairmen and members of these Commissions and Committees. Under the constitution it is the responsibility of the President to appoint Governors of the states. The cabinet takes decisions about the names of the persons to be appointed, though formally their names are announced by the President.

Similarly the Chiefs, of the Army, Navy and Air Force, are appointed by the cabinet and so is the case with the appointment of Chief Justice of India and Judges of the Supreme Court.

Like the responsibilities in the field of executive, the cabinet has a lot of work to do in the legislative field and its responsibilities in this regard are quite vast. The members of the cabinet and Council of Ministers are the members of either House of Parliament.

It is their responsibility to see that Parliament meets at the most suitable time and the work of both the Houses is so conducted that it remains busy throughout the session.

The cabinet initiates all important legislative measures in the House. It ensures that all outdated Acts are annulled and those which need to be modified in the light of experience gained are modified. Similarly each Minister brings forward and pilots bills which his department needs.

He is to ensure that all Bills initiated by him are passed and if during the course of debate there is criticism on the working of his department that is fully replied and the critics are kept well satisfied In case some ordinances have been promulgated during inter-session period, he is also to get these approved so that these become the law of the land.

During the course of debate opposition members make some criticism and also give some suggestions. Similarly some members of the House who are not members of Council of Ministers also bring forward certain bills.

The cabinet decides how far the suggestions made can be accepted and bills initiated by private members are to get the approval of the government and also its support. In fact without government approval or its support, no bill can be passed.

These days world has become very short and each nation is becoming more and more dependent on the other. Every nation is quite keen that it should have cordial relations with the others. Not only this but each nation wants to develop commercial ties with as many nations as possible.

Similarly in every state there are citizens of other states, whose interests are to be fully well protected. For this relationship is to be established with other states. For the purpose the cabinet appoints ambassadors and High Commissioners in other states.

When other states appoint their representatives in India before these actually arrive in India, the cabinet decides whether such a person is a persona non-gratia or not and whether his appointment is to be or not to be accepted.

Similarly the cabinet decides whether activities of a member of diplomatic mission of any country are prejudicial to the interests of India and if so what will be the results of expulsion of any diplomat on mutual relations of the two countries. Similarly the cabinet decides how far India will improve or strengthen her relations with a particular nation or region of the world.

If any basic changes are to be introduced in foreign policy of the country, these are also to be decided by the cabinet, before making these public. How important are foreign affairs, these days is evident from the fact that Pt. Nehru himself used to be the External Affairs of the country and this portfolio is since then being held by a very senior Cabinet Minister and member of the party.

In the financial field again the cabinet has many functions to perform. Of course, the budget is prepared by the Finance Minister and in the initial stages it is discussed with the Prime Minister and with the inner cabinet, whose approval is treated as the approval of the whole cabinet. But the cabinet is not taken by surprise. The proposals are discussed in the cabinet at some stage in one form or the other.

Then it decides how far should the revenues of the state be collected and what tax relief should be given to the people. Similarly, it/is the responsibility of each Minister to see that budget proposals of his Ministry are approved by the House.

It is, of course, very trying time for the Minister when his budget proposals come forward and a wide ranging criticism is made on the working of the Ministry and the Minister is expected to defend the performance of his Ministry. In fact no budget proposal in the House can come unless that is initiated by a Minister.

Planning Commission in India plays a very big role in channelising economic resources of the country. Prime Minister, who is the head of the Council of Ministers, is also the chief of the Planning Commission. All plan proposals are approved by the cabinet and that also decides plan policies and gives guide-lines.

Without its approval, the plan is not finally approved. The members of the Planning Commission are also appointed by the cabinet. Several Cabinet Ministers are also members of Planning Commission.

Council of Minister in India, also decides about the imposition of President’s rule in the state and also duration of that rule. It is important because during such a period, real power and authority for the governance of state is vested in the hands of the central government which in effect means the Council of Ministers.

It is Council of Ministers, more particularly cabinet, which takes all financial, legislative and administrative decisions during this period.

Similarly the Council of Ministers decides about the time and duration of emergency, both internal and external. Needless to say that during this period Fundamental Rights of the people are suspended and for all practical purposes federal structure of the country turns out to be unitary. Many functions which it is not normally required to be performed
, are now discharged by it.

Because of reasons of secrecy the decisions taken in the cabinet meetings are not recorded. The decisions taken are almost always unanimous. The cabinet meets usually once a week unless there is great urgency to meet early.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the Role of Muslim Politics in India’s Struggle for Independence.

Muslim politics played a very important part in India in country’s freedom struggle. The Muslims, from the very beginning, formed an important community in India along with vast the Hindu majority and no national problem could amicably be solved unless both the communities worked together in the spirit of mutual adjustment and understanding.

In 1857, the Britishers had taken power at least nominally from the Muslims and as such for a long time the former remained under the impression that the latter might try to get back their lost power. Accordingly the government did not follow policy of encouraging the Muslims. The result was that vast majority of the Muslims became socially, economically and culturally backward.

This attitude of the government, however, changed in 1871 when Sir William Hunter in his book. ‘The Indian Musalmans’ tried to stress that the Muslims were so weak that they could not rebel against powerful British empire. Moreover, as the time passed, the government also felt interested that the gap between the Hindus and the Muslims should narrow down.

In order to win over the Muslims, Principal Beck of Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental College, played a leading role and took initiative. He could convince Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a leading Muslim leader, that the interests of the Muslims lay in supporting the government and siding with it, rather with than the nationalist.

Cross Invites Crescent:

Sir Syed Ahmed had all along been a nationalist and always pleaded that both the major communities i.e., the Hindus and the Muslims should work in unison. He quite often said, “If united we can support each-other. If not, the effect of one against the other would tend to the distinction and down fall of both.”

But under the influence of Beck, same Sir Syed Ahmed began to criticise the Congress as well as the Hindus parties. He now began to plead that if elections were held in India without any special safeguards for the Muslims, the result was bound to be permanent domination of the Hindus over the Muslims.

He also founded Indian Patriotic Association with the object of making it clear to the members of British Parliament that Congress wrongly claimed that whole Indian nation was behind it.

He also laid the foundation of Annual Muslim Education Conference in 1886. In 1893, he founded Mohammedan Defense Association of upper India, with Beck as one of its Secretaries.

The Association tried to convince British authorities that democratic system of government was most unsuited to India. In one of the communications the Association said, “It is imperative for the Britishers and Muslims to unite with a view to fighting these agitators and prevent the introduction of democratic form of government unsuited to the needs and genius of the country.”

Not only this but he also tried to bring about religious re-approachment between the Muslims and the Christians. In the words of Shah Din, “He tried to bring about a religious re-approachment between Mohammedans and Christians as he was fully aware that so long as religious antagonism, suspicion and distrust subsisted between the Cross and the Crescent, so long was it hopeless to expect either that the Indian Muslims should become loyally attached to the British rule or that their Christian rulers should on their part learn to regard them as loyal subjects and entitled as such to protection and patronge.”

