Marx’s Ambivalence: State, Proletarian Dictatorship and Commune

ABSTRACT

For Marx, what happens to the state under socialism in power, after a communist revolution? This study requires a strict self-discipline: to avoid reading later positions back into Marx’s own positions. The material is organised in sections. The first concerns Marx’s observations on hitherto existing forms of the state, especially absolutist, bourgeois and imperialist forms (directly experienced in Prussia and England). The second concerns his proposals for what may follow, focusing on the dictatorship of the proletariat. The third deals with the commune, based on the experiment in Paris in 1871. The material on the proletarian dictatorship and the commune evinces a number of tensions, which Marx bequeathed to the subsequent tradition. He also begins to offer a possible resolution. Thus, the final section examines Marx’s fascinating struggle in dealing with forms of governance under communism. That he realised such governance is necessary is clear, but that he was also reticent to spell it out in detail is also obvious—not least because he seemed to know that he did not have the experience and thereby evidence to undertake a “scientific” study of what happens to the state under communism. Throughout, the emphasis is on careful analysis of Marx’s texts.

KEYWORDS:

• Karl Marx
• proletarian dictatorship
• commune
• governance under communism

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on Contributor

Roland Boer is a research professor at the University of Newcastle, Australia, and Distinguished Professor at Renmin University of China. His current research interests concern the intersections between Marxism and philosophy, with a focus on the question of socialism in power. Among numerous publications, his most recent are Time of Troubles (2017) and Stalin (2017).

Notes

1. In order to be comprehensive, additional textual references and discussion appear in the footnotes.

2. I have retained the German bürgerliche Gesellschaft, which should be translated as “bourgeois society.” Unfortunately, it is usually translated and thereby neutralised as “civil society” (to the point of a later German back-translation as Zivilgesellschaft [Kocha 2004, 67]). Crucially, for Hegel and Marx, this bürgerliche Gesellschaft includes economic activity, although in later developments “the economy” was excluded. Although Marx already suggests that Hegel’s formulae should be located in the hybrid situation of the Prussian empire, where a bourgeois state had not yet emerged (Marx [1843] 1975, 95; [1843] 1982, 105), in The German Ideology he and Engels specify: “The term ‘bürgerliche Gesellschaft’ emerged in the eighteenth century when property relations had already extricated themselves from the ancient and medieval community. Bürgerliche Gesellschaft as such only develops with the bourgeoisie [Die bürgerliche Gesellschaft als solche entwickelt sich erst mit der Bourgeoisie]” (Marx and Engels [1845–46] 1976, 89; [1845–46] 1973, 36).

3. Marx returns to this point repeatedly (Marx [1843] 1975, 9, 23–24, 39–40, 79, 87, 90–91, 116; [1843] 1982, 9, 24–25, 43–44, 88, 96, 99–100, 125–126) and it also appears in The Holy Family (Marx and Engels [1845] 1975, 113; [1845] 1974, 120). The best critical assessment of Marx’s intense engagement with Hegel is by Leopold (2007, 17–99). For a useful study of Marx’s theoretical path to the study on Hegel, see Chitty (2006).

4. Not only in The German Ideology, for Marx would invoke it also in later work, such as Capital, where the determinations of the developments of capital are complex indeed (Marx and Engels [1845–46] 1976, 46–47, 329; [1845–46] 1973, 33–34, 311; Marx [1859] 1987, 262–264; [1859] 1961, 8–9; [1894] 1998, 778; [1894] 1973, 799–800).

5. The German Ideology on at least one occasion tends in this direction: “the state is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests” (Marx and Engels [1845–46] 1976, 90; [1845–46] 1973, 62). This approach is sometimes labelled “instrumentalist,” but this misses the point of Marx’s approach. I deal with the issue of “instrumentalism” in later studies of Engels and Lenin.

6. A good example is the way the bourgeoisie adjusted to the varying conditions under the coup by Louis Bonaparte, being able to advance their agenda even when not in direct power (Marx [1852] 1979, [1852] 1985). See further below.

7. Translation modified in the second quotation. It arises out of a detailed polemic against Max Stirner’s approach to the state (and private property and law), in the crucial long chapter on Stirner in which Marx and Engels first developed the rudiments of historical materialism (Marx and Engels [1845–46] 1976, 329–335, 346–348, 355–376, 399–402; [1845–46] 1973, 311–318, 329–331, 338–360, 384–387). For useful outlines of and engagements with Stirner’s philosophy, see Beiser (2011) and Leopold (2006).

8. Marx stresses this point again and again (Marx [1843] 1975, 50–51, 67–68, 71–75; [1843] 1982, 54–55, 71–72, 77–85), which is also manifested in the tension between citizen of a state and private individual (Marx [1843] 1975, 77–78, 109; [1843] 1982, 86–87, 119; [1844] 1975c, 153–154, 167–168; [1844] 1982b, 148–149, 161–163).

