What Is the State and What Is Its Nature?

What Is the State and What Is Its Nature?

An Interview with Wolf Larsen

from the book Capitalism Sucks!

Question: What do Marxists mean by the state?

Answer: What we mean by the state is not like the state of Indiana in the United States or the state of Amazonas in Brazil.  Basically, the state is the entire government from the President all the way down to the police officer.  The state includes the army, the police, the courts, the prisons – all of that is the apparatus of the state.  I am not a great theoretician, but I can tell you for sure that most states on our planet today are dominated by the wealthy.  These states dominated by the wealthy preside over capitalist economies that benefit only a privileged few.  These states use their police forces, their armies, their courts, and bureaucracies to foster the domination of the rich over the working people.

Q. But if these states are Democratic then can't the working people use democracy to change the nature of the state?

A.  Let me make something absolutely clear.  All the democracies currently on this planet are democracies dominated by the rich people.  In addition, most of the dictatorships on this planet rule in the interests of the rich people as well.  It is obviously better to live in a democracy dominated by the rich than to live in a dictatorship dominated by their rich.  In a dictatorship you rarely have freedom of speech.  In a democracy there is more freedom of speech – up to a point.

Q. So are you saying that even in a democracy the workers don't have much freedom?

A.  In a capitalist democracy the workers have more freedom than in a capitalist dictatorship.  That is obvious.  However, in a capitalist democracy the workers still do not have the right to a job, they do not have the right to a decent minimum wage, they don't have the right to quality affordable housing, etc.  In order to have these kinds of rights you have to have a major change.  You have to end the democracy of the rich and replace it with a democracy of the working class.  The democracy of the working class is socialism.  In a democracy of the rich the government often oppresses the workers in a manner similar to a dictatorship.  When the bourgeoisie feel threatened by the workers – such as if the workers have a general strike that shuts down everything – regardless of whether the state is a bourgeois democracy or a bourgeois dictatorship – the apparatus of the state with its police and army and courts and jails often comes down very hard on the workers and attacks the workers and imprisons the workers and workers are often beat up by the police.  Sometimes the police shoot down the workers in cold blood.  So you see the state is an instrument of oppression where one class dominates the other class.  The rich use the police, the army, the courts, the laws, and the prisons to keep the workers down.  The police and army are the apparatus of the state – it is how the rich enforce their rule upon the workers. 

Q. I don't believe you answered my question.  Can't the workers use democracy to reform the state?

A.  I believe I have answered your question.  It is impossible to change the nature of the state.  The state is an instrument of class oppression.  The rich people use the state to oppress the workers.  It is not possible to change the nature of the state.  When workers elect supposedly pro-worker politicians to office those politicians almost always betray the interests of the workers.  What workers can do is engage in social struggle that wins them some rights.  For example, during the period of the Great Depression there was a great deal of social struggle by workers and the unemployed.  In order to help ensure its survival the bourgeoisie gave in to some of these demands and the government implemented things like unemployment insurance, Social Security, and things like that.  These were things that the workers and the unemployed fought for.  During the 1960s you see some similarities to what happened in the 1930s.  The black people of our nation made social struggle for racial equality.  Because of this social struggle the government enacted civil rights legislation.  None of these reforms however changes the nature of the state.  The state is an instrument of class oppression where the rich use the state to oppress the workers.  In order to calm all the social struggle down the rich sometimes give in on some points and enact legislation like unemployment insurance, Social Security, and civil rights laws.  But inevitably the bourgeoisie seeks to backtrack.  The bourgeoisie seeks to eliminate the gains that working-class and minorities made in social struggle.  That's why you see the government later weakening social programs and civil rights laws in periods of lesser social struggle. 

Q. So it sounds like under capitalism there's constant struggle between the rich and the working people.

A.  That's right.  The rich want to pay their workers as little as possible.  The workers want more money.  The rich want to cut back on or eliminate as many social programs as possible.  In periods of less social struggle that's exactly what the rich people's government does – it cuts back on social programs.  In times of more social struggle the bourgeoisie often give a little – and their government introduces more social programs or increases funding for social programs.  The government does not increase social programs or create civil rights legislation because they have bleeding hearts and are concerned about the workers, the politicians do this in order to avert social struggle.  It's like when there are more strikes and protests the rich people's government gives in a little in order to cool things off but as soon as things cool off then the rich man's government seeks to backtrack and undermine the civil rights legislation, they seek to lower funding for Social Security, and things like that. 

Q. If social struggle brings more benefits to workers and minorities and women then all the workers and minorities and women need to do is engage in constant social struggle – isn't that true?

