Before we can examine the Marxist theory of the state it is first necessary to define exactly what is meant by the term state.  Then we look at the pluralist conception of the state, or more accurately, the pluralist conception of the role that the state plays in capitalist society.

The term state is used in twodifferent senses.  It is often used to refer to countries or regions within countries, for example, the United States of America.  In this sense the term state is used in much the same manner as the term society, they are for some interchangeable. The other meaning given to the term state is, in a way, antithetical.  The state does not refer to countries, or societies, but to a specific set of institutions, distinct from those institutions that exist vis-à-vis the state.  The state is not a multi-national company, the state is not a church nor is the state a restaurant.  Ralph Miliband in his book, "The State in Capitalist Society" defines the state as consisting of the following institutions:

parliamentary assemblies
local government
police
military
judiciary
civil service (bureaucracy)
cabinet - leading politicians

Most Marxists, indeed most scholars and politicians, would agree with this definition of the state although some might also add institutions such as the education system and sections of the media in certain countries, such as the BBC in Britain. Some Marxists such as Poulantzas would suggest that the family is part of the state but most would disagree with the family being included as part of the state.  Yet, while most scholars might agree upon what the state is, there is disagreement over what the state should be.  Those on the Right wish the state to be as minimal as possible, while some Socialists (not Marxists) wish to see the state expanded. 

The pluralist view of the state is usually, virtually always, the hegemonic view within capitalist democratic societies, or as Marxists refer to them, bourgeois democracies.  The pluralist view of the state forms part of what Marxists would call the dominant ideology of capitalist societies.

But what is the pluralist view of the state?  The pluralist view of the state is that view introduced through the writings of various pluralist theorists, the most famous and influential of which is probably Robert Dahl.  To put it simply, the state faces a multitude of claims upon it.  Advanced capitalist societies are characterized by a diverse number of interest groups and categories of people, all with their own policy preferences and diverging interests. Anyone, or any group within society can organise as a pressure group and thereby seek to have its policy preferences reflected in government, or state, decisions.  They can lobby MPs, civil servants and local councillors. The state acts as an honest broker (it tries to come to some sort of compromise within reason) between all these different groups and categories of people. No group will ever get its own way all of the time and most groups will have their policy preferences reflected, over a given period of time, in the decisions of government or state.

You will probably recognise these ideas as they will in most cases form the basis of your own belief system with regards to the political system of your own society. But are such beliefs a reflection of reality or a distortion of reality? They would appear to contain half-truths, as all ideological beliefs do, yet half truths are never whole truths.  As the legend goes lets half the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth... 

Karl Marx and Friedrich are as you know the founders of Marxism, it was they who formulated the central ideas of Marxism, to which later Marxist scholars have added to. As a result we shall first look at what these two "founding fathers" have to say on the matter of the state, then we shall look at later theories as proposed by later Marxists with regard to the state in capitalist society.

The simplest expression of what Marx and Engels thought of the state is contained within the "The Communist Manifesto".  In this they state:

"...the bourgeoisie, has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway.  The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."

For Marx and Engels the state was not an "honest broker", the interests of the two classes: the dominant and subject class, were not equally reflected in the legislation and decisions that flowed from the state. Marx referred to democracy as "bourgeois democracy", it was a fraud behind which the capitalist class governed or ruled. Of the two scholars it was, however, perhaps Engels who contributed most to the Marxist theory of the state.

Engels laid out his views on the state in his study: "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State".  Engels believed that the state was not a universal social institution, that is, it had not existed during all epochs of history and in all societies.  The state comes into existence at the same time as classes come into existence argues Engel.  In the epoch of Primitive Communism, that stage in history when classes did not exist due to the lack of existence of private property, the state did not exist.  However, when classes emerge, and one class becomes economically dominant, that is, they control or own the means of production, then the state appears on the stage of world history.

One of the first appearances of the state upon the stage of world history is in ancient Athens.  Text books often refer to this as from whence democracy derives, at least, the term has its origins there.  Yet what is less mentioned is the fact that society was at that time and place divided up into classes: slaves and non-slaves, or citizens.  As we know the slave is owned, it is the property of other men to do as they wish.  From the slave, or more accurately, the labour of the slave derived the wealth of all those who were not slaves. The state in such a society was a means of keeping the slaves in their place, that is, a means of keeping class antagonisms in check.