He also founded M.A.O. College at Aligarh. Lord Lytton, while laying the foundation stone of this college said that aim of the college was to make the Musalmans of India worthy and useful subjects of British Crown.

He supported ilbert Bill and the principle of parity of justice between the English and the Indians. He then began to preach that India was yet not prepared for a popular form of government and that Congress movement was seditious one. According to him under the Congress rule the Muslims will not be much benefited.

The British government gradually began to feel that their future in India could be secure only if two great religious communities fought with each other and also that the government should side with the Muslims.

Sir John wrote in 1894, “The better class of Mohammedans are a source of strength to us and not of weakness. They constitute a comparatively small but energetic minority of population whose political interests are identical with ours, and under no circumstances would prefer Hindu domination over ours.”

Then came the partition of Bengal. Though Lord Curzon pleaded that the aim of partition of the province was to have administratively better control over it, yet in actual practice, according to many critics, it was reward, to the Muslims of their loyalty.

It was felt by the British government that once a Muslim dominated separate province was created, then the Muslims shall be happy and continue to extend their loyalty to the government.

It was, however, misfortune of British government that the plan had to be withdrawn. But it appears that the British government was determined to follow a policy by which two major Indian communities were made to fight with each-other.

The ball was set rolling by Mr. Archbold, Principal, Aligarh Government College. In a letter to Sir Agha Khan, he wrote that Colonel Dunlop Smith, Private Secretary to H.E., the Viceroy had written to him that His Excellency was agreeable to receive a Muslim deputation and that a formal request be made to that effect.

Archbold, however, suggested that such a letter should go under the signature of some representative Muslims and the deputationists should give an assurance of their loyalty to the government.

The deputation should also appreciate the decision of the government that India is to be taken on the path of self-government but should stress that if the principle of election was, introduced that was bound to very adversely effect the interests of minorities.

In order to protect the interests of the Muslims it was, therefore, essential and it should lay stress that either the principle of nomination or that of representation by religion should be introduced. A demand should also be made that some representation may also be given to the Zamindars. He even offered to prepare a draft of the memorandum to be submitted to the His Excellency.

Accordingly a deputation of the Muslims waited on Lord Minto which demanded representation on elected bodies for the Muslims.

The Viceroy in reply said, “I am firmly convinced as I believe you to be, that any electoral representation in India would be doomed to be mischievous failure which aimed at granting personal enfranchisement of the beliefs and traditions of the communities comprising the population of this continent.”

In this way demand for separate electorate was planned and fully met.

The Viceroy then wrote to the Secretary of State, Lord Morley that nothing short of a separate electorate will satisfy the Muslims of India. Morley was in the first instance not satisfied with the proposal made for separate electorate, but ultimately under Minto’s pressure he had to agree and ultimately the system of separate electorate was introduced under Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909.

In this way though the government simply accepted the demand of the Muslims to have separate electorate yet actually it engineered it and thus government sowed the seeds of differences between the two major Indian communities, which ultimately resulted in the partition of the country in 1947.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Stalinism and de-Stalinisation were for few years’ hotly-talked topics and students of Marxism and post-Marxist thought took interest in this issue. But it is surprising to note that none of these two terms had an official seal. De-Stalinisation started its journey from the Twentieth Party Congress of CPSU in February 1956.

Though the historians view in this line none officially uttered the words. Denunciation of Stalinist methods and tactics is treated as de-Stalinisation. Just this much. The bombshell of Khruschev’s speech is generally regarded as the basis of de-Stalinisation. But the speech cannot be treated as the real foundation of de-Stalinisation because it did not contain any new information about the mischiefs that were supposed to have been done by Stalin.

All his misdeeds, errors and mischiefs were known to everyone. But no one had the courage to protest. The death of Stalin in 1953 opened the flood-gates of protest and de-Stalinisation got maximum publicity. So we can say that both the contents and other aspects of de-Stalinisation are quite feeble and unworthy in nature.

The torture and atrocity by Stalin is beyond all sorts of condemnation. But at the same time it is required to be remembered that the political chaos and uncertainty created by the death of Lenin could not be put into check without the methods adopted by Stalin. From the standpoint of stability, unity in the party and peace in society the unethical activities of Stalin had certain amount of utility, but from a neutral point of view it is definitely condemnable.

The relation between politics and morality or ethics is still an issue of controversy. But this does not rule out the scope of criticism. That is, the activities of Stalin are not above criticism. Here again we hold the view that Stalin committed certain inhuman activities.

The concentration camp was undoubtedly the most heinous creation of the Stalinist era and the most remarkable achievement of Khrushchev was the abolition of these camps. In our post-mortem analysis we can say that numerous changes were introduced in Russia to remove the black spots of the Stalin-era, but no remarkable success was achieved.

The excessive emphasis on heavy industries of the Stalinist era continued. There was no substantial improvement in agriculture sector. After Stalin’s death several attempts were made to decentralise and minor success was achieved. But all these could not bring about an air of openness and ensure complete decentrali­sation. The foundation of communist despotism remained unimpaired.

Kolakowski writes, “The abandonment of mass terror was important for human security, but it did not affect the state’s absolute power over the individual, it did not confer on citizen’s any institutional rights on infringe the state and party monopoly. The principle of totalitarian government was upheld, whereby human beings are the property of the state”.

So we hold the view that the condemnation of Stalinism as an embodiment of torture and autocracy was not worthy. It should be maintained that the rise of Stalinism or de-Stalinisation is chiefly due to the fact that some people could not tolerate Stalin and his method of administration and policy.

“The only communist regimes in the world are the Leninist-Stalinist pattern on Stalin’s death the Soviet system changed from a personal tyranny to that of an oligarchy”.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Read this essay to learn about Alienation. After reading this essay you will learn about: 1. Definition and Nature of Alienation 2. Rise and Development of Alienation 3. Marx’s Theory 4. The German Ideology 5. Effects 6. Types 7. Emancipation.

Definition and Nature of Alienation:

According to COD alienation is the state or experience of being alienated. A state of depersonalisation or loss of identity in which the self seems unreal.

Alienate means cause to feel isolated. Lose or destroy the support or sympathy. But the dictionary meaning of alienation though paves the path for better understanding of the concept; it is not enough for forming a comprehensive idea.

Rousseau and Marx used the concept in their political philosophies and in the twentieth century this has been widely analysed by a good number of thinkers. In this analysis we shall primarily confine ourselves within the Marxian sense. But before him Rousseau developed the idea in his mind.

The author of the article Alienation published in Bottomore’s a Dictionary of Marxist Thought says:

“In Marx’s sense an action through which (or a state in which) a person, a group, an institution or a society becomes (or remains) alien (1) to the results or products of its own activity (and to the activity itself) or to the nature in which it lives or to other human beings. Thus conceived alienation is always self-alienation i.e., the alienation of man (of his self) from himself (from his human possibilities) through himself (through his own activity). And self-alienation is not just one among the forms of alienation but the very essence and basic structure of alienation”.

Alienation has another manifestation. It is not simply a concept but a real picture of a capitalist society. If it is so then we may treat it as an appeal for a revolutionary change of society.

