Guo Qiang: The Historical Dialectic of the State and Capitalism in "Capital" and Its Manuscripts

Scholars typically focus on economic theory when studying Capital, particularly its dissection of the capitalist economic system, while neglecting the theory of the state contained therein. Consequently, when exploring Marx’s theory of the state, academia tends to focus on works dedicated to the subject—such as A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right or The Civil War in France—failing to fully integrate the profound insights found in Capital. Living during the ascendant phase of capitalism, Marx possessed a deep insight into the internal contradictions and crises of capitalist society and used scientific analysis to reveal its essence in Capital. Because the state plays a vital role in the socio-economic operation of society, it naturally became one of the focal points of this magnum opus and its economic manuscripts. For instance, in the "Introduction" and "Preface" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx proposed writing plans known as the "Five-Segment Plan" and the "Six-Book Plan," respectively. In both, the subject of the "State" was planned as a separate segment or volume, reflecting his special attention and detailed planning for it. In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx reveals the origin, nature, functions, and developmental trends of the state through the profound connection between the state and the capitalist economy.

I. The Epitome of Bourgeois Society in the Form of the State: The Disclosure of the Nature of the State in Capital and its Manuscripts

Marx points out in the "Introduction" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that "Bourgeois society is the most developed and the most complex historic organization of production. The categories which express its relations, the comprehension of its structure, thereby also allow insights into the structure and the relations of production of all the vanished social formations." History is a continuous process of development; a subsequent social formation always develops on the foundation of the preceding one. Bourgeois society evolved from previous social formations and carries certain characteristics and remnants of past societies. By studying bourgeois society, one can better understand the laws of historical development and the internal connections between different social formations. Marx defined the theme of the "State" volume as "the epitome of bourgeois society in the form of the state," revealing the essence of the bourgeois state and its internal links with bourgeois society from multiple dimensions, including economy, politics, class relations, and social transformation. In the "Chapter on Capital" of the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858, the first item Marx listed as necessary content for the "State" volume was "The State and Bourgeois Society." This indicates that Marx did not discuss the state for the state's sake; rather, he understood the nature of the state from the perspective of the relationship between society and the state. He approached the bourgeois state by starting from bourgeois society, thereby gaining insight into the nature of the state in all previous social formations. In other words, Marx placed the question of the nature of the state within the context of society. As he noted in the "Preface" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, "Legal relations as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind, but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life, the sum total of which Hegel, at the instance of the Englishmen and Frenchmen of the eighteenth century, combines under the name of 'civil society'." The form of the state is not an isolated or abstract existence; it is closely linked to specific socio-historical conditions. Among these many conditions, it is not the realm of the social spirit that plays the decisive role in the form of the state, but rather the material conditions of life. In Marx’s view, material conditions of life refer to the relations formed by people in social activities such as production, exchange, and consumption. These relations constitute the economic base of society and determine the superstructure, including the state. This means we cannot understand the essence of the state merely through the formal appearance or structure of law and state forms. Thus, Marx proposed looking to political economy for the "key" to understanding civil society, which in an ultimate sense provides the "key" to understanding the nature of the state.

From the perspective of the origin of the state, the state is a product of the developmental movement of social contradictions; it is "a power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it." In the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858, Marx analyzes the Asiatic form of ownership, arguing that "in this first form of landed property, the first prerequisite is a naturally formed community: the family, and the family expanded into a tribe, or through intermarriage between families, or a combination of tribes." Marx calls this tribal community a "natural community." This indicates that in the early stages of human society, the state—an "illusory community" based on territorial relations—did not exist. Instead, there were communities formed naturally based on kinship, common lifestyles, and survival needs—namely, various forms of communities and tribes. With the improvement of productive forces and the increasing complexity of social relations—particularly the emergence of irreconcilable class contradictions—people required a more powerful organizational form to maintain social order and balance the interests of various parties. This special organizational form, the state, originated from society but gradually established a status transcending society and developed a sense of estrangement from it. Similarly, the formation of the bourgeois state is a product of social progress and evolution; it is a phenomenon that inevitably appears once society reaches a certain stage of development. From Marx's perspective, the factors of primitive accumulation appeared sequentially in places like Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and England. At the end of the 17th century, England systematically integrated these factors to construct the colonial system, the national debt system, the modern tax system, and the system of protectionism. Some of these systems, such as the colonial system, were based on brutal violence. These systems all relied on the organized social violence controlled by the state to shorten and accelerate the process of transition from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist mode of production. From the history of the rise of capitalism, bourgeois society was formed alongside the emergence and development of the capitalist mode of production. In this society, the bourgeoisie gradually gained a dominant position by controlling the productive forces and the relations of production. To protect its own interests, the bourgeoisie required specific state forms—such as political systems, legal frameworks, and administrative bodies—to ensure its control and rule over society.