A. Social struggle can be good.  It can help the workers and minorities and women and gays achieve many rights and other things.  However, social struggle is dangerous.  The police beat people up.  The police shoot people.  And if that's not enough the rich man's government calls in the army or the National Guard and they start shooting people.  Social struggle can turn into a bloody mess!  Social struggle without revolution does not permanently solve the problem of capitalism and the many problems that capitalism brings about – things like war, poverty, unemployment, racial discrimination, homophobia, gender discrimination, and so on and so forth.  Social struggle is better than nothing, but it doesn't permanently resolve the problem of the state.

Q. So how do you solve the problem of the state?

A.  You have to change the nature of the state.  Currently the nature of the state is that it is a bourgeois state.  It is a state dominated by the rich people.  So you have to throw the bourgeois state in the garbage and replace it with a workers state.

Q. So how do you do that?  Do you vote Democrat?  Aren't the Democrats more for the workers?

A.  (Laughs) What the Democrats and the Republicans represent are two different wings of the ruling class.  The ruling class are the rich people.  You have to throw the Democrats and the Republicans in the garbage can, because they are rich peoples parties.  The same is true of the Labour Party in England.  The Labour Party in England has become a rich peoples party.  It says a bunch of pretty words about workers and has the title "labor" but basically all the Labor Party cares about is helping the rich.  What reformist parties like Labor and the Democrats seek to do is to confuse the workers and spawn illusions in the rich people's government.  That is, they want to fool the working people and the poor people into believing that they can reform the government in the working man's favor.  But after these reformist parties like Labor and the Democrats get elected they pretty much do the same as the Republicans or the Tories.  Within the framework of a bourgeois democracy different wings of the ruling class can argue out loud about their differences of opinion.  With their different political parties and newspapers and television news outlets the different wings of the ruling class argue with each other about this, that, and the other thing.  In a capitalist dictatorship, on the other hand, it's much more difficult for the different sections of the ruling class to discuss out in the open their differences.  What's more, in a capitalist dictatorship some asshole decides what's best for the rich.  So often the ruling class prefers a bourgeois democracy over a bourgeois dictatorship, because the bourgeoisie have more freedom of speech to discuss and argue amongst themselves.  In addition, in a bourgeois democracy the workers often have more illusions that they can reform the system.  And thus in that manner it is easier for the rich to dupe the workers into submission, or at least in tolerating the capitalist system.  Sometimes the bourgeoisie resorts to a dictatorship because they're simply just too afraid of the workers to have democracy.  And then there's fascism.

Q. What about fascism?

A.  There are different aspects of fascism.  There are the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis in our country who seek to divide white workers against black workers, immigrants, gays, etc. This aspect of fascism helps to weaken the working class by dividing one section of the workers against the other.  Another aspect of fascism is the fascist state.  The fascist state – like in the case of Nazi Germany – rules on behalf of the interests of the rich and the big corporations.  The fascist state under Hitler smashed the unions and all the other workers organizations.  One of the reasons that the bourgeoisie in Germany resorted to supporting Hitler and the Nazis is that they wanted to crush the workers organizations, which they felt had become too powerful.  In addition, the bourgeoisie decided that the Weimer Republic government (which was a democracy) was simply too weak to enforce its rule.  The Weimer Republic government was ruling on behalf of the rich people in Germany, but the Weimer Republic government was ineffective.  And that is one of the reasons why the German bourgeoisie turned to fascism and helped Hitler and his Nazi party come to power.

Q.  What about anarchy?

A.  Anarchists want to do away with the state entirely.  How are the workers going to defend themselves against violent fascists and everything else that the bourgeoisie throws their way if the workers do not have a state of their own to defend themselves with?  Anarchy is just plain naïveté.  It can never work.  If the workers do not have their own state than they will be ruthlessly crushed.  The workers must have their own state so that they can defend themselves. 

Q. So how can workers get a state of their own?  A state that will rule in the workers interests?

A.  A bourgeois state – whether it's a democracy or dictatorship or fascist – will never rule in the interests of the workers.  A bourgeois state might give some social programs to appease the workers at times of social struggle, but a bourgeois state will always remain a bourgeois state.  It may change its form – it may go from being a democracy to dictatorship or may go to fascism or even a monarchy – but a bourgeois state regardless of its form continues to rule in the interests of the rich.  Therefore, the workers have to SMASH the bourgeois state and replace it with a workers state.

Q. How do you replace a bourgeois state with a workers state?

A.  First the working class needs political independence from the bourgeoisie.  The workers have to divorce themselves from reformist parties like the Democrats and the fake "Labor" party in Britain.  The workers need their own party.  The workers need a workers party.  A workers party will fight for the working class.  The workers party will engage in struggles like supporting strikes, supporting gay rights, supporting women's rights, supporting minority rights, etc.  The workers party also seeks to raise the political consciousness of the workers, and help them to understand that ultimately they have to replace the bourgeois state with a workers state.