9. In the critique of Hegel, Marx draws upon Feuerbach’s model of religion as a hypostatised product of flesh-and-blood human beings, with the “gods” alienated from human beings and seemingly exercising control over them. Witness the frequent moves to compare Hegel’s position with theological ones (Boer 2012, 154–165).

10. For an insightful analysis of the complexities of this text, see Jessop (2007, 83–100). And for a comparable account of the trials and tribulations of the bourgeoisie in relation to the state under Napoleon Bonaparte, leading to its “political enlightenment,” see The Holy Family (Marx and Engels [1845] 1975, 122–124; [1845] 1974, 130–131).

11. Since this text was originally published in English, I cite only the English version.

12. Duly stressed by Poulantzas, although he skips the repressive role of the dictatorship of the proletariat (Poulantzas 1969, 76).

13. The heavily philosophical account of “On the Jewish Question” may seem to be an anomaly, but even here the direction is towards the secular bourgeois state, in which religion becomes a private matter. In its own way, this text has relevance for debates today over “post-secularism” (Boer 2014).

14. Or as Marx and Engels put it in a review of the bourgeois socialism of Girardin: “The bourgeois state is nothing more than the mutual insurance of the bourgeois class against its individual members, as well as against the exploited class, insurance which will necessarily become increasingly expensive and to all appearances increasingly independent of bourgeois society, because the oppression of the exploited class is becoming ever more difficult” (Marx and Engels [1850] 1978a, 333; [1850] 1977c, 296–297).

15. It requires a certain level of development of class conflict before “revolutionary dictatorship” can be seized (Marx [1850] 1978, 98; [1850] 1977, 166).

16. See also the representation put in the mouths of Proudhonists: “If the political struggle of the working class assumes violent forms and if the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeois class with their own revolutionary dictatorship . . .” (Marx [1873] 1988, 393).

17. Translation mine. The English translation of “gewaltsam . . . aufhebt” offers “sweeps away by force” (Marx and Engels [1848] 1976, 506), which softens the German somewhat, where gewaltsam also entails violence. Noticeably, the first English version of the manifesto offers “has destroyed, by force” (Marx and Engels [1850] 1977b, 621).

18. The metaphorical phrase, aus dem Weg räumen, has a number of senses in German, turning on clearing something off the road, removing obstacles (Hindernisse) from the road, clearing a barrier (ein Sperre), and so eliminating, ironing out, doing away with and sweeping away. Political resonances run through the phrase.

19. Translations mine. A few pages later, Marx mentions the “general means of coercion in its struggle [allgemeine Zwangsmittel im Kampf]” (Marx [1875] 1989b, 519; [1875] 1962, 634).

20. And as “Critique of the Gotha Programme” indicates in dealing with the transitional “first phase” of communism, inequality would have to be the norm, precisely for the sake of overcoming economic inequality: “right would have to be unequal rather than equal” (Marx [1875] 1989a, 86–87; [1875] 1985, 14–15).

21. Or as Marx puts it in letter to Weydemeyer:

My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition [Aufhebung] of all classes and to a classless society. (Marx [1852] 1983, 62–65; [1852] 1963, 508; emphasis in the original)

22. For some “Western” Marxists, the desire seems to be driven by the need to avoid the connection in this matter between Marx and those who followed, especially Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

23. It is also clearly not “Blanquist,” for which the dictatorship in question is not by the proletariat but by a small band of dedicated revolutionaries over the proletariat. Draper (1986, 34–39, 120–171, 264–288) ably dispenses with the myth that Marx’s proletarian dictatorship was derived from Blanqui.

24. Engels would make much greater use of Gewalt in his analysis of the state (the subject of a subsequent study), but we also find it in Weber’s influential definition of the state as “das Monopol legitimer physischer Gewaltsamkeit,” which translators render as “violence” (Weber 1919, 6).

25. Marx makes matters more complicated by observing that in the first phase unequal “bourgeois right” recognises “no class distinctions [keine Klassenunterschiede]” (Marx [1875] 1989a, 86; [1875] 1985, 14). Does he mean that classes as such do not exist, or that “bourgeois right” does not recognise classes in its operation? The latter seems the more likely sense, especially in light of Marx’s comments on the continued reality of inequality and that division of labour disappears only with the higher phase of communist society.

26. Quotations in the following points are drawn from “The Civil War in France” (Marx [1871] 1986a, 330–340). In the notes on Bakunin, Marx speaks of the way elections are determined by the economic foundations. With the removal of patterns of economic exploitation, he writes that the “distribution of general functions has become a routine matter which entails no domination [keine Herrschaft]” (Marx [1875] 1989b, 519; [1875] 1962, 635).