The state keeps the subject class in check through a number of means: one of the most effective ways is through the use of physical force.  Thus, the State could (it still can in some places) put to death those who opposed it and the social order it protected or it could have you thrown into prison if you dared to steal anything that was the private property of the dominant class. How many thousands died just to feed themselves and their children?

The state in capitalist society performs according to Engels the same role but compared to the State in the epoch of slavery or feudalism the state is less obviously a coercive tool of the ruling class.  Democracy gives the appearance that there is political equality, everyone's votes are, after all, equal are they not?  Engels believed, however, that power still continued to lie with the capitalist class.  He points out that the relative wealth of the two classes allow the capitalist class to bribe those officials that try to stand in their way. Also, how could any government ignore the economic power possessed by this class.  If the capitalist class were to withdraw their capital from the sphere of production the result would be economic chaos, unemployment and poverty would soar, and eventual electoral defeat for the government which was foolish enough not to take into account the susceptibilities of the capitalist class. 

Later Marxists have attempted to add to the ideas of Marx and Engels particularly with regard to why the State performs the role that it does. If the state is the "committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" then why is this so?  Thus, while they have agreed with Marx and Engels that the state does indeed act in the interests of the ruling class what they want to explain is why?

There are basically two modern Marxist schools of thought on the state: the instrumentalist and the structuralist approach. The instrumentalist approach is usually associated with the earlier work of Ralph Miliband while the structuralist approach is associated with Nicos Poulantzas. 

For Ralph Miliband the state is a tool or instrument of the ruling class. By an instrument of the ruling class what he means is that the capitalist class govern, but not directly, they content themselves with "governing the government". To put it simply the ruling class can get on the metaphorical telephone and the State will pretty much do their bidding. Most of the time it is not necessary for the capitalist class to intervene as the State will nearly always act in the interests of the capitalist class. Miliband does, however, admit that from time to time concessions can be won by the working class such as the Welfare state in Britain. If we look at the period in which the Welfare state was introduced into Britain we see that there was substantial disquiet, the Communist party even had two MPs elected in the post world war II elections.  Most of the time the state will, however, act in the interests of the capitalist class.

The state is defined by Miliband as a set of institutions. This set of institutions includes: the government, parliaments, civil service or bureaucracy, police, legal system and armed forces. These institutions are run by a few people, that is, there are a few positions of power within them. Those who occupy these positions Miliband calls the state elite. The state elite is made up of Cabinet Ministers, top judges, top civil servants and those in the top ranks of the Police and Army.

The state elite are important to Milibands theory as it is the class position and origins of those who occupy the positions that make up the state elite that explain why the state, at least in part, acts as an instrument of the ruling class. According to Miliband the members of the state elite are predominantly drawn from the ranks of the upper class and upper middle class. They are thus drawn from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, the landed aristocracy and the highly paid professions. For example, Miliband points out that between 1889 and 1949 more than 60% of cabinet members in the US government were businessmen.

My own research has found that between 1921 and 1972 about 70% of cabinet members in Northern Ireland were either businessmen, barristers or landowners. This is a shocking statistic, especially when we look at the percentage of cabinet members who were manual workers, only 4% (even more shocking when you consider that they made up the vast majority of wage workers). Such evidence suggests, at the very least, that the potential for the state to act as an instrument of class domination exists. It shows that those who have occupied the positions that make up the state elite, at least with regard to Northern Ireland, have been drawn from from the upper and middle classes. There have been very few people in positions of political power that have come from lowly class origins.

Miliband also pours scorn upon the arguments of the pluralists with regard to the state and competition between different interest groups.  He describes the competition that takes place in capitalist society as imperfect competition, that is, some have a much better chance of having their policy preferences put into legislation than others.  The reason for this is simple, it derives from the unequal distribution of wealth within capitalist society.  Wealth for Miliband equals power, those who have wealth, in the form of private property or the means of production, have power. They have the money to create and fund powerful pressure groups such as the CBI, or the Institute of Directors etc. The capitalist class can afford to run professional campaigns, paying for research and top marketing people.  They can also afford to give generous donations to political parties.  The Conservative party in Britain gets the bulk of its funding from private industry, does this really bode well for a government that is prepared to listen to all sides of the story?

For Miliband the conservative parties form the vehicle for capitalist class interests yet the business community can also expect a sympathetic hearing from Social-Demcratic parties also. This sympathetic hearing is made all the more likely and sympathetic by the fact that parties such as the British Labour party are now attracting much greater funds from private industry than ever before. The work of Miliband would appear to be becoming ever more relevant in todays world.