Marx intended to emphasize that alienation is the primary cause of dehumanisation and both alienation and dehumanisation are curse of a bourgeois society.

Meszaros in his noted work Marx’s Theory of Alienation explains the concept in the following way: “Alienation is an eminently historical concept.” If man is alienated from something, as a result of certain causes the interplay of events and circumstances in relation to man as the subject of this alienation which manifest themselves is a historical framework. Meszaros calls it a historical idea or concept because it did not arise all on a sudden.

In a capitalist society the system of production and the nature of the economy created an atmosphere which ultimately resulted in alienation. Alienation is not a negligible aspect of a bourgeois society. Its tentacles spread almost every part of society and in that sense it is general.

It is said that:

(a) Man is alienated from nature,

(b) From himself, that is from his own activity,

(c) From his species-being,

(d) And, finally, he is alienated from his fellow citizens.

What is of importance is that there are foot-prints of alienation in every nook and corner of a capitalist society.

In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscript 1844, Marx made the following remark: Man’s species being, both nature and his spiritual species properly, into a being alien to him, into a means to his individual existence, his human being.

Man is estranged from the product which he produces with his own labour, with his own intelligence and physical capacity. He becomes, due to the curse of alienation, simply a machine.

We here quote a part of Meszaros’ comment he makes about Marx’s idea on alienation: “Thus Marx’s conception of alienation embraces the manifestations of man’s estrangement from nature and from himself on the one hand and the expressions of this process in the relationship of man-mankind and man-man on the other”.

Rise and Development of Alienation:

Since alienation is an important part of Marx’s philosophy the scholars have displayed active interest in its various aspects. George Lukacs is of opinion that Marx’s theory of alienation can be traced to Hegel’s Protestantising Critique of positivity.

In this critique Hegel rejects as dead those human relationships or institutions in which persons give only an outward and constrained conformity, but concerning which they lack a freely given inward conviction.

Gouldner says:

The roots of the theory of alienation, then, reach down into the rejection of “constraint” into the disjunction in which constraint is experienced as powerful but wrong; it is a response to the perception of this violation of grammar of societal rationality and an effort to overcome such an unpermitted social world.

The spiritual world is a world of corruption and slavery. It is uncontrolled absolutely by few churchmen. Ordinary people are deprived of unhindered access to the temple of God. Naturally the church or temple or any holy place is alien to them.

Neither protestation nor grumbling has any effect. Common people have no feeling for the world they live in. It is alien to them. This is the picture of alienation generally found in religious world.

Rousseau is the real progenitor of Marx so far as the idea of alienation is concerned, because he spoke of this concept in the most unequivocal terms.

He started in Social Contract with the famous declaration:

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.” Rousseau says that from the moment of his birth man is the victim of alienation. Man is born in a society and then he is alienated from it.

This alienation is to be removed through the formation of a new society whose mechanism is social contract. A new body formed on the basis of certain principles can destroy the possibility of alienation.

The formation of body politic alone cannot remove alienation. The whole body politic will be administered by the principle of general will and this general will is the sovereign.

In other words, introduction of direct democracy is the only way out from the menace of alienation. In Rousseau’s judgment enlightenment and the all-round development of reason were the root causes of alienation, because these invited fraud and corruption. This led Rousseau to revolt against reason and progress of science and civilization.

In this connection I quote a beautiful remark of J. S. McClelland. “Rousseau’s insistence that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of force and fraud is an ideological statement”.

Rousseau speaks of alienation from nature. He is of opinion that when a good thing is out of hands of God it finally comes to be vicious. Degeneration in all its forms steals the virtue of goodness and man comes to be its victim.

Finally civilization comes to be the victim of this degeneration. Man is separated from his near and dear ones, from his environment. Man’s most dear wishes remain unfulfilled.

In the state of nature there was no existence of alienation. For that reason he suggested to build up a new society which would facilitate the revival of old state of nature and at the same time destroy alienation. Money and wealth are chiefly responsible for the alienation because these have corrupted man’s mind and self centred.

The exorbitant love for money leads him to earn more and more money and this is a vital factor of the rise of alienation. We think that Rousseau rightly diagnosed the cause of alienation.

Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) threw sufficient light on the concept of alienation and Marx agreed with most of the views of Feuerbach. We have already stated that Feuerbach strongly critici
zed the prevailing concept of religion and in that connec­tion he opposed the religion-created alienation.

Feuerbach said that “man is not a self-alienated God, but God is self-alienated man” God is created by man, but he is above man and is separated from man in all respects. He is estranged from man and Feurbach calls it alienation.

In Feurbach’s opinion religion is the best example of estrangement or alienation. He further says that it is peculiar that the religion or God is man’s own creation and ultimately he is separated from it. Naturally if man wants to make him alienation-free, the best way is de-alienation.

Feuerbach confined himself within the religious alienation and Marx did not agree with this, because he was of opinion that alienation was of more than one form. This was first pointed out by Hess.

Hess did not agree with Feuerbach’s one type alienation. Marx also agreed with Hess and this he noted in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. “Marx praised Hegel for having grasped the self-creation of man as a process, objectification as loss of the object, as alienation and transcend­ence of this alienation. But he criticized Hegel for having identified objectification with alienation and for having regarded man as self-consciousness and the aliena­tion of man as the alienation of his consciousness” Bottomore (ed) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought.

Marx’s Theory of Alienation:

Both The German Ideology and Paris Manuscripts have elaborately analysed the theory of alienation. In the Paris Manuscripts Marx has used the term alienation of labour or alienated labour.

What did Marx actually mean by alienation or alienated labour? We shall quote a lengthy passage from his Paris Manuscripts. He said: “The worker is related to the product of his labour as to an alien object. The object he produces does not belong to him, dominates him and only serves in the long run to increase his poverty. Secondly, alienation appears not only in the result, but also in the process of production and productive activity itself. The worker is not at home in his work which he views only as a means of satisfying others’ needs. It is an activity directed against himself, that is, independent of him, and does not belong to him. Thirdly, alienated labour succeeds in alienating man from his species. Species life, productive life, life creating life turns into a mere means of sustaining the worker’s individual existence and man is alienated from his fellowmen. Finally, nature itself is alienated from man, who thus loses his own inorganic body.” Marx speaks of these four types of alienation.

The alienation, he describes, is primarily the product of capitalist system of economy. But if the capitalism is in its childhood stage the alienation does-not seem to be its basic characteristic.

When it sufficiently develops the alienation surfaces prominently. Explaining Marx’s standpoint or view Kolakowski makes the follow­ing observation: “Private property is a consequence and not a cause of the alienation of labour. In the developed conditions of capitalist appropriation the alienation of labour is expressed by the fact that the worker’s own labours as well as its own products have become alien to him. Labour has become a commodity like any other, which means that the worker himself has become a commodity and is obliged to sell himself at the market price determined by the minimum cost of maintenance; wages thus tend inevitably to fall to the lowest level that will keep the workmen alive and able to rear children”.

In other words, the worker works hard and this he does not for his own satisfaction or benefits but for the benefits of the capitalist. He grumbles, he remains dissatisfied. But he is helpless.

