Talk:Marx's theory of the state

Merge

Should Marx's theory of the state (which would be moved to Marxist theory of the state to include Lenin's thought etc. from the other articles), dictatorship of the proletariat and dictatorship of the bourgeoisie be merged? Zozs (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it. What I see as the biggest priority is the enormous block quote in the middle of the article. Rselby1 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. whole thing is a mish mash. i know someone who is using this article as an explanation for marx's theory of the state. it is by no means NOT that. i would prefer the whole mess be deleted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the theory is too complex and Multi-layered to be merged into another article.--Crossswords (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

TBH, I think this entire article violates the no original research clause. Marx never wrote a piece that can be identified as "The theory of the State, according to K Marx". The state is mentioned, in passing in various places - Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, The German Ideology (also in the context of rejecting Hegel's conception of the State), The 18th Brumaire (not a work of theory, especially not one focused on the state itself, as opposed to the class conflicts involved in the historical events), and the Class Struggle in France (re the Paris Commune). This last is especially important as Lenin, for e.g., alleges that Marx changed his view of the state (i.e. that the bourgeois state needed to be smashed and replaced with a new revolutionary polity) in light of the experience of the Commune. But it is not possible to add to this article to include an interpretation of the Class Struggle in France, without making an original interpretation or research (unlike documenting how Lenin interpreted it in State and Revolution for e.g.). The contentions in the Modification section are based on a single writer (Evans) tendentious interpretation. I don't think there is sufficient consensus that such a thing as Marx's theory of the state is actually an established topic that a WP article can document. I move to mark for deletion Helvetius (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got a great point about the fact that Marx doesn't have a solid "Theory of the state" and every attempt to define it is just another interpretation of his work. This, however, doesn't mean that this article isn't valuable (even though it is so confused it's almost unreadable) I think it just needs to understand the concept it's trying to define. What exactly is a "theory of the state"? Much less what Marx's theory was. Are we trying to explain how he thought the state functioned? i.e. how it fit into society, how it stayed in power. Or, alternatively, are we trying to explain how he defined the concept of a "state"? i.e. what the boundaries are, what it's duties are.

In my opinion, we have enough of his work to get a general idea of the answers to both of these questions of the state. However, again, Marx didn't have a solid or airtight "theory of the state" (or any theory for that matter) and any attempt to define it would be an interpretation. I think the way we should go about this is to lean into the fact that interpretation is the only way to understand his work and present a couple different interpretations on how Marx would answer these questions about the state.

The comment after this one about the "monopoly on violence" is a great place to start with this as the concept answers both questions about how to state stays in power as well as defining it's purpose. Although, I'm actually not sure about what Marx has to say (if anything) about that specific definition of the state so we might have to look at where that conception came from first. (Like which theorists first presented to monopoly of violence idea and whether that was an interpretation of Marx or not.) Ainzy (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just looking for what a state is (from communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) and im still not quite sure. the definition was really confusing on what monopoly on violence means. maybe someone with more knowledge than me can add examples? Osty2018 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll head over and make that bit clearer on the communism page (if it's still confusing 2 years later). But it basically means that the state is the only "legitimate" source of violence. It is allowed to exert power over it's citizens and the people living within it's boundaries in any form of power but specifically in the form of violence. The police are allowed to carry guns, tase people, arrest people, etc whereas the normal person has more restrictions. I'm aware that police have restrictions and that normal people, in certain circumstances, are allowed to do some of that stuff. The idea is that the placing of restrictions on violent acts or the allowing of violent acts is entirely in the hands of the state. If you sought revenge against someone for a crime and killed them, that would be illegal, but if they were convicted of that same crime and put to death, that would be legitimate. Ainzy (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)