Q. And how do you replace the bourgeois state with a workers state?  With a revolution?

A.  Yes.  Exactly.

Q. But wouldn't a revolution be violent?

A.  Socialists do not seek violence.  However, it is very likely that a workers state – which can also be called a socialist government – would have to defend itself against the bourgeoisie.  Over and over again in the past whenever working people rose up to take what was rightfully theirs the bourgeoisie responded with violence.  Therefore, a workers government would have to defend itself.  A workers government would have its own army and possibly its own police force to defend itself.  Or instead of a police force a workers government might create integrated workers guards that would patrol the cities and the countryside.  These integrated workers guards would be allied with a workers government.  The integrated workers guards might work with the police or they might entirely replace the police.  The state has been called "armed bodies of men".  That is what the state is – armed bodies of men and women.  In the case of a bourgeois state the army and the police oppress the workers in the interests of the rich.  In the case of a workers state the army, police, and integrated workers guards oppress the rich and defend the interests of the workers.

Q. So under socialism – which is a workers state – the army and the police remain unchanged?

A.  Not exactly.  The police force would have to be completely changed.  The entire police force would have to be fired and replaced.  You would need new police officers who would be interested in defending a workers state.  The new police officers would keep the peace, arrest thieves and violent individuals.  But the main function of the police in a workers state would be to defend the workers state.  Under capitalism the main function of the police is to defend the interests of the bourgeoisie.  Hence, the old police force would have to be replaced with new police officers who are sympathetic to a workers government.  The army on the other hand might be different.  I think it would be necessary to replace the generals and any officers suspected of being sympathetic to the bourgeoisie.  In addition, measures would have to be taken to make sure that generals and higher officers of the old capitalist army do not become generals and higher officers in a counterrevolutionary army.  But rank-and-file soldiers and lower officers who are sympathetic to a workers government could remain in the armed forces of the workers state.  On the other hand those soldiers and officers who were not sympathetic to a workers state would have to be dismissed.  I would argue that any discharged soldiers and police officers should be offered new jobs.  You want elements like that to have a decent income so that they'll have more incentive to stay out of trouble.  On how the army could be organized after the workers revolution one should consult Leon Trotsky's writings on the subject, as Trotsky was the leader of the Red Army when it squashed the counterrevolution.  In the case of the police officers of the old capitalist regime it would be important for a workers government to watch them carefully, to make sure that they stay out of trouble.   It is important to realize that immediately following the change from a bourgeois government to a workers government there will be many potentially counterrevolutionary elements which may want to overthrow a workers government.  A workers government would have to defend itself against this.  

Q. It sounds somewhat repressive.

A.  Remember that a state is an instrument of class oppression.  If it is a bourgeois state than the bourgeoisie oppress the workers.  If it is a workers state then the workers oppress the bourgeoisie.  The bourgeoisie need workers because after all somebody has to do the work.  Somebody has to provide services.  Somebody needs to build things.  However, under socialism the workers will have no need for the bourgeoisie.  When I say the bourgeoisie I do not mean well-paid specialists.  Brain surgeons, rocket scientists, and others with important skills will have a very nice standard of living under socialism.  However, under socialism there will be no need for people who sit around eating caviar and drinking champagne and not working and living off of some gigantic inheritance.  There will be no need for people like that.  All of the money of the billionaires and multimillionaires will be confiscated and used for the public good.  Under socialism everyone has to work.  I imagine that those who enjoyed a caviar and champagne lifestyle under capitalism are going to be very upset when they find out that they have to get out of bed in the morning and go to work or else they don't eat.  A workers government would have to take appropriate measures and ruthlessly crush any attempt of counterrevolution by the former bourgeoisie and anyone who would aid them.  A workers government would have to defend itself against any counterrevolutionary elements.  As the former elements of the bourgeoisie and their henchmen and sympathizers die off of old age and it becomes clear that there is no longer a counterrevolutionary danger then slowly the state will need fewer police officers and fewer soldiers.  In addition, a socialist government would have to maintain a strong military to defend itself from capitalist countries.  But over time as capitalism fades from the earth and the remaining elements of the former bourgeoisie and their sympathizers and henchmen die from old age and the threats to the workers state diminish then the state as an oppressive instrument will gradually fade away.  But during this whole time the workers themselves will have lots of democracy.  It will be the workers who enjoy democracy.  Workers will not be repressed. Only counterrevolutionary elements will be repressed, because the workers state must defend itself against any danger, in order to keep the peace. 

Buy the book Capitalism Sucks on Amazon or other online retailers, 

or just scroll down to read Capitalism Sucks for free.  
You can also click on whatever chapter you wish listed
in the upper right hand column of this page.

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Sucks-Wolf-Larsen/dp/1456726404/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1578154496&sr=8-4