Marx has also said:

“The worker only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home”.

Marx draws our attention to this point. He says that the working class alone is not the victim of alienation. The entire capitalist society comes under the evil influence of alienation.

In the Holy Family he writes:

“The propertied class and the class of proletariat represent the same human self-alienation. But the former feels comfortable and confirmed in the self-alienation knowing that this alienation is its own power and possessing its semblance of human existence. The latter feels itself ruined in the alienation and sees in it impotence and the actuality of an inhuman existence”.

Alienation produces double effects. The capitalist class, though alien­ated, produces wealth. The working class is alienated but is the victim of poverty and exploitation. There is hardly any good relation or coordination between the two classes though both are indispensable for production.

The German Ideology and Alienation:

In the German Ideology Marx and Engels have discussed the alienation. But instead of using the word alienation they have used “estrangement” which also signifies alienation. 

According to Marx-Engels one of the basic characteristics of capitalist society is the division of labour and within this there lie numerous contradictions. The worker is separated from family. But normally this should not happen.

Again, in a capitalist society, families are opposed to each other. The produce is not properly distributed, that is, there is unequal distribution of commodities. This is also a type of contradiction and leads to alienation.

The conditions in the family, relations that grow within the family and other related matter are also the product of capitalist system. These are the potential sources of alienation. None gets rid of it because everything is inextricably related with capitalism.

Marx-Engels write in the German Ideology:

“Out of the very contradiction between the particular and the common interests, the common interest assumes an independent form as the state, which is divorced from the real individual and collective interests, and at the same time as an illusory community as long as man remains in naturally evolved society, that is as long as a cleavage between the particular and the common interests, as long as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally divided man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him which enslaves instead of being controlled by him. As soon as division of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape”.

Some critics have alleged that compared with Paris Manuscripts Marx uses the word alienation or alienated labour less frequently in The German Ideology. But Kolakowski says that this allegation is baseless because in many places he and Engels have used the alienation or estrangement.

In The German Ideology Marx and Engels have said that division of labour was the real villain, that it was the root cause of alienation. The improvement of tools has intensified and universalized the division of labour and this, in turn, led to the alienation.

Kolakowski observes:

“Division of labour leads necessarily to commerce, i.e., the transformation of objects produced by man into vehicles of abstract exchange value. When things become commodities, the basic pre-miss of alienation already exists”.

Hence the real culprit is division of labour. Furthermore, without division of labour the modern industry cannot proceed at all. It is, however, evident that in The German Ideology Marx and Engels both were fully conscious of the alienation.

Let us quote few lines from the German Ideology:

“Individuals have always regarded themselves as the point of departure; their relations are part of the real process of their lives. How can it b
e, then, that their relationships become independent of them, that the forces of their own lives gain control over them? The answer, in a word, is the division of labour, the degree of which depends on the extent to which productive forces have developed.”

In the German Ideology they have further observed:

“For the proletarians the condition of their life, labour and with it all the conditions of existence of modern society, have become something extraneous, something over which they as separate individuals, have no control, and over which no social organisation can give them control”.

Effects of Alienation:

Marx and Engels have not consistently analyses the inhuman effects of alienation. The central idea of this alienation is it is the core of the entire capitalist system and it is the primary reason of the dehumanisation of man in general and workers in particular.

As a result of alienation man simply becomes an instrument of produc­tion. All his good and artistic qualities are lost.

“Alienated labour deprives man of his species-life, other human beings become alien to him, communal existence is impossible, and life is merely a system of conflicting egoism. Private property, which arises from alienated labour, becomes in its turn a source of alienation, which it fosters increasingly”.

The effect of alienation is it paralyses the entire society. Man is paralyzed; he forgets social and ethical aspects of life. In society there develops social relation among men. This social relation based on mutual love, respect, and give-and-take relation is, in a sense, elixir of life.

Man draws inspiration from the social relation. But the division of labour destroys all these aspects and man finally becomes a tool of production of various commodities. The worker is reduced to a mere animal or a lifeless instrument of production.

Physiologically a worker is a man and this much only. In the real sense he is not a man. Again, the capitalist is not free from the bad effects of alienation. A capitalist is a human being no doubt. But as a consequence of alienation he is simply a money-making machine. He forgets social life.

To a capitalist money is the supreme good and all other things are inferior to it. A worker is practically forced to think in the same line. Thus the whole society is dehumanised as a result of alienation.

Types of Alienation:

In Capital, The German Ideology, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844) and many other works Marx, along with Engels, has discussed various types of alienation. These may be categorized as political alienation, economic alienation, alienation of human power etc. We shall start with political alienation.

According to Marx man plays double role he is a member of society and, at the same time, he is a member of state which is also called political system. As a member of society he has his own views or conception about religion, morality, ethics, values and culture and he always endeavours for the fulfillment of these.

An individual cannot avoid society or he cannot live outside it. He is also a member of the state or political system. The problem lies in the fact that though the individual is a member of the state, he is not fully free to do his duties. This is primarily due to the fact that the economy and administration of the state are dominated by the bourgeoisie and it is so controlled as to safeguard the interests of this class.

In the state, common people are not free to take their political an economic decision freely. It is because the capitalists control the entire state for their own benefits, and, in that situation, general public are practically alienated from the political and economic structure. Again, in capitalist system, people have very little or no scope of participation in the affairs of the state.

Again, in the economic field, people are simply wage-earners and this wage is subsistence level that is somehow to maintain the physical existence of the wage-earner and his family. Again, the bureaucracy of the state is all powerful and the common people have no scope of participation. This is the central idea of political alienation as Marx and Engels witnessed in their contemporary society.

The economic alienation is the most important form of alienation and both Marx and Engels have emphasized it.

In the Economic and Political Manuscripts (also called the Paris Manuscripts) and Capital (Vol. III) Marx elaborately analyses the economic alienation.

He has said that in the primitive mode of production there was no division of labour because the productive system was not developed at all. But, with the progress of productive system and capitalism, division of labour ultimately came to be an integral part of capitalist economy. For the betterment of economy and other compulsive reasons the capitalists were forced to introduce division of labour and with the progress of the capitalist system the division of labour gradually intensified.

With the improvement of the division of labour there appeared spectacular loss of freedom of the workers. Because the workers of one industry had no freedom to move from one industry to another.

Marx said:

Since his own labour has been alienated from himself by the sale of his labour power, has been appropriated by the capitalists and incorporated with capitals, it must be in the production process, be realized in a product that does not belong to him.

The labourer constantly produces material, objective wealth but in the form of capital of an alien power that dominates and exploits him. The capitalist also produces labour power in the form of subjective source of wealth separated from the objects in which it can alone be realized.

In expansion of capitalism, growth of wealth creates only wage labourer. A barrier or alienation is created between capitalists and worker. The growth of capitalism only perpetuates alienation.