27. This approach to the commune is in line with what is at times called Marx’s earlier and more “humanist” phase, with a relatively positive—Enlightenment inspired—perception of human nature. The alienations produced by the division of labour, patterns of domination and exploitation embodied in class structures and the concomitant patterns of the bourgeois state had to be overcome by removing the causes of these alienations and reuniting the broken parts of human existence. At one point, Marx calls this reunited individual existence “human emancipation [menschliche Emanzipation]” (Marx [1844] 1975c, 168; [1844] 1982b, 163; see also Marx [1844] 1975a, 187; [1844] 1982c, 182–183). On this topic, see especially Leopold’s detailed investigation (2007, 183–277). Note also:

Thus they find themselves directly opposed to the form in which hitherto, the individuals, of which society consists, have given themselves collective expression, that is, the state; in order therefore, to assert themselves as individuals, they must overthrow the state. (Marx and Engels [1845–46] 1976, 80; [1845–46] 1973, 77)

Perhaps the best image of this “human emancipation” appears in the first rough outline of historical materialism:

[C]ommunist society . . . regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. (Marx and Engels [1845–46] 1976, 47; [1845–46] 1973, 33)

As Harding points out, this image—with touches of “agrarian anti-industrial socialism”—does not present one working as a “collier, fitter, assembly-worker and salesman” (Harding 1984, 4).

28. For a late awareness of the importance of peasants, see the notes on Bakunin (Marx [1875] 1989b, 517–518; [1875] 1962, 630–634).

29. The first draft is also very brief and general on economic matters (Marx [1871] 1986b, 491–492).

30. Few are the commentators who actually recognise this tension (Harding 1984, 3–14; Leys and Panitch 2000, 115–116).

31. This avoidance has not prevented a string of commentators attempting to reconcile the two, beginning with Engels’s introduction to the third edition, published after Marx’s death: “do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (Engels [1894–95] 1990, 191; Balibar 1977, 58; Johnstone 1971; Miliband 1991, 151; Van Ree 2015, 77, 115).

32. Apart from Harding’s suggestion that Marx was perhaps embarrassed by the tension and studiously avoided identifying the commune with the dictatorship of the proletariat (Harding 1984, 13–14). On this score, it is worth noting that in “Critique of the Gotha Programme” Marx was quite scathing of the “old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people’s militia, etc.” This, Marx suggests, is a “mere echo of the bourgeois People’s Party, of the League of Peace and Freedom” (Marx [1875] 1989a, 95; [1875] 1985, 22).

33. The seeds of this dialectical narrative may be found in an early piece, where Marx suggests that revolution calls for a political act as “destruction and dissolution [der Zerstörung und der Auflösung],” after which “socialism throws off its political cloak [politische Hülle]” (Marx [1844] 1975b, 206; [1844] 1982a, 463; italics in the original).

34. Although Marx does use “die Klassenherrschaft der Arbeiter,” the “class rule of the workers,” in the first piece on Bakunin (Marx [1875] 1989b, 521; [1875] 1962, 636).

35. Although Balibar risks reading a little too much of Lenin’s thought into that of Marx and Engels, he does stress this particular point (Balibar 1977, 63).

36. This moment is first signalled in The German Ideology: “the communist revolution, which removes [aufhebt] the division of labour, ultimately abolishes [schließlich beseitigt] political institutions” (Marx and Engels [1845–46] 1976, 380; [1845–46] 1973, 364). It would take quite a few years to work out the implications.

37. Marx did so in response to pressures from two sides: the Blanquist movement’s widespread involvement in the Paris Commune and the clarification of a distinct anarchist position through Bakunin. On the one side was the Blanquist emphasis on immediate seizure of power and dictatorship by a small band of enlightened revolutionaries, while on the other was a remade Bakunin advocating an immediate declaration of the state’s abolition (which he attempted to do in Lyons in 1870, only to be sent packing by the forces of the state he had just abolished).

38. Some quote and emphasise this text, either without specifying that it appears in the first draft and was later dropped, or suggesting that it is consistent with the second and final versions (Adam 2010, 8; Harding 1984, 5; Jessop 1978, 52; 1982, 27; Miliband 1965, 290).

39. Although it is worth noting that in the first draft Marx also speaks of the “reabsorption of the State power by society, as its own living forces instead of as forces controlling and subduing it, by the popular masses themselves, forming their own force instead of the organized force of their suppression” (Marx [1871] 1986b, 487). Here he suggests that state power is negated by being reabsorbed and thereby continuing in another form.

40. Quotations in this paragraph are drawn from a couple of pages in “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (Marx [1875] 1989a, 94–95; [1875] 1985, 21–22).

41. Draper (1970, 294) opts for this answer, based on a comment made much earlier in the text concerning communist society “not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society.” If so, this would mean the proletarian dictatorship with its use of coercion. However, in the passage here under analysis, Marx leaves the possibilities more open than Draper admits.

42. The quotations in the remainder of the paragraph are drawn from a few insightful pages of the notes on Bakunin (Marx [1875] 1989b, 519–520; [1875] 1962, 634–635).