The background of the state elite is not the only evidence put forward by Miliband. Only his empirical evidence is concentrated on such facts. This concentration on the social class of those who make up the state elite is also what distinguishes his theory from that put forward by Poulantzas. In contrast to Miliband, Poulantzas argues that it would be possible for people from humble backgrounds to occupy the state elite positions but it would make no difference. The state would still operate in the interests of the ruling class. Structuralists place more emphasis upon the structure of a society, that is to put it very simply, the way in which it is organised, the arrangement of the parts. Because it is a capitalist society it will be a capitalist state. The very existence of capitalism constrains (not only in the sense that it limits what the State elite can do but also what it will do) the actions of those who make up what Miliband calls the state elite.

For example, let's say that a new government has come to power. This government is a fairly Left Wing government. They can't just implement what policies they would like as they have to take into account "business confidence". If they introduce any policies that seriously threaten the interests of those who own the means of production, and the "City of London", then they risk an economic crash. If the capitalist class thinks that its interests are under threat it can simply withdraw its capital from circulation and invest it elsewhere, known as capital leakage. As a result economic activity will slow down, people will lose their jobs, and unemployment will soar along with poverty. Massive unemployment is not exactly a good way to ensure that you are elected for a second term of office.  As a result the shrewd government would not take any course of action that ran too much against the interests or offended the susceptibilities of the capitalist class.

The actions of the state are also constrained by the state itself. This sounds confusing but it's not. What one part of the state can do is constrained by what another part of the state might do in reaction. Thus, if a Left Wing government came to power and decided to push through its reforms then it might find that it is overthrown by the military or a section of the military. This is, more or less, what happened in Chile in 1973, although the CIA almost certainly had a hand in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Allende. Even in Britain during the 1970's, when Labour were last in power, there were rumours of a military coup against the government. Whether or not there was any substance to such rumours is another matter.

While Miliband and Poulanztas do disagree on many points there was a certain amount of shadow boxing to the debate that took place in the 1970's between the instrumentalists and the structuralists. Miliband does not solely concentrate on the class position of the state elite. It is only his empirical evidence that concentrates upon such facts. Miliband would argue that he does give a structural account of the state. What he rejects, however, is the determinism of Poulantzas. It is not simply enough to say that the state will always act in the interests of the ruling class. This must be proved by research. It's difficult to maintain the position that the state, or more accurately government, will always act in the interests of the ruling class. For example, if a radical Left wing government came to power would the state continue to act in the interests of the ruling class?

Nevertheless, we should always bear in mind that the actions (best thought of as what the state can or will do) of the state are constrained by outside factors. For example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to a large extent determines policy for many Third World governments.  These organisations, along with the capitalist classes, get their interests reflected because the options open to the decision maker, be they government minister or local politician, will usually contain one or more options that are even more undesirable than that offered by the organisation or class. The capitalist class, or organisation that represents their interests, do not need to shout it out, its already known.  In a way its better to be exploited than not to be exploited. Better to eat bread than eat nothing.  Better to introduce a little bit of reform here and there than to be overthrown or ousted at the next election. 

One area that Miliband and Poulantzas would appear to agree on is with regard to the importance of ideology. Marxists define ideology in a slightly different way to how most of us would define ideology. An ideology is basically a set of beliefs and values which function to distort or obscure reality and which thereby serve the interests of the economically dominant class, that is, the capitalist class. As a result of ideology things run quite smoothly for the capitalist class, they rarely have to directly intervene in the affairs of government. To put it in the language that is currently trendy amongst those who call themselves Marxists the state has a broadly similar "project" to that of the bourgeoisie. Politicians and civil servants and others in positions of power hold broadly similar views and values as those held by the capitalist class.  They want to see their national capitalist class do well, they want them to earn huge profits, they want things to be easy for them. Ministers believe that what they do, help the capitalist class make huge profits, is in the "national interests".  Helping big business is helping the entire community. For them capitalism is the only system in town, and these entrepreneurs are wealth creating geniuses.  As a result, the capitalist class need do nothing most of the time because most of the time things run accordingly.   We should remember that those who occupy the positions of the state elite do not exist outside society, they are indeed, part of a society, a capitalist society.

Further Reading

The State in Capitalist Society  

Classes in Contemporary Capitalism