Marx further says:

“Capital shows itself more and more as a social power and its agent is the capitalist. The capitalist enjoys the right to appropriate values created by the workers. On the contrary, the worker is not the owner of the product he produces. Capital becomes a strange, independent social power. It stands opposed to the society and opposed to the interest of labourers. The contradiction between capital as a general social power and as a power of private capitalists over the social conditions of production develops into an ever more irreconcilable clash.”

This clash or contradiction is basically due to the alienation of worker from the mainstream of productive system. Marx’s special emphasis is that a capitalist system cannot get rid of alienation because there is contradiction.

Marx has also said that in the field of alienation technological progress has a special importance Machinery is not guided by man; rather man is guided by machine. Labourer has no opportunity to work with the machinery in accordance with his own will or advantage. Rather, labourer will have to cooperate with the machinery.

It is a fact that machinery helps man to produce huge amount of commodities but its dark side is it has made man its slave. How the capitalist productive apparatus intensifies the alienation.

Kolakowski beautifully says:

“Work presents itself to him as an alien occupation, and he forfeits his essence as a human being, which is reduced to purely biological activities. Labour becomes only a means to individual animalized life and the social essence of man becomes a mere instrument of individual existence. Alienated labour deprives man of his species- life, other human beings become alien to him, communal existence is impossible and life is merely a system of conflicting egoism”.

If we go through Marx’s writings we shall find another type of alienation and it is alienation of human power.

Ma
rx says:

“Man is directly a natural. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand furnished with natural powers of life he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities as impulses. On the other hand as a natural corporeal, sensuous, objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his impulses exist outside him, as objects independent of him. Yet these objects are objects of his need essential objects indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential power.”

What Marx emphasizes here is that as a natural human being he has certain desires, impulses, liking and disliking. He has the desire to fulfill his desires. But the tragedy of the capitalist system is man has no power to satisfy his desires, to translate the impulses into reality, because he does not possess the power. The capitalist system has snatched away that power.

Marx further observes:

“Man is not merely a natural being, he is a human being. That is to say he is a being for himself. Therefore, he is a species-being and has to confirm and manifest himself as such both in his being and in his knowing. Neither nature objectively nor nature subjectively is directly given in a form of adequate to the human being.”

From the above two passages we can draw certain conclusion:

(1) Man is a natural being.

(2) As a natural being he has certain impulses and natural needs and he wants to satisfy them.

(3) Man lives in a society.

His life and all sorts of activities are performed and satisfied with the help of others and in association with others. But in the system of capitalist economy he is not getting these opportunities.

The capitalist system virtually separates one man from another. The needs of man are not fixed, always changing, but he is not capable of keeping himself abreast of change. It is because the capitalist system has enormously truncated his power and ability.

Suppressing his wishes and all sort of impulses he is forced to the power of the society that is the authority of the capitalist system.

Marx is of opinion that alienation is peculiar to class; society workers are alienated from the mainstream of society (both politically and economically). They are the real agents of production. They create wealth but they are deprived of the benefit of wealth.

The system of the division of labour has created an atmosphere of alienation. It is beyond the capacity of the workers to rectify or change it in their favour.

The workers are alienated in the field of production due to the strict division of labour. Workers are converted into machine and they work just like machine. They have impulses but have no time to feel them.

“In bourgeois society men acquire values in which they cannot find satisfaction, they are frustrated and are therefore, prone to actions which are wrong or illegal according to the moral rules and laws which embody these values. The morality of a bourgeois society is not a truly human morality; it does not allow men to make the most of their natural capacities”.

Plamenatz, however, does not agree with Marx that the alienation is the product of capitalism and class society.

Emancipation from Alienation:

We have pointed out the harmful effects of alienation. It paralyses man’s artistic aspects of life, it dehumanises him. Because of alienation man fails to establish himself as a man. Hence it is the primary objective of man to get rid of the alienation. But the problem is to think to emancipate from alienation and finally to translate it into reality are very different issues.

Only the abolition of private property cannot ensure the emancipation from alienation. The tentacles of alienation are spread far and wide and sometimes they have gone into the deep of society.

The primary source of alienation lies in the system of private property. This was the opinion of Marx and Engels. Even before them Saint-Simon thought almost in the same line. The problem is how emancipation from alienation is possible remains a million dollar question.

The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts were first published in 1932 and the Grundrisse in 1939 and they were republished in 1953. The Marxists are of opinion that the publication or republication have thrown profuse light on various aspects of Marxist philosophy but throws little light on the emancipation of alienation.

In The German Ideology Marx and Engels casually mention Rousseau’s Contract Social. Perhaps Marx and Engels thought of Rousseau’s ambitious plan of establishing a new society which he called public person and we call it an ideal society based on Platonic model of idealism.

Rousseau thought that setting up of such a society would be capable of emancipating people from alienation which was the conse­quence of the development of art, science and culture. But we are not sure whether Marx and Engels thought in the line of Rousseau.

There will be an end to all speculation if we look at the complete philosophical thought of Marx and Engels and their numerous suggestions. They were all along against the system of private property which, according to Marx, created disastrous effects in society.

In other words, the system of private property is the root of all evils including alienation. It paralyses practically everything of man’s “species-life”. Hence the abolition of private property shall be the first step towards the emanci­pation from alienation.

Along with the abolition of private property Marx also suggested that religion must be abolished. Both private property system and the system of God were simultaneously responsible for the alienation. Private property system means capitalism.

In Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts Marx elaborately analyses various aspects and forms of alienation.

“The criticism of alienation was not an end in itself for Marx. His aim was to pave the way for a radical revolution and for the realization of communism understood as the reintegration of man, his return to himself, the supersession of man’s self-alienation and the positive abolition of private property”.

The Communist Manifesto ends with the following declaration:

“The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

Upload and Share Your Article:

After reading this article you will learn about the Marxian Theory of State:- 1. Introduction to Marxian Theory of State 2. Definition of State 3. Origin of State 4. State and Irreconcilable Classes 5. State as an Instrument of Exploitation 6. Evaluation of Marxian Theory of State 7. A Critique of Marxian Theory of State.

Introduction to Marxian Theory of State:

Marxian theory of the state is basically different from pluralist and elitist theories. According to the former there are manifold agencies and groups in society and the position of the state is just like a neutral agency whose function is to settle disputes neutrally. But it is wishful thinking that the state maintains neutrality among the different conflicting groups and classes.

Rather, it always acts in favour of economi­cally dominant class. Marx and Engels reject this pluralist notion of state. The elitist theories hold the view that only a small group, called elite, having higher and better skill and ability, controls political power.

Engels has said that the minority group qualified and called to rule by the given degree of economic development. The power base, then, is the ownership and control of society’s productive resources.

The elite group, that controls the forces of production, ultimately controls the political power. Marxism sees and interprets state from a quite different perspective which in final analysis is the rejection of both pluralist and elitist theories.

It views the state in the light of classes and class struggle and believes that a classless society will be the final goal of the struggle. The classic view of Marxian theory of state is to be found in Communist Manifesto.

Here Marx and Engels make the following observation:

“The executive power of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”

Commenting on this view of Marx and Engels the writer of the article published in Bottomore edited A Dictionary of Marxist thought, writes:

“This is a more complex statement than appears at first sight, but it is too summary, and lends itself to oversimplification – however it does represent the core proposition of Marxism on the subject of the state”.