As the political superstructure of bourgeois society, the origin of the bourgeois state is closely related to the emergence of the economic base of bourgeois society and the formation of the bourgeoisie. Within bourgeois society, the capitalist private ownership of the means of production is the core of the economic base. By owning the means of production, the bourgeoisie plunders the surplus value created by workers, thereby controlling the economic lifeblood of society. This economic base dictates that the bourgeois state must serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and maintain the capitalist economic order. The foundation of bourgeois interests and the capitalist economic order is the rule of capital over labor. This was evident even at the dawn of capitalism. As Marx said: "In its nascent state, capital, being newly born, cannot rely solely on the power of economic relations; it also requires the help of state power to ensure its right to suck a sufficient quantity of surplus labor." During the nascent period of capitalism, the role of state power was crucial. Through state power, the bourgeoisie formulated and implemented policies to provide the necessary support for capitalist economic development, such as protecting private property rights, promoting commodity circulation, and expanding market scale. These measures helped ensure that the capitalist economy could absorb a sufficient amount of surplus labor, thereby promoting its further development. This reveals, from the perspective of the origin of the bourgeois state, the relationship it embodies between the bourgeoisie and other classes: the bourgeoisie uses the state to maintain its position as the ruling class, suppress the resistance of other classes, and achieve class rule. This class relationship determines that the bourgeois state has not changed the nature of the state as a tool for class rule; it remains oppressive. In Capital, Marx reveals the oppressive nature of the modern bourgeois state based on an in-depth analysis of bloody legislation against the dispossessed and laws designed to drive down wages since the 15th century. In Marx's view, laws that should have protected the rights of the masses were manipulated by landlords and large tenant farmers; for example, the "Inclosure Acts" ^[1] became tools for them to plunder the people's land and amass wealth. Simultaneously, to seize more social wealth, the emerging bourgeoisie used state power to intervene in wages. For instance, laws such as the Statute of Labourers enacted in England in 1349 set wage ceilings but no floors; given the weak position of workers in the labor market, this led to a life of hardship, making it difficult for them even to maintain basic survival.

Of course, when workers become accustomed to "voluntarily" selling their labor power under the compulsion of the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeois state, in order to maintain this ruling "order," is sometimes forced to make some painful concessions on behalf of the bourgeoisie, passing certain laws beneficial to the workers. For example, in England, the state ruled by capitalists and landlords enacted Factory Acts to "curb capital's yearning for the boundless extraction of labor power" by forcibly limiting the working day. This legislation was intended to restrain the "blind predatory desire" of capitalists and landlords who ignored workers' rights and social responsibilities in pursuit of profit maximization, thereby preventing the exhaustion of the nation's labor resources due to the miserable condition of the workers, which would pose a threat to the overall ruling interests of the bourgeoisie. Thus, to better protect bourgeois interests, the bourgeois state sometimes needs to take into account the interests of the workers. As Marx said: "It is quite natural that the extension of the working day which capital, from the middle of the 14th to the end of the 17th century, tries to impose by state-power upon adult laborers, should coincide with the limit of the working time which, in the second half of the 19th century, the state has here and there prescribed in order to prevent the coining of children's blood into capital." However, this legislation limiting the working day was not a "gift" from the bourgeoisie, but rather the result of a long struggle by the working class for a normal working day; that is, "they were developed gradually as the natural laws of the modern mode of production out of existing conditions. Their formulation, official recognition, and proclamation by the state were the result of a long class struggle." Even so, "the legislature never intended to infringe upon the freedom of capital to squeeze adult labor." For example, Parliament "did not grant a single penny for the compulsory implementation of these acts," but instead tacitly allowed the bourgeoisie to implement them through the relay system. This shows that whether it was legislation to extend the working day or legislation to limit it, it was based on the bourgeois state's consideration of maintaining fundamental bourgeois interests. Capitalists, by leveraging state power—such as formulating relevant laws and policies to limit workers' rest time and regulate working hours—made the workers' working day longer. Only when they realized the negative impact of long working hours on workers' physical and mental health and social stability did they begin to use the state's legislative power to formulate labor regulations to limit working time. From this, it can be seen that the laws of the bourgeois state provided the bourgeoisie with legal means to protect their property, investments, and business management activities. By formulating and enforcing various laws—such as the Inclosure Acts, labor laws, and factory acts—the bourgeoisie could ensure that their economic activities in pursuit of surplus value were protected and that potential risks and uncertainties were reduced.