It is to be noted here that what is popularly known as the Marxian theory of the state is nowhere clearly and elaborately stated by Marx. Only his life-long friend Engels has dealt with the matter in his the origin of Family, Private Property and State.

Later on, Lenin in his State and Revolution elaborates the contention of Marx and Engels. Besides, in numerous other works, Marx and Engels have made passing or cryptic remarks about state which provide potential sources or materials for building up a theory of state.

A few more words may be added to our present analysis. In fact, Marxist theory of state of the sixties and seventies of the nineteenth century has been reformulated by the continental thinkers. So long Stalin was alive he did not allow any country or individual to commence research work about numerous aspects of Marx’s and Engel’s thought.

After his death in 1953 tremen­dous enthusiasm was shown by scholars throughout the globe. The tangible consequence is that the scholars of various countries have started to interpret various concepts of Marx and Engels in new light and perspective. Marxism, today, is not the property of few blunt-headed and less educated politicians.

From the extensive research work three views of state have come out. The state is the product of class divisions of society, the state is an instrument of class rule and finally when the society becomes classless there will be no need of state. It will wither away. These three assertions build up the whole fabric of Marxian theory of state. All these are connected with each other.

Definition of State:

In the German Ideology Marx and Engels have made the following observation regarding state “out of this very contradiction between the interest of the indi­vidual and that of the community, the latter takes an independent form as the State, divorced from the real interests of individual and community.”

In such a state there are conflicts and struggles, but all these are illusory, that they are not real. Mere mock fighting. No one is interested in setting up a true government or democracy and in abolishing class division.

They have further said in the same book that the state is the political form of class rule. In their own words “Since the state is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests, and in which the whole civil society of an epoch is epitomized, it follows that all institutions are set up with the help of the state and are given a political form.”

There is an Introduction by Engels to The Civil War in France (1891) where he criticizes the philosophical theory of state elaborated by Hegel. The state is neither the “realization of the idea” nor March to the kingdom of God on earth.

It is absolutely a material conception devised by men to meet material needs. These needs, of course, belong to a particular class or group of people. Engels writes in this Introduction “In reality the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after the victorious struggle for class supremacy”. The state, according to Marx and Engels, is a machine of class rule and it is also an evil.

In the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Marx points out that the state is a political or administrative unit consisting of bureaucracy and army. Elsewhere Marx and Engels have said three agencies combined together constitute a political form and this is called state.

These agencies are bureaucracy, army and police. In fact, these are the three arms of any modern bourgeois state. In The Civil War in France Marx has added judicial organ to the three arms of bourgeois state.

The Russian state, he said, was completely dependent on the police and army and with the help of these two the Prussian Government established autocratic rule.

In Grundrisse Marx has said that state is a complex synthesis of multiple determinations.

In Politics Ideology and the Stale Sally Hibbin writes:

“One cannot take the state as an unproblematic given nor reduce it to one of its multiple determinations. The state is both the point of departure and the point of arrival in political analysis since it can only be comprehended after a complex process of theoretical analysis and synthesis.”

Of all these definitions, we think the most significant one is the state is a complex synthesis. The concept of state can never be confined within certain specific denominations. With the change of economic, political and situations or conditions the managers of the capitalist state change the methods of administration and attitudes to various issues.

It is because the sole purpose of the managers is to keep intact the supreme hold over the state.

Origin of State:

Marx and Engels studied the views of the three contractualists and found their view unacceptable because the state could never be the product of any contract. From the study of history both Marx and Engels reached the conclusion that it was the product of class rule and the dominant class uses it to maintain its supremacy.

That is, the state is man-made and it was created to fulfill specific purposes Marxian theory of the state is based on the foundation of historical materialism. It has nothing to do with contract. It is the prod
uct of class antagonism.

In The Origin of Family, Private Property and State Engels has surveyed the gradual development of state. It is man- made no doubt, but the artefact of the state is based on scientific reason and perfect logic. Here lies the novelty of their idea.

They have not imagined of any state of nature which according to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau was either intolerable or inconvenient. On the contrary, Marx and Engels have shown the development of state from the primitive communal stage to the industrial period.

Only in the primitive period there was no state in modern sense because there were no classes and private property. To sum up, the state represents a particular class, used as a machine by that class and protects the interests of the economically dominant class Both Marx and Engels have elaborated the rise and development of state as a political organisation in The German Ideology.

Summarizing the views of Marx and Engels in Anti-Duhring, The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State Plamenatz says “The need for the state arises from the increasing size of the community and from the extended division of labour inside it. A close study of views expressed by Marx, Engels and Lenin in many of their works reveals that two factors are primarily responsible for the emergence of state. One is division of labour and the other is the class division of society. As the division of labour increases, the society divides itself into classes. With the increase of the size of the community the occupations within it became diverse and specialized. Complex rules and procedures were needed to control them. Complexity created ample room for varied disputes. Primitive way of settling the disputes proved its irrelevance and ineffectiveness. All these together needed an authority with controlling power. Maintenance became the primary function of state. The interests of the classes were irreconcilable.”

Following Engels we can admit that the form of the state depends on how the society is divided into classes but the class structure is dependent on division of labour and system of property Hence the institution of state has not emerged out of nothing. It is a reality and product of real situation.

We quote here the famous observation of Engels:

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without just as little is it “the reality of ethical idea”, the “image and reality of reason”, as Hegel maintains. Rather, it 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 is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. A power above society became necessary”.

It therefore, appears that according to Marx and Engels the state is a reality and it is not an embodiment of Absolute Spirit. The state is the creation of men and it was created to meet certain specific demands of some people who formed a class which was economically most powerful.

The emergence of the state is characterized by the formation of a special group of people engaged only in government and using a special apparatus of coercion for this purpose.

“When there appears such a group of man occupied solely with government, and who in order to rule need a special apparatus of coercion to subjugate the will of others by force prisons, special contingents of men, armies etc. then there appears the state.”

Lenin has said that the appearance of class and the emergence of state as an institution are almost simultaneous. If there were no classes and private property, there would been no necessity of state. This point has been elaborated by Lenin in his small Pamphlet State. Of course Lenin’s views are not different from those of Marx and specially Engels.

Engels in his noted work The Origin of Family, Private Property and State. Engels has elaborately analysed the rise, growth and other aspects of state.

The organs of the state appear partly as a result of the transformation of the previous organs of government that took shape within the tribal system, and partly by means of the elimination of the management organs of the tribal system and their replacement by the new organs.

Thus, the apparatus of the special public power of class society, the so-called state apparatus, gradually takes shape. Following Engels, Lenin has said that the origin of state can be traced to the emergence of economic classes in society and also to the creation of property system.

The organs of the capitalist state also existed in tribal and feudal systems though in different forms. Coercion was the characteristic feature of the tribal system of government and the bourgeois state system inherits that.

State and Irreconcilable Classes:

It has been stressed by Engels that the state is the result of irreconcilability of class interests. Recent researchers have made attempts to show whether the irreconcilable class interests are exclusively responsible for the emergence of state or the state causes the interests of various classes irreconcilable. The issue is to be treated with all seriousness.

The persons having free access to political power can use it to augment the quantum of property or wealth and it is a quite natural tendency on their part. Besides political power they use other means.

However, political power is the chief source of accumulation of property. Accumulation of wealth enhances exploitation.

Plamenatz writes:

“The owners of property acquire, in various ways, rights of property in other people’s labour; they acquire slaves or serfs. Therefore, the exploitation of class by class arises, at least in great part, as a consequence of the emergence of state.”

There is a famous sentence in the Communist Manifesto – “Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another,” So far as the nature of bourgeois state is concerned this is a significant comment.

In this short sentence Marx and Engels have portrayed the real picture of capitalist state. Political power is used to oppress or exploit class or classes. It is well-organized and used by a class.

The economically powerful or dominant class creates access and avenues to the corridor of political power and subsequently uses it for the realization of its own sectorial interests. The appearance of classes, irreconcilability of interests and the inequality between the classes are no doubt responsible for the emergence of state.

Simultaneously the state is the cause of exploitation, oppression and aggravation of inequality. Mere existence of antagonis­tic classes cannot cause oppression. Or even if there is oppression it cannot assume alarming form.

In this connection we can remember the observation of Plamenatz  “Where there is no apparatus of power controlled by one class to the detriment of others there cannot be much class oppression.”

There are two processes the appearance of state and appearance of unequal classes. Do these two processes overlap? Plamenatz says that these two processes do not overlap.

According to Engels the appearance of classes is the cause of the rise of state. But once the state appears and consolidates its power and position it begins to act in favour of the powerful class and the political or state power is used to widen the inequality.

Plamenatz concludes “What Marx and Engels say about connections between two social processes does not accord with their actual description of these processes. They tell us that one process determines the other, when they come to describe one or other of the processes they admit that each has a powerful influence on the other the rise of the state is as much a cause as an effect of the emergence of classes”.

State as an Instrument
of Exploitation:

The general and most popular formulation of Marxist theory of state is to be found in the Communist Manifesto. It is popularly known as the instrumentalist model or the state is an instrument of exploitation.

In numerous places Marx and Engels have expressed that the state is used as a weapon by the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletarians. Two famous remarks of Marx and Engels may be quoted here in support of the above view. These are from the Manifesto.

One is “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” This remark I have already quoted earlier in reference to the definition of state. The second we have quoted in the present analysis several times. This is “political power is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.” In the Socialist Register, 1968, Ralph Miliband says, “This is the classical Marxist view on the subject of the state and it is the only one which is to be found in Marxism-Leninism.”

In regard to Marx himself, and this is also true to a certain extent of Engels as well, it only constitutes what might be called primary view of the state. But there is to be found another view of the state in his work. This is the relative autonomy model. This cannot claim equal status with the instrumentalist model. It is, nonethe­less, of great importance.

The implication of the statement, the state is an instrument of exploitation of class rule is that if there were no unequal classes, with the superior among them needing to use force to maintain the social conditions of their superiority, there would be no state. Because of the unequal distribution of property, one class having the largest share of property or wealth and the dominating class having free access to governmental affairs, the exploitation by the ruling class becomes the character­istic feature of society.

The instrumentalist model of Marxist theory of state emphasizes that the state is simply a weapon of class rule. It never thinks of neutrality among the various classes of society. Whenever there is a conflict between proletariat and capitalists the two most powerful classes of capitalist state, the authority or what may also be called the government always comes forward to protect the capitalists from all types of attack.

It is because the interests of state and capitalists fully coincide. The bourgeois state always fights for the interests of capitalists. This type of state sometimes gives some concessions to the proletarians but it is infinitesimal. The state does it to establish it’s so called neutrality.

We have earlier noted that The German Ideology and the Manifesto of Communist Party are the two primary sources of the instrumentalist model. Reference to Manifesto has already been made.

Now we shall turn to the German Ideology. “By the mere fact that it is a class and no longer an estate, the bourgeoisie is forced to organize itself no longer locally, but nationally and to give a general form to its average interests it is nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeois are compelled to adopt, both for internal and external purposes for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests.”

Miliband says that this “general form” is nothing but state. The capitalists use this general form of organization to safeguard their property and other interests. It is simply due to the fact that army, bureaucracy and police the three pillars of bourgeois state are under the control of the authority of such state.

In the Poverty of Philosophy published in 1847, Marx again states that political conditions are only the official expression of civil society. The state is always subject to economic conditions. Legislation reflects the will of those who control the economic affairs.

If the state were not an instrument of exploitation there would never arise the necessity of class struggle that is, the struggle between the two dominant or powerful classes of capitalist state. Hence the instrumentalist model of state occupies the most important place in Marxian theory of state.

Why did Marx and Engels say that the political power is an instrument of exploitation? It is observed that in their time there were mature and powerful capitalist states Great Britain, France and USA. Of these three first two were European countries and when they were writing Manifesto both Britain and France established themselves as representative of powerful ruling class.

The persons manning the various branches of state administration were recruited only from the powerful sections of society. Even today this system has not lost its importance. The economic and cultural background of the persons managing the state affairs is the same.

Naturally these persons who are also called elites will make all efforts to use the state as a weapon of protecting the interests of the ruling class. Marx and Engels were so much convinced that they, in various ways, expressed the instrumentalist character of bourgeois state in Manifesto and The German Ideology.

In a developed capitalist economy the sources of production are in the complete control of the bourgeoisie and this control is intensified to consolidate the power and position of bourgeoisie.

By setting up giant industrial organisations the capitalists control the production and also the productive system.

In the capitalist controlled world small business holdings have no place. Both the internal and external markets are under the control of the bourgeois.

Particularly for establishing hegemony over the markets of other states the state machinery is used by the capitalists. The domains of politics and economy coincide. The capitalists form an organization to press their demand and these acts as a powerful pressure group.

Because of the structural constraints the state is called the instrument of exploitation. What do we mean by these structural constraints? If the economy, in all its manifestations, is under the full grip of the bourgeoisie, the state will be the complete reflection of this particular class.

Miliband has said that the state is the instrument of the ruling class because, given its insertion in capitalist mode of production, it cannot be anything else. The economic system or base will be capitalist and the superstructure will be socialist that peculiar situation cannot be imagined. Even it is un-Marxian. There shall be a correspondence between base and superstructure. Antagonism might also appear, but not always. A recent critic has defined the state as an instrument of ruling class.

He says, “The state is the institution or complex of institutions, which bases itself on the availability of forcible coercion by special agencies of society in order to maintain the dominance of a ruling class, preserve the existing property relations from basic change and keep all other classes in subjection.”

This implies that the state consists of an increasingly complex apparatus of domination to defend the existing property relations. This comment of Hal Draper is nothing but the repetition of the view that the state in bourgeois system always acts to protect primarily the interests of the ruling class. Our point is the instrumentalist model of state is a widely accepted notion of Marxist theory of state.