II. The Execution of Public Affairs and the Execution of Specific Functions: The Dissection of State Functions in Capital and its Manuscripts

The state is "essentially a machine for the suppression of the oppressed and exploited classes." The essence of the state is manifested through its functions. As an instrument of the ruling class, the state's primary task is to maintain the interests of the ruling class and realize political rule. However, the state is not merely an apparatus of violence; it also possesses extensive social management functions, such as maintaining social order, safeguarding civil rights, and promoting economic development. In Capital, Marx emphasized the dual nature of state functions—namely, the function of political rule and the function of social management. He pointed out that the state, on the one hand, performs "the general business [of] all societies," and on the other hand, performs "the specific functions [arising] from the antithesis between the government and the mass of the people." Here, "the specific functions arising from the antithesis between the government and the mass of the people" expresses the connotation of the state's political rule function; it expresses how the state maintains social order through the use of coercive means, which is a vivid manifestation of the state as an apparatus of violence for class rule. Meanwhile, "the general business [of] all societies" expresses the connotation of the state's social management function, reflecting its fulfillment of the social, general, universal, and common needs of the people, aimed at creating a favorable social environment and driving the holistic, synchronous, and coordinated development of society and the state. The political rule function of the bourgeois state is realized through its social management function. As Engels said, "the state, the official representative of capitalist society, finally has to undertake the direction" of them.

In Capital—this work centered on the critique of political economy—and its manuscripts, Marx focused on elucidating the social management functions of the state from the perspective of economic attributes. In his view, the state intervenes in and regulates the socio-economy by formulating and executing economic policies, adjusting economic relations, and managing economic activities, so as to realize the ruling interests of the bourgeoisie. For instance, in the early stages of capitalist production, the minimum amount of capital required by certain production sectors was difficult for single individuals to provide, thereby prompting the state to provide subsidies to private parties. Among these, "protective duties" and "direct export premiums" were two forms of state subsidies. In those cases, "a part of the original capital of the industrialist comes directly from the state treasury." In fact, as early as in the London Notebooks ^[2] (1850–1853), Marx had already made detailed documentary extracts focusing primarily on the economic functions of the state. He conducted an in-depth study of how the state regulates and adjusts economic activities through legislative means, and how the state utilizes the central banking system to implement economic regulation. By deeply dissecting the essence of the state budget and its role in the socio-economy, Marx further traced and analyzed the historical evolution and internal structure of the fiscal and credit systems, and conducted detailed research and discussion on the traits of the national debt, its function in the national economy, and the circulation mechanism of the national debt.

In Capital, Marx argued that the economic functions of the bourgeois state are primarily realized through "the colonial system, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system." The colonial system was a key means adopted by capitalism during its initial accumulation stage to promote the formation and accumulation of capital. For example, in 1648, the Netherlands, which was the first to fully develop the colonial system, reached the pinnacle of its commercial prosperity. Through colonial expansion, the bourgeois state acquired vast amounts of resources, markets, and labor, which not only provided a material basis for the development of capitalism but also meant that "the colonial system, its marine trade and its commercial wars, served as a forcing-house for the public credit system." With the development of capitalism, the state's demand for funds increased continuously; the national debt became an important means of financing, and the national debt system became a crucial path for the bourgeois state to raise funds. "As the national debt has its support in the public revenue, which must cover the yearly payments for interest, &c., the modern system of taxation was the necessary complement of the system of national loans." Through taxation, the state can acquire the necessary funds to support its operation and development. As a modern tax system, the protectionist system, in addition to increasing fiscal revenue, also allows the bourgeois state to limit the import of foreign commodities through this barrier to protect the development of domestic industries. Just as Marx said: "The system of protection was an artificial means of manufacturing manufacturers, of expropriating independent laborers, of capitalizing the national means of production and subsistence, of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the medieval to the modern mode of production." The protectionist system is an economic means adopted by the bourgeois state to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie itself. In Marx's view, there exists a close historical-logical connection between these systems: the colonial system provided primitive accumulation for the development of capitalism, the national debt system provided financial support for the state's operation, the modern tax system ensured state fiscal revenue, and the protectionist system maintained domestic economic interests to a certain extent. Thus, Marx believed: "The colonial system, public debts, heavy taxes, protection, commercial wars, &c., these children of the true manufacturing period, increase gigantically during the infancy of Modern Industry." Of course, these systems also exposed the internal contradictions and limitations of the capitalist economic system. For example, the colonial system intensified international inequality and exploitation, leading to poverty and backwardness in many colonial countries; the issuance of national debt was often accompanied by a heavy burden of interest, causing state finances to fall into a long-term debt cycle and triggering debt crises, which in turn adversely affected economic development; the tax system also faced issues of unfairness and irrationality—especially in capitalist society, where taxation often becomes a means for capitalists to exploit workers; the protectionist system, meanwhile, easily led to distortions and conflicts in international trade, hindering the healthy development of the global economy.

Compared to the colonial system, the modern tax system, and the protectionist system, Capital provides a relatively more extensive discussion of the national debt system. The state borrows monetary funds from domestic and foreign money-holders by issuing bonds and other means. This state liability is formed by the state's credit activities as a subject and is conducted for the state to obtain or provide credit. As Marx said: "Public credit, i.e., the alienation of the state—whether despotic, constitutional or republican—marked with its stamp the capitalistic era. The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possessions of modern peoples is—their national debt." Thus, national debt involves the issue of state credit. Capital emphasized the importance of state credit. State credit plays an important role in the modern economic system, which is also a major manifestation of the economic functions of the modern state. It is one of the means by which the state conducts macro-regulation and economic management. By adjusting the scale and structure of the national debt, the state can influence the money supply and interest rate levels in the market, thereby regulating economic operations. This plays a significant role in promoting capital accumulation and expanded reproduction. From Marx's perspective, the national debt is one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. Like a magic wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. Moreover, the national debt became a significant boost for the development of joint-stock companies, triggering the development of trade in various negotiable securities and the rise of stock speculation, which in turn promoted the prevalence of exchange speculation and the prosperity of modern bankocracy. With the support of national debt, enterprises can obtain the necessary funds to expand production scale and improve production efficiency, thereby driving the development of the entire economy.

In addition to issuing national debt, state credit is also reflected in the issuance of currency. This is a credit activity where the state issues paper money for compulsory circulation through its legal right of currency issuance, possessing the characteristics of state credit securitization of the highest grade. The state puts paper notes printed with specific currency names into the circulation process; the special law of paper money circulation derives from its relationship as a representative of metallic money, where the volume of currency issued symbolically represents the actual amount of gold (or silver) in circulation. Monetary symbols need social recognition, and paper monetary symbols achieve this recognition through compulsory circulation. This coercive act of the state is valid only within the sphere of circulation of a single country, and only in this sphere can money fully perform its function as a medium of circulation or coin, allowing paper money to exist in a pure functional form detached from its metallic entity. Currency issuance not only reflects the scale and status of state credit but also affects the stability and sustainability of state credit. The healthy development of state credit helps enhance public confidence in the economy and stabilize market expectations, thereby maintaining steady economic operation; conversely, if problems arise with state credit, it may trigger market panic and a crisis of trust, endangering healthy economic development and even shaking the social foundation of state stability.

III. Bourgeois Society Transcending National Boundaries in Foreign Trade and the World Market: The Analysis of Inter-state Relations in Capital and Its Manuscripts

In the "Introduction" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, when Marx was planning his works on economics, the designed chapter on the "State" focused primarily on an in-depth analysis of state theory, including: "Concentration of bourgeois society in the form of the state. Viewed in relation to itself. The 'unproductive' classes. Taxes. State debt. Public credit. Population. Colonies. Emigration." By the time of the "Preface" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx planned to examine the capitalist economic system in the following order: "capital, landed property, wage-labor; the State, foreign trade, world market." From this, it appears that whether in the "five-part plan" or the "six-book plan" ^[3], the chapter on the "State" always occupied a key position connecting what preceded and followed it. This is because the state does not exist in isolation but is deeply embedded in the historical process of world development. In particular, with the development of capitalism, factors of production such as commodities, capital, and labor began to flow on a global scale, driving the formation of the world market. This process promoted the holistic development of world history by strengthening the links between countries. The arrangement of the latter half of the "six-book plan" in the "Preface"—namely "the State, foreign trade, world market"—indicates that Marx planned to use the "State" chapter as a logical intermediary and bridge to elevate the perspective from the capitalist economic relations of a single country to the collective capitalist economic relations on a global scale. By deeply analyzing the profound impact of the capitalist mode of production on the process of world history, and on the basis of a scientific analysis of the "State" question, he launched an investigation into the capitalist relations of production between nations, revealing the intrinsic link between the state and world history, and thereby demonstrating the conditions of internal contradictions within capitalist society at a higher level. Marx profoundly dissected the complex relationship between the state, foreign trade, and the world market, revealing the dynamic evolution and internal logic of these relationships under the capitalist mode of production. For instance, the expansion of the capitalist mode of production drove the expansion of foreign trade and the world market; the state conducts economic exchange through foreign trade and the world market to obtain resources and markets, driving its own economic development. However, this also intensified competition and conflict between states and increased the instability of the world economy; in turn, the instability of the world economy affects domestic economic stability and social order, thereby requiring the state to carry out corresponding policy adjustments.

In the "Six-Book Plan," the volume on "Foreign Trade" immediately follows the one on "The State." In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx investigates the connotation and essence of foreign trade from the perspective of the capitalist mode of production, using this as a foundation to deeply analyze the impact of foreign trade on national economies and international relations. He argues that "while the expansion of foreign trade, although the basis of the capitalist mode of production in its infancy, has become its own product, however, with the further development of the capitalist mode of production, through the innate necessity of this mode of production and its need for an ever-expanding market ^[4]." The capitalist mode of production is based on commodity production and exchange, pursuing the maximization of profit and surplus value. Under this mode of production, the scope of commodity production and exchange continuously expands until it crosses national borders, forming foreign trade. In turn, the development of foreign trade provides broader markets for capitalist production, promotes capital accumulation and technological progress, and further drives the expansion of the scale of capitalist production and the development of the mode of production itself.

On this basis, Marx analyzes the role of foreign trade from the perspective of the state. He argues that foreign trade not only affects the internal economic structure and profit distribution of a nation but also involves international economic relations and international politics. Through foreign trade, a state can obtain more resources and markets, promoting the development of its own economy. Foreign trade is an important link in the economic connections between capitalist states; it embodies the internal requirements of the capitalist mode of production while reflecting the complexity of economic relations between states. This complexity lies in the fact that foreign trade brings about issues such as economic competition and cooperation, adjustments to economic structures and industrial layouts, transformations of economic policies and institutions, and the protection of economic security and interests. If handled improperly, it can lead to economic conflicts between states, affecting the stability and development of international relations.

The development of foreign trade also demonstrates that, with the development of productive forces and the expansion of commodity exchange, various countries gradually break out of their original state of isolation and begin to form a unified world market. In this market, the economies of all countries are interdependent and influence each other, jointly driving the development of the world economy. Consequently, in the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858, Marx defines the world market as "bourgeois society overstepping the boundaries of the state." In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx reveals the critical role of the state in the formation and development of the world market, emphasizing the state's function within it. The state's activities in the world market reflect its internal class structure and economic interests, while also influencing its status and clout on a global scale. As representatives of political and economic power, states actively participate in world market competition and cooperation by formulating foreign trade policies and tariff policies, regulating economic interactions between themselves and the world market, and utilizing the world market to promote domestic economic development and prosperity. These policies not only affect a state's own economic development but also shape the layout and direction of the world market. As the world market forms and develops, the economies of various countries begin to penetrate and merge with one another. This ensures that the economic development of any given country is no longer merely affected by domestic factors, but also by the overall trends and shifts in the world market. This necessitates that all countries closely monitor world market dynamics and adjust their economic policies and development strategies in a timely manner.

Under the capitalist world system, a complex and nuanced relationship exists between nation-states and the world market. The impact of the world market on the development of nation-states is twofold. On the one hand, the development of capitalism leads to the continuous expansion of the world market. The formation and development of the world market break the limitations of the nation-state, enabling various nation-states to participate in global production and exchange. This promotes economic and cultural exchange between nations, providing nation-states with new development opportunities in the process. As Marx stated: "The sudden expansion of the world market, the multiplication of circulating commodities, the competitive zeal of the European nations to possess themselves of the products of Asia and the treasures of America, and the colonial system — all contributed materially toward destroying the feudal fetters on production ^[5]."

On the other hand, however, the world market also intensifies competition and conflict between nation-states, placing some weak and small nation-states at risk of being marginalized or even enslaved. As Marx said: "As soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower forms of slave-labor, corvée-labor, etc., are drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalist mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming their principal interest, the civilized horrors of overwork are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, etc. ^[6]" The fundamental reason for this lies in the fact that the opening of the world market is fraught with the colonial oppression of backward nations by so-called "civilized nations" under the rule of capital. That is to say, the bourgeoisie not only enslaves the proletariat of its own country but also squeezes the proletariat of backward countries and nations. Specifically, "the colonial system ripened, like a hothouse, trade and navigation. The 'sociétés anonymes' (Luther) were powerful levers for stock concentration. To the nascent manufactories, the colonies secured a market for their produce, and a monopoly of this market, which became an ever-increasing accumulation. The treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement, and murder, floated back to the mother-country and were there turned into capital ^[7]."

Thus, two opposing camps were formed in the world: on one side is the camp of so-called "civilized nations" consisting of a tiny minority that exploits the vast majority of the world's inhabitants by virtue of their capital advantage; on the other side is the camp composed of the "uncivilized" and "semi-civilized" nations—the colonies and dependencies that make up the vast majority of the world's population and exist in a state of oppression and exploitation. If a nation-state is to consolidate its status as a subject in the world market, it must maintain its own independence and sovereignty while adapting to the developmental demands of the world market to achieve its own modernization and progress.

IV. The Hidden Secret Behind the Form of the State: The Insight of Capital and its Manuscripts into the Historical Limits of the State

The "Introduction" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy summarizes the theme of the "State" as "the concentration of bourgeois society in the form of the state." This indicates that Marx's understanding of the state was based neither on the state itself nor on the so-called general development of the human spirit, but rather proceeded from its roots—the material relations of life, namely "civil society." At that time, this "civil society" was bourgeois society. Bourgeois society is a society in which the capitalist mode of production holds a dominant position, with the bourgeoisie and the proletariat serving as the two foundation stones of the social architecture. By virtue of their ownership of capital, the bourgeoisie controls the means of production and thus occupies the dominant position in society. The proletariat, meanwhile, can only sell its own labor power and is in a dominated position; possessing no means of production, they can only be combined with the means of production through employment by capital, remaining in a subordinate position. This antagonistic relationship—the domination of labor by capital—determines that there must be an inherent logical connection between the state and capital; specifically, the bourgeois state is extensively dependent on social interest groups under the rule of capital relations.

As Marx stated in Capital: "The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labor is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled... It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers... which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state ^[8]." Capital is the economic power that dominates everything in bourgeois society, and capital's power of command over labor in the economic sphere inevitably leads to its power of rule over labor in the political sphere, thereby achieving control over the entire power of the state. During the writing of Capital, Marx deeply investigated and analyzed capitalist economic relations, forming a complete understanding and accurate grasp of the internal structure and essence of bourgeois society. This research revealed the internal connection and mutual constructive relationship between modern bourgeois society and capital. Based on an analysis of the essential characteristics of bourgeois society, it further revealed the inherent connection between the modern bourgeois state system and the capitalist system of private property, thereby identifying the material roots of the logic of capital in the modern bourgeois state.

In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx notes that the commodity is the cell of the economic organism of bourgeois society, and social wealth in a society where capitalist production predominates appears as an "immense accumulation of commodities." Under conditions of a commodity economy, "all economic relations are merely different names for the same constant relations of simple exchange—that is, the exchange of commodities—and the corresponding determinations of property, freedom, and equality." Bourgeois society constructed a basic "trinity" framework of property rights, freedom, and equality. Equality and freedom in the economic sphere spurred opposition to privileged politics and the establishment of civil political rights. The exclusivity of property rights required the formation of social interaction relations based on modern contractual principles, which in politics evolved into the rule of law and the principle of periodic elections, thus laying the social foundation for the modern bourgeois state.

However, beneath this surface of "equality" and "freedom" lies the powerful domination of labor by capital. Behind the process of commodity circulation, the equality and freedom between individuals disappear. The law of value requires the exchange of equivalents, but under capitalist conditions, capitalists and workers trade based on their identities as owners of money and owners of labor power. While this seemingly follows the rules of a commodity economy, the reality is otherwise. Behind the seemingly fair exchange lies the exploitation of the worker's labor—that is, the wages the capitalist pays the worker are lower than the value created by the labor power. This reflects the contradiction and hypocrisy of the principle of equivalent exchange under the capitalist system. Marx believed the root cause of this inequality problem lay in property rights.

Under the conditions of capitalist relations of production, "property, then, with the capitalist, is the right to appropriate unpaid other people's labor or its product, and to the worker, the impossibility of appropriating his own product ^[9]." Thus, the capitalist "constantly exchanges a portion of other people's objectified labor, which he has appropriated without an equivalent, for a greater quantity of other people's living labor," while "labor-power must be constantly incorporated into capital as a means of value augmentation." Consequently, capital relies on its command over labor to obtain the legal right and coercive power to gratuitously appropriate the worker's surplus labor, and through the state power it controls, it normalizes and perpetuates this social order of capital's dominance over labor.

Here, property rights reveal the relations of appropriation and exploitation in capitalist production—namely, the capitalist's gratuitous appropriation of the worker's surplus labor. This unequal domination of labor by capital undermines the formal equality of the state constitution and laws. Under the rule of capital, because workers depend on the capitalist's means of production for survival, they throw themselves entirely into labor to obtain employment opportunities and have no say in production-related matters. This causes a lack of democracy in the sphere of social production, which fundamentally obstructs the people's genuine rule over the state, rendering democracy for the proletariat a mere illusion confined to the conceptual level.

Furthermore, as workers struggle for survival, they have no time to pay attention to or study political affairs, let alone possess the energy to delve into complex political "rules of the game" such as election campaigns. Conversely, the bourgeoisie achieves economic dominance by virtue of its ownership of the means of production, and subsequently becomes the politically dominant class through the state. They are freed from heavy labor and utilize the political information and resource advantages accumulated through wealth to dominate public opinion, possessing more voice and participation in political life than the workers. Additionally, capitalists take the surplus value created by the gratuitous appropriation of the workers' surplus labor and pay a portion of it to the state in the form of taxes, which becomes the core pillar of government finance, thereby indirectly controlling and influencing state power. It is evident that capital's domination of labor is not only in the economic sphere but also profoundly affects the political sphere, acting as the social root of the bourgeois monopoly on state power. The "freedom" and "equality" trumpeted by the bourgeoisie is, in actual national life, merely a form; in essence, it is a social order designed to maintain capital's rule over labor. Thus, the bourgeois state, founded upon bourgeois society, is like a giant python coiled around civil society, becoming a ruling force that suffocates it.

One of the "vexing questions" ^[10] Marx encountered in his youth when research the problem of the state was the alienation of the state from society triggered by the contradiction between universal interests and particular interests; this served as one of the motivations driving his turn toward the study of political economy. In Capital, Marx found the secret within by revealing the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. Under the capitalist mode of production, the development of productive forces drives production toward socialization, organizing means of production and labor across regions to satisfy the needs of society as a whole. This requires the rational allocation of the means of production on a social scale to achieve efficient utilization. However, capitalism is based on the private appropriation of the means of production, where a minority of capitalists, chasing the maximization of individual interests, control these means. They hold absolute decision-making power in production, allocating factors of production solely according to their own interests without regard for the social interest as a whole. This opposition between universal and particular interests triggers numerous contradictions. In production, large-scale socialized production requires coordinated planning, yet private ownership causes social production to be disorderly, with capitalists blindly pursuing profit, leading to overproduction and waste of resources. In distribution, the fruits of socialized production should be shared by all people, but in reality, they are monopolized by capitalists while laborers receive only meager compensation. In class relations, socialized production gives rise to and strengthens the proletariat, whose contradiction with the bourgeoisie becomes the primary contradiction of capitalist society. Thus, the contradiction between the socialization of production and capitalist private appropriation becomes an incurable chronic malady of capitalist society, despite the bourgeois state’s attempts to alleviate it through means such as economic intervention. Examples cited in Capital include the colonial system, the national debt system, modern taxation, and protective tariff systems ^[11]; yet the bourgeois state is ultimately the "total capitalist" controlled by private capital. It cannot fundamentally infringe upon the particular interests of private capital, and therefore this contradiction remains inherent to the capitalist system itself, difficult to resolve fundamentally, and impossible to cure with any panacea. Evidence for this ranges from the colonial system exacerbating international inequality and exploitation to the national debt system triggering debt crises, and from the tax system intensifying the exploitation of workers by capitalists to the protective tariff system leading to distortions and conflicts in international trade. In this way, Marx identified the economic roots of the opposition between universal and particular interests in bourgeois society through the movement of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, thereby revealing the root cause of the alienation between the state and society.

V. Replacing the "Illusory Community" with the "Association of Free Individuals": The Foresight of the Witherng Away of the State in Capital and its Manuscripts

In Capital, Marx delved into the interior of "civil society" to further reveal, from the perspective of political economy, the logic of capital in the development of bourgeois society and the state—that is, the social root of the historical limits of the bourgeois state: the rule of capital over labor. This contradiction not only affects the development and efficiency of the capitalist economy but also leads to social injustice and the intensification of class contradictions. Just as Marx started from civil society to reveal the essence of the state and explored the emergence and development of the state from changes in social material relations, his judgment of the future development trend of the state also begins from the social sphere—that is, predicting the state's trajectory by revealing social development trends. During his youth, Marx envisioned using the "association of free individuals" to achieve a thorough subversion of the logic of capital in bourgeois society and drive the state toward its eventual withering away. In The Poverty of Philosophy, he posited: "The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society." In Marx's view, the state is an "illusory community," while the "community," as the original form of society, stands independent of the individual. An "association," by contrast, means that on the basis of eliminating fundamental conflicts of interest, people truly organize society through their own union. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, he and Engels explicitly identified this association as the "association of free individuals," noting: "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." In Capital, Marx provided a more detailed exposition of the "association of free individuals," proposing: "Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labour-power in full self-awareness as one single social labour-force." According to Marx, the total product of the association of free individuals belongs to society. A portion of these products serves as means of production and continues to be held by society, while another portion is distributed among the members of the association as means of subsistence for their consumption, with the share of distribution determined by the labor-time of the producers. This association of free individuals is precisely what Engels described in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: "The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax."

In such an association, the means of production are no longer privately owned but socially owned. This fundamental change in the form of ownership allows people to escape dependence on private property, to collectively own and use the means of production, and to consciously regard their own labor-power as part of the social labor-power to achieve the association of labor and common social progress—that is, "on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: namely, on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and the means of production, which are themselves produced by labour... to re-establish individual property." This is because the "capitalist's alien ownership of this labor can only be abolished by transforming his ownership into the ownership of the non-isolated individual—that is, into the associated, social ownership of the individual." According to Marx’s vision of the re-established form of individual property, the bond between people is labor; the social labor surplus will not be directly distributed to individuals as means of production, but distributed as means of subsistence. This distribution is no longer based on commodity exchange and monetary mediation but on the principle of equality for all in the face of labor, determining the share of means of subsistence obtained based on the labor-time of each producer. This ensures fairness and justice between each individual's contribution and their return. This transformation fundamentally subverts the logic of capital dominating labor caused by the separation of the means of production from the laborer in bourgeois society. It provides a more fair, just, and efficient production environment for laborers, enabling them to become managers of the production process through direct combination with the means of production, thereby establishing labor-centered social interaction norms and achieving the appropriation by the individual of the "totality of existing productive forces." This appropriation of the totality of existing productive forces reflected in individual ownership can only be realized through associated labor. This dictates that the individual ownership Marx sought to re-establish is not merely directed at isolated individuals, but is a form of social ownership composed of associated individuals based on the public appropriation of the means of production. Since the means of production are no longer privately owned, the phenomenon of enslaving the labor of others by virtue of ownership of the means of production is avoided. Laborers will also acquire equal social and political status by virtue of their equal appropriation of social wealth, becoming the masters of society.

After social ownership is established and associated labor is implemented, the purpose of production shifts toward the common social interest, and society gradually becomes a conscious and planned association. This transformation can effectively resolve the contradiction between private labor and social labor under a commodity economy, break the limitations imposed by private capital on socialized production, and eliminate the economic roots of the opposition between particular and universal interests in bourgeois society, helping to build a harmonious, efficient, and fair socio-economic system. As Marx said: "The veil is not removed from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e., the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control." At that time, people will also realize that their "inherent powers" actually originate from society and will learn to organize these powers for social use. Such social transformation allows everyone to realize self-worth and comprehensive development in an environment of freedom and equality, truly completing human emancipation. In the capitalist production system, direct producers face strict authority and hierarchical management imposed by the capitalist as the representative of the conditions of labor. Capitalists, as owners of commodities, confront each other, causing production to fall into a state of anarchy, where social connections act like coercive laws of nature. In contrast, socialized producers will rationally regulate their metabolism with nature, carrying it out with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to and worthy of human nature, escaping the rule of blind forces. At that time, "the measure of wealth [VII—4] will then no longer be labor time, but rather disposable time." Under the framework of the association of free individuals, people will completely discard the logic of capital followed by modern bourgeois society and the state, achieving the great leap from political emancipation to comprehensive social emancipation. This means not only escaping the rule of capital but also marking society's entry into a new stage centered on the free development of every individual. This freedom is not abstract but concretely manifested in people's activities, especially in labor; as the saying goes, "freedom, as seen in activity, is precisely labor." Achieving this goal means the comprehensive development and self-realization of the individual in society and symbolizes the final emancipation of human society. At that time, society will be able to resolve the contradiction between universal and particular interests on its own, and will no longer need the state—this illusory community that acts under the banner of the "common interest." In the new social structure of free and equal association of producers, the mode of production will be reorganized; people will no longer need to separate social power from themselves in the form of political power, but will treat it as a powerful support for realizing individual free development. The state and all its machinery will, like the spinning wheel and the bronze ax, be displayed in museums as witnesses to a past era—that is, society will reclaim the power of the state.

(Unit of the author: Institute of Philosophy, Hebei Academy of Social Sciences)
Source: Marxism Studies, 2025, No. 4
Web Editor: Paul