Evaluation of Marxian Theory of State:

The instrumentalist model of Marxian theory of state has been criticized from various angles. Bob Jessop, a recent critic, observes that there is uncertainty in the formulation of the instrumentalist approach. This approach is accompanied by 3 short message and rhetoric.

It suffers from objective analysis. The state, in all cases and in all epochs, is an instrument of the ruling class this is an oversimplification of the whole issue. Bob Jessop is of opinion that it is unjustified to brand the capitalist state as an instrument of exploita
tion.

It has other manifestations. It exploits and at the same time it performs welfare activities. Not a single bourgeois state has neglected the interests of the working class.

It is true that its main sympathy is for the capitalist class. But the parliamentary forms and political consciousness have alerted the state about its primary responsibility towards the teeming millions.

Sometimes the state plays the role of neutrality. It may be rare but it is a fact. In many political systems the bourgeoisie has not succeeded in controlling the politics and economic affairs up to its full satisfaction

In the second half of the nineteenth century the rise of middle class, modification of liberalism and propagation of Fabian Socialism curtailed the meteoric rise of capitalism. Particularly the Fabian socialists were determined to cut the capitalism to size.

The philosophers, intellectuals, politicians, statesmen and policy-makers could not keep them aloof from the growing misery and deprivation of the working class. They did not advocate for the introduction or Marxian socialism through class struggle and violent revolution, but they pleaded for stale interference in the social and economic affairs of the state with the sole purpose of mitigating the misery.

Plamenatz has raised another objection against the instrumentalist approach. He says that in the Origin of Family, Private Property and State Engels says that the state arises to keep peace between the classes having irreconcilable interests. But the classes which exist when the state arises are not classes in the Marxian sense of the class, they are merely groups engaged in various occupations having divergent interests.

The interests of various classes will be irreconcilable when they will be classes in the strictest Marxian sense. So when there are no classes in the proper sense of the term how can their interests be irreconcilable?

In order to raise itself to the level of ruling class, it must be adequately powerful. Mere control of productive forces cannot make a class powerful. It must have sweeping control over politics, culture and other spheres of social life. These objections do not however make the instrumentalist model fully irrelevant.

We are of opinion that sometimes the state decisions go in favour of the working class and common people. It is to be remembered that the capitalist state adopts this neutralist approach simply to camouflage its real motive and the real motive is to safeguard the most vital interests of the capitalists.

This is not mere conjecture or fabricated allegation. History is replete with instances that in Marx’s time and before him the state acted in favour of the ruling class.

A Critique of Marxian Theory of State:

Our survey of Marxian theory of state has dealt with several aspects of the concept. In this section few points are required to be highlighted.

The discussion of this part is based on the essay Marx and The State by Ralph Miliband which was published in the Socialist Register 1965. In this essay Miliband has analysed the Marxian theory of state from historical and contemporary reality.

We think that this approach of Miliband is quite plausible because no thinker can overlook or ignore the influence of contemporary events. The events of contemporary Greek city states created an impact upon the political philosophy of Plato. Similarly Machiavelli or Hobbes or Locke kept in mind the prevailing incidents.

Ralph Miliband observes that Marx has not made any detailed analysis of the theory of state. Marxian theory of state is based on the “interpretations and adaptations made by the Marxists and supporters of Marxism and above all by Lenin. Miliband says that these interpretations and adaptations cannot be taken to constitute an adequate expression of Marx’s own views. This is not because these theories bear no relation to Marx’s views but rather that they emphasize some aspects of his thought to the detriment of others and thus distort by over­simplification.”

Miliband has said that it was not possible for Marx to avoid the influence of contemporary events of the capitalist states of his time particularly of France and Britain. Marx wrote three important books The Class Struggle in France, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The Civil War in France. The Class Struggle in France was written by Marx in 1850.

The Eighteenth Brumaire was written between December 1851 to March 1852 and The Civil War in France in April-May 1871. So within a span of 21 years he wrote these three important books.

The critics of Marxian theory of state garner materials from these three books. The political, social and economic conditions of France during the second half of the 19th century are quite well-known to the students of history.

The authoritarian rule, political turmoil and instability in governmental affairs considerably influenced Marx’s thought system. Miliband has emphasized that aspect.

According to Miliband, Marx had also studied the nature and function of states of Asia. Fie called the Asiatic states as despotic states where the political realm is nothing but the arbitrary will of a particular individual. Marx is quite right in his assessment about the nature of the Asiatic states. The administrative systems of Mughal emperors can be cited as illustrations.

The will of the Mughal emperor was final and new as the ultimate source of authority and sovereign power. The despotic nature of Indian emperors is also revealed is their flamboyant claims that they were ate representatives of God on earth.

Marx closely observed all these things.

Miliband writes:

“It is evident that Marx does view the state in the conditions of Asiatic despotism, as the dominant force in society, independent of and superior to all its members.”

Miliband has dealt with Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat”. In the letter to Weydemeyer in March 1852 he said that the only new thing he said is that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat. But unfortunately he has not defined the concept in any specific way. The concept dictatorship of the proletariat constitutes a basic aspect of Marxian theory of state.

So it is necessary to throw light on what Marx actually meant and Miliband had performed that job.

In the words of Miliband:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is both a statement of the class character of the political power and a description of the political power itself; and that it is in fact the nature of the political power which it describes which guarantees its class character.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat would be the outcome of a socialist revolution. Marx pointed this out in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Lichtheim in his Marxism, published in 1961, said that Marx’s theory of state is decidedly authoritarian doctrine.

According to Marx the state was to assume dictatorial powers. But Miliband does not agree with this view of Lichtheim. He is of opinion that Marxian theory of state is “decidedly authoritarian” in character is not based on facts or evidence.

Explaining Marx’s stand on the nature of state Lenin said “If the political struggle of the working class assumes violent forms, if the workers set up this revolutionary dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, they commit the terrible crime of violating principles, for in order to satisfy their wretched, vulgar everyday needs, in order to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie instead of laying down their arms and abolishing the state, they give the state a revolutionary and transitory form”.

Ralph Miliband concludes:

“The fact is that, far from bearing any authoritarian imprint, the whole of Marx’s work on the state is pervaded by a powerful anti- authoritarian and anti-bureaucratic bias, not only in the relation to a distant communist society bu
t also to the period of transition which is to precede it. True, the state is necessary in this period. But the only thing which, for Marx, makes it tolerable is popular participation and popular rule. If Marx is to be faulted, it is not for any authoritarian bias, but for greatly understating the difficulties of the libertarian position”.

All critics may not agree with Miliband’s views. But it is a fact that there is a difference between Marx’s words and his real intention. Particularly his term “dictatorship of the proletariat” has been misinterpreted and it has been source of all confusion. There is no doubt that Marx was democratic-minded out and out.

It is inconceivable that a man who wanted to abolish the supremacy of capitalists will ultimately support the supremacy of another class. If Marx were alive for another one or two decade he could give reply to many of the criticisms raised against his theory of state.

Upload and Share Your Article: