Guo Qiang: The Historical Dialectics of State and Capitalism in "Capital" and Its Manuscripts
In scholarly research on Capital, attention is often directed toward its economic theories—specifically the dissection of the capitalist economic system—while the theory of the state contained within it has not received sufficient emphasis. Consequently, when exploring Marx’s theory of the state, academia tends to focus on specialized works 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 period of capitalism, Marx possessed a deep insight into the internal contradictions and crises of capitalist society and revealed its essence through scientific analysis in Capital. As the state plays a vital role in the functioning of the socio-economy, 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-Point Plan" and the "Six-Book Plan" respectively. In both plans, the content regarding "the state" was scheduled as a separate chapter or volume, reflecting his particular attention to and detailed planning for the subject. In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx reveals the origin, essence, 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 Revelation of the Essence of the State in Capital and its Manuscripts
Marx pointed 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 intrinsic links with bourgeois society from multiple dimensions, including economy, politics, class relations, and social transformation. In the "Chapter on Capital" in the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858, Marx argued that the first item to be included in the "State" volume should be "the state and bourgeois society." This indicates that Marx did not discuss the state in isolation but understood its essence from the perspective of the relationship between society and the state. He understood the bourgeois state by proceeding from bourgeois society, thereby gaining insight into the essence of the state in all previous social formations. In other words, Marx situated the question of the state’s essence within 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, following the precedent of the English and French of the eighteenth century, combines under the name of 'civil society'." The form of the state is not an isolated or abstract existence but is closely linked to specific socio-historical conditions. Among these various conditions, it is not the realm of the social spirit that plays a decisive role in the form of the state, but rather the material relations of life. In Marx’s view, material relations of life refer to the relations people form 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 from the surface forms or structures of law and statehood. 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 essence of the state.
From the perspective of the origin of the state, the state is a product of the development of social contradictions—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 analyzed the Asiatic form of ownership, arguing that "in this first form of landed property, the first prerequisite is naturally a naturally arisen community: the family, and the family expanded into a tribe, or the tribe formed through intermarriage between families, or a combination of tribes." Marx called this tribal community a "natural community." This suggests that in the early stages of human society, there was no state—the "illusory community" based on territorial relations—but rather communities naturally formed through kinship, shared lifestyles, and survival needs, namely various forms of communes 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 it and developed a sense of alienation from it. Similarly, the formation of the bourgeois state is a product of social progress and evolution, a phenomenon that inevitably appears once society reaches a certain stage. From Marx’s perspective, in places like Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and England, elements of primitive accumulation appeared sequentially over time. At the end of the 17th century, England systematically integrated these elements to construct the colonial system, the national debt system, the modern tax system, and the system of protectionism. Some of these (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. Looking at 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, by mastering the means of production and the relations of production, the bourgeoisie gradually achieved social dominance. To safeguard its interests, the bourgeoisie required specific state forms—such as political systems, legal frameworks, and administrative apparatuses—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 birth of the economic base of bourgeois society and the formation of the bourgeoisie. In bourgeois society, the capitalist private ownership of the means of production is the core of the economic base. By occupying the means of production, the bourgeoisie plunders the surplus value created by workers, thereby controlling the economic lifeblood of society. This economic base determines that the bourgeois state must serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and maintain the capitalist economic order, the foundation of which is the rule of capital over labor. This was evident even in the embryonic stage of capitalism. As Marx said, "Capital in its infancy, just having come into the world, cannot secure its right to suck a sufficient quantity of surplus labor merely by the power of economic relations, but must also rely on the help of state power." In the embryonic period of capitalism, the role of state power was crucial. The bourgeoisie formulated and implemented policies through state power to provide 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 bourgeois state's origin, the relationship it embodies between the bourgeoisie and other classes: the bourgeoisie uses the state to maintain its status as the ruling class, suppress the resistance of other classes, and realize class rule. This class relationship determines that the bourgeois state has not changed the nature of the state as a tool of class rule; it remains oppressive. In Capital, Marx revealed the oppressive nature of the modern bourgeois state based on an in-depth analysis of bloody legislation against the dispossessed and laws designed to lower wages since the 15th century. In Marx's view, laws that should have protected the rights and interests 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, the emerging bourgeoisie used state power to intervene in wages to seize more social wealth. For instance, the Statute of Labourers enacted in England in 1349 set wage ceilings but no floors; given the weakness of workers in the labor market, this made existence difficult, sometimes making it hard to even maintain basic survival.
Of course, when workers became accustomed to "voluntarily" selling their labor power under the compulsion of the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeois state, in order to maintain this "order" of rule, was forced to make the bourgeoisie reluctantly concede and pass some laws beneficial to workers. For example, in England, the state ruled by capitalists and landlords enacted Factory Acts to "curb capital's thirst for the unlimited drain on 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 responsibility in pursuit of maximum profit, preventing the depletion of the state's labor resources caused by the workers' miserable conditions, which would have threatened the ruling interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole. Thus, to better safeguard bourgeois interests, the bourgeois state sometimes needs to take the workers' interests into account. As Marx said, "It is natural that the prolongation of the working day which capital tries to enforce with the help of state power from the middle of the 14th to the end of the 17th century, corresponds roughly with the limits of the working time which the state, in the second half of the 19th century, placed in some areas to prevent the transformation of children’s blood into capital." However, this legislation limiting the working day was not a "gift" from the bourgeoisie but the result of a protracted struggle by the working class for a normal working day—that is, "they developed gradually out of the existing relations as natural laws of the modern mode of production. Their formulation, official recognition, and proclamation by the state were the result of a long class struggle." Even so, "the legislator did not in the least wish to encroach on the freedom of capital to squeeze adult labor power." For example, Parliament "did not vote a single penny for the compulsory implementation of these acts," but tacitly allowed the bourgeoisie to implement them using the relay system. This shows that whether it is legislation extending the working day or legislation limiting it, both are based on the bourgeois state's consideration of safeguarding the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie. Capitalists, through the power of the state—such as formulating laws and policies that restrict workers' rest time and regulate work hours—make the workers' day longer. When they realized the negative impact of excessively long hours on workers' physical and mental health and social stability, they began to use state legislative power to formulate labor regulations to limit working time. From this, it is clear that the laws of the bourgeois state provide the bourgeoisie with legal means to protect their property, investment, and management activities. By formulating and implementing various laws—such as the Inclosure Acts, labor laws, and Factory Acts—the bourgeoisie can ensure that their economic activities in pursuit of surplus value are protected and that potential risks and uncertainties are reduced.
II. Executing Public Affairs and Executing Singular Functions: An Analysis of State Functions in Capital and its Manuscripts
The state is "essentially a machine for the suppression of the oppressed and exploited class." The essence of the state is manifested through its functions. As an instrument of the ruling class, the state's primary mission 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 derived from the nature of all communities," while on the other hand, it performs "the specific functions derived from the antithesis between the government and the people." Within this, the "specific functions derived from the antithesis between the government and the people" expresses the connotation of the state’s political rule; it expresses how the state maintains social order through the application of coercive means, serving as a vivid embodiment of the state as an apparatus of violence for class rule. Conversely, "the general business derived from the nature of all communities" expresses the connotation of the state's social management function. It reflects the satisfaction of people's social, general, universal, and common needs, aiming to create a favorable social environment and promote the integrated, synchronous, and coordinated development of society and the state. The political rule function of the bourgeois state is realized through the social management function. As Engels said, "the state, the official representative of capitalist society, finally has to undertake the direction of production."
In Capital, a work themed on the critique of political economy, and its manuscripts, Marx elucidated the state’s social management function primarily from the perspective of economic attributes. In his view, the state intervenes in and regulates the social economy by formulating and executing economic policies, adjusting economic relations, and managing economic activities, all to realize the ruling interests of the bourgeoisie. For example, in the early stages of capitalist production, the minimum amount of capital required by certain production sectors was difficult for single individuals to provide, which prompted the state to grant subsidies to private entities. Among these, "protective duties" and "direct export premiums" were two forms of state subsidy. In such cases, "a part of the original capital of the industrialist comes direct from the state treasury." In fact, as early as the London Notebooks [2] of 1850–1853, Marx made detailed excerpts of literature primarily focused on the state’s economic functions. He conducted in-depth research into how the state uses legislative means to standardize and adjust economic activity, and how the state utilizes the central banking system to implement economic regulation. By deeply analyzing the essence of the state budget and its role in the social 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 characteristics of the national debt, its function in the national economy, and its circulation mechanism.
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 method adopted during the infancy of capitalist accumulation to promote the formation and accumulation of capital. For instance, in 1648, the Netherlands, having been the first to fully develop the colonial system, reached the pinnacle of commercial prosperity. Through colonial expansion, bourgeois states acquired vast resources, markets, and labor power, providing not only a material basis for capitalist development but also making "the colonial system, with its foreign trade and its commercial wars... the hot-house of the public credit system." As capitalism developed, the state's demand for funds increased continuously, making the national debt an important means of financing; the national debt system thus became a key 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 obtain the necessary funds to support its operation and development. As a modern system of taxation, the protectionist system, in addition to increasing fiscal revenue, allows the bourgeois state to limit the import of foreign goods through this barrier to protect the development of domestic industry. 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 maintain its own interests. In Marx's view, a tight historical-logical connection exists between these systems: the colonial system provided the primitive accumulation for capitalist development, the national debt system provided funding for the state’s operation, the modern taxation system ensured the state’s 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 aggravated international inequality and exploitation, leading to poverty and backwardness in many colonial countries; the issuance of national debt is often accompanied by a heavy interest burden, causing state finances to fall into a long-term debt cycle and triggering debt crises, which in turn adversely affect economic development; the taxation system also suffers from unfairness and irrationality—especially in capitalist society where taxes often become a means for capitalists to exploit workers; and the protectionist system easily leads to distortions and conflicts in international trade, hindering the healthy development of the global economy.
Compared to the colonial system, the modern taxation system, and the protectionist system, Capital offers relatively more discussion on the national debt system. The state borrows monetary funds from domestic and foreign money holders through the issuance of bonds. This state liability is formed by the state acting as a subject in credit activities to obtain or provide credit. As Marx said: "The public debt, i.e., the alienation of the state—whether despotic, constitutional or republican—marks 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, the national debt involves the question of state credit. Capital emphasizes the importance of state credit. State credit plays a vital role in the modern economic system and 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-control and economic management. By adjusting the scale and structure of the national debt, the state can influence the market’s money supply and interest rate levels, thereby regulating economic operations. This plays an important 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. As if by a magic wand, it endows barren money with the power of self-expansion and as it were, 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 public debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to agiotage [3], in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy. Through 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.
Beyond the issuance of national debt, state credit is also reflected in the issuance of currency. This refers to the credit activity where the state issues paper money for forced circulation through its legal right of issuance, possessing the characteristics of state credit securitization of the highest grade. The state puts into the process of circulation pieces of paper with specific denominations printed on them; the specific laws of paper money circulation arise from its relationship as a representative of metallic money, where the amount of currency issued symbolically represents the actual circulating quantity of gold (or silver). Monetary symbols must obtain social recognition, and paper monetary symbols achieve this recognition through forced circulation. This coercive act of the state is only effective within the sphere of circulation internal to a country; only in this sphere can money fully perform its function as a medium of circulation or coin, allowing paper money to exist as a pure functional form detached from its metallic entity. The issuance of currency not only reflects the scale and status of state credit but also affects its stability and sustainability. The healthy development of state credit helps enhance public confidence in the economy and stabilizes market expectations, thereby maintaining steady economic operations. Conversely, if problems arise with state credit, they may trigger market panic and crises of trust, endangering healthy economic development and even shaking the social foundations of state stability.
III. Bourgeois Society Overstepping National Boundaries in Foreign Trade and the World Market: An Analysis of International 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 "State" section he designed focused primarily on an in-depth analysis of state theory. This content included: "The State as the epitome of bourgeois society. Analyzed in relation to itself. The 'unproductive' classes. Taxes. National 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 bourgeois economic system in the following order: "capital, landed property, wage-labor; the State, foreign trade, world market." From this, it can be seen that whether in the "five-chapter plan" or the "six-book plan," the volume on the "State" always occupied a critical position bridging what came before and after. This is because the state does not exist in isolation but is deeply embedded in the developmental process of world history. 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 links between countries. The arrangement of the second half of the "six-book plan"—namely "the State, foreign trade, world market"—indicates that Marx planned to use the "State" volume as a logical mediation and bridge to elevate the scope of investigation from the capitalist economic relations of a single nation to the overall capitalist economic relations on a world scale. Through an in-depth analysis of the profound influence 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 intended to carry out an investigation of capitalist relations of production between nations, revealing the internal links between the state and world history, and further demonstrating the state of internal contradictions within bourgeois society at a higher level. Marx profoundly analyzed the complex relationship between the state, foreign trade, and the world market, revealing the dynamic evolution and internal logic of these relations under the capitalist mode of production. For example, the expansion of the capitalist mode of production drove the expansion of foreign trade and the world market; the state conducts economic exchange with the world market through foreign trade 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. The instability of the world economy, in turn, affects a country’s own economic stability and social order, thereby requiring the state to make corresponding policy adjustments.
In the "Six-Book Plan," the volume on "Foreign Trade" immediately follows the volume on "The State." Within Capital and its manuscripts, Marx explores the connotation and essence of foreign trade from the perspective of the capitalist mode of production, using this as a foundation to conduct an in-depth analysis of the impact of foreign trade on national economies and international relations. He argues: "Although the expansion of foreign trade, which is the basis of the capitalist mode of production in its infancy, has become its own product, however, with the further progress of the capitalist mode of production, through the innate necessity of this mode of production, its need for an ever-expanding market." The capitalist mode of production is based on commodity production and exchange, pursuing the maximization of profit and surplus value. Under this mode, the scope of commodity production and exchange continuously expands until it crosses national borders, forming foreign trade. The development of foreign trade, in turn, 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 country but also involves economic relations between states and international politics. Through foreign trade, a state can acquire more resources and markets, promoting its own economic development. Foreign trade is an important link in the economic connections between capitalist states; it both embodies the internal requirements of the capitalist mode of production and reflects 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 economic security and the protection of interests. If handled improperly, it may 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 have gradually broken out of their original state of isolation and begun to form a unified world market. Within this market, the economies of various countries are interdependent and exert mutual influence, 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 activities of the state in the world market reflect both its internal class structure and economic interests, and influence its status and impact on a global scale. As representatives of political and economic power, states actively participate in the competition and cooperation of the world market by formulating foreign trade policies, tariff policies, and other means, regulating the economic interactions between their own country and the world market, while also utilizing the world market to promote domestic economic development and prosperity. These policies not only affect the state's own economic development but also shape the pattern and direction of the world market. As the world market forms and develops, the economies of various countries begin to penetrate and integrate with one another. This ensures that the economic development of a country is no longer merely influenced by domestic factors, but is also subject to the overall trends and changes of the world market. This necessitates that countries closely monitor the dynamics of the world market and timely adjust their own economic policies and developmental strategies.
Under the capitalist world system, a complex and subtle relationship exists between the nation-state and the world market. The impact of the world market on the development of the nation-state is two-fold. 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 through the limitations of the nation-state, enabling various nation-states to participate in global production and exchange, thereby promoting economic and cultural exchange between nations and allowing nation-states to gain new developmental opportunities in the process. As Marx said: "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." On the other hand, however, the world market also intensifies competition and conflict between nation-states, putting some weak and small nation-states at risk of being marginalized or even enslaved. As Marx stated: "As soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower forms of slave-labour, corvée-labour, &c., are drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalistic mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming their principal interest, the civilized horrors of over-work are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, &c." The fundamental reason for this lies in the fact that the opening of the world market is permeated by the colonial oppression of "backward nations" by the 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 'societies Monopolia' (Luther) [4] were powerful levers for concentration of capital. The colonies secured a market for the budding manufactures, and, through the monopoly of the market, an increased accumulation. The treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement, and murder, floated back to the mother-country and were there turned into capital." Thus, two opposing camps were formed in the world: on one side is the camp of the so-called "civilized nations" that exploit 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" or "semi-civilized" nations of the colonies and dependencies that make up the vast majority of the world's population and are in a position of being oppressed and exploited. If a nation-state is to consolidate its status as a subject in the world market, it must adapt to the developmental needs of that market and achieve its own modernization and progress while maintaining its independence and sovereignty.
IV. The Hidden Secret Behind the Forms of the State: Insights into the Historical Limits of the State in Capital and Its Manuscripts
The "Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy" summarizes the theme of the "State" volume as "bourgeois society in the form of the state." This indicates that Marx's understanding of the state is based neither on the state itself nor on the so-called general development of the human spirit, but originates 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 structure. By virtue of their ownership of capital, the bourgeoisie controls the means of production and thus occupies a dominant position in society; the proletariat, meanwhile, can only sell its labor power, occupying a dominated position. Possessing no means of production, they can only be combined with the means of production by being employed by capital, placing them in a subordinate position. This antagonistic relationship of capital dominating labor dictates that an internal logical connection must exist between the state and capital—namely, that the bourgeois state is extensively dependent on social interest groups under the rule of capital relations. As Marx said in Capital: "It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers—a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity—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." Capital is the economic power that dominates everything in bourgeois society, and the power of capital to dominate labor in the economic sphere inevitably leads to its power to rule labor in the political sphere, thereby achieving control over the entire power of the state. During the writing of Capital, Marx deeply investigated and dissected capitalist economic relations, forming a complete understanding and accurate grasp of the internal structure and essence of bourgeois society. This research revealed the internal link and mutual construction between modern bourgeois society and capital. Based on an analysis of the essential characteristics of bourgeois society, it further revealed the internal connection between the modern bourgeois state system and the system of capitalist private property, thereby identifying the material roots of the logic of capital in the modern bourgeois state.
In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx mentions 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 the conditions of a commodity economy, "every economic relation is merely a different name for the consistent relations of simple exchange—that is, the exchange of commodities—and the corresponding definitions of property, freedom, and equality." Bourgeois society constructed a "trinity" basic framework of property rights, freedom, and equality. Equality and freedom in the economic sphere prompted opposition to privileged politics and the establishment of civil political rights. The exclusivity of property rights necessitates the formation of social interactions based on modern contractual principles, which in politics evolve into the rule of law and the principle of periodic elections, thereby laying the social foundation for the modern bourgeois state. However, beneath this appearance of "equality" and "freedom" lies the reality of capital’s strong dominance over labor. Behind the process of commodity circulation, 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. This seemingly follows the rules of the commodity economy, but in reality, it does not. Behind the ostensibly fair exchange hides the exploitation of the worker's labor—namely, that the wages paid to the worker by the capitalist are lower than the value created by labor power. This embodies the contradiction and hypocrisy of the principle of equal exchange under the capitalist system. Marx believed that the root of this inequality lies in property rights.
Under the conditions of capitalist relations of production, "property, then, appears on the side of the capitalist as the right to appropriate unpaid other-people's labour or its product, and on the side of the worker as the impossibility of appropriating his own product." Thus, the capitalist "constantly exchanges a portion of other-people's already objectified labour, which he has appropriated without an equivalent, for a greater quantity of other-people's living labour," while "labour-power must be constantly incorporated into capital as a means of valorization." 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 its control of state power, it normalizes and perpetuates this social order of capital dominating labor. Here, property rights reveal the relations of appropriation and exploitation in capitalist production—that is, the capitalist's gratuitous appropriation of the worker's surplus labor. This unequal dominance of capital over labor destroys the formal equality in the state's 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, having no say in matters related to production. 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 limited to the conceptual level. Moreover, workers are so preoccupied with the struggle for survival that they have no time to focus on or study political affairs, let alone invest energy into deeply researching complex political "rules of the game" such as electioneering. In contrast, the bourgeoisie achieves economic dominance by virtue of their ownership of the means of production, and subsequently becomes the politically dominant class with the help of the state. They are liberated from heavy labor and utilize the political information and resource advantages accumulated through their wealth to dominate social public opinion, possessing a greater voice and participation in political life than the workers. Furthermore, capitalists take the surplus value created by their gratuitous appropriation of workers' surplus labor and pay a portion of it to the state in the form of taxes, becoming the core financial pillar of the government, thereby indirectly controlling and influencing state power. It is evident that the dominance of capital over labor exists not only in the economic sphere but also profoundly influences the political sphere; it is the social root of the bourgeois monopoly of state power. The "freedom" and "equality" preached by the bourgeoisie are merely formal in actual national life; in essence, they serve to maintain a social order where capital rules 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" [5] Marx encountered in his youth while researching the state was the alienation between state and society triggered by the contradiction between universal and particular interests; this was also a driving force behind his shift toward the study of political economy. In Capital, Marx found the secret to this problem 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 a rational allocation and efficient utilization of the means of production on a social scale. However, capitalism is grounded in the private appropriation of the means of production, where a minority of capitalists, chasing the maximization of personal interests, control these means. They hold absolute decision-making power in production, allocating factors of production solely according to their own interests while disregarding the collective interests of society. This opposition between universal and particular interests triggers numerous contradictions. Regarding production, large-scale socialized production requires coordinated planning, yet private ownership leads to disorder in social production, as capitalists blindly pursue profit, resulting in overproduction and waste of resources. Regarding 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. Regarding class relations, large-scale 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 of this include the colonial system, the national debt system, the modern tax system, and the protective tariff system mentioned in Capital. Ultimately, however, the bourgeois state is the "aggregate capitalist" controlled by private capital; it cannot fundamentally infringe upon the particular interests of private capital. Consequently, this contradiction remains inherent to the capitalist system itself—it is difficult to resolve fundamentally, and no panacea can be found to cure this chronic illness. This is evidenced by everything 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 located the economic roots of the opposition between universal and particular interests in bourgeois society within the movement of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, thereby revealing the root cause of the alienation between state and society.
V. Replacing the "Illusory Community" with the "Association of Free Individuals": The Foresight regarding the Withering 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 roots of the historical limits of the bourgeois state, manifested as 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 began with civil society to reveal the essence of the state and explored the state's emergence and development through changes in social material relations, his predictions for the future trend of the state also began in the social sphere; that is, he predicted the trend of the state by revealing the developmental trends of society. In his youth, Marx envisioned using the "association of free individuals" to achieve a thorough subversion of the logic of capital in bourgeois society and to propel the state toward its withering away. In The Poverty of Philosophy, he proposed: "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," and "community" as the primordial form of society is independent relative to the individual person. An "association," however, means that people, having eliminated fundamental conflicts of interest, 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 will continue to be held by society as means of production, while another portion will be 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 axe."
In such an association, the means of production are no longer privately owned but socially owned. This fundamental transformation in the form of ownership enables people to break free from 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 force. This achieves a union of labor and the collective progress of society—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 alien property of the capitalist in this labour can only be abolished by his property being transformed into the property of the non-isolated single individual, into the property of the associated, social individual." According to Marx’s vision for the re-established form of individual property, the bond between people is labor. The social surplus of labor will not be directly distributed to individuals as means of production but will be distributed as means of subsistence. This distribution is no longer based on commodity exchange and the mediation of money, but on the principle of equality for all before labor, determining each producer's share of the means of subsistence according to their labor time. This ensures fairness and justice between each person's contribution and what they receive. This transformation fundamentally subverts the logic of capital dominating labor caused by the separation of means of production from laborers in bourgeois society. it provides laborers with a more fair, just, and efficient production environment, allowing them to become managers of the production process through direct integration with the means of production. This establishes labor-based norms for social interaction and achieves the individual’s appropriation of the "totality of existing productive forces." The appropriation of the totality of existing productive forces embodied in this individual property can only be realized through associated labor. This dictates that the individual property Marx sought to re-establish is not directed merely at isolated individuals; rather, it is a form of social property 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 obtain equal social and political status through 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 interests of society, and society gradually becomes a conscious and planned association. This transformation can effectively resolve the contradiction between private labor and social labor under the commodity economy, break the restrictions of private capital on large-scale socialized production, and eliminate the economic roots of the opposition between particular and universal interests in bourgeois society, helping to construct a harmonious, efficient, and fair socio-economic system. As Marx said: "The social life-process, i.e., the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan." 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-value and well-rounded development in an environment of freedom and equality, truly completing human liberation. This is because, 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 confront one another as commodity owners, causing production to fall into a state of anarchy where social connections operate like coercive laws of nature. In contrast, socialized producers will rationally manage their metabolic exchange with nature, conducting it with the least expenditure of energy and in a manner most consistent with human nature, breaking free from the rule of blind forces. At that time, "the measure of wealth will then no longer be labor time, but rather disposable time." Under the framework of the association of free individuals, people will completely abandon the logic of capital followed by modern bourgeois society and the state, achieving the significant leap from political liberation to comprehensive social liberation. This means not only breaking free from 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 is tangibly embodied in people’s activities, especially in labor—as it is said, "freedom in activity is precisely labor." Achieving this goal signifies the comprehensive development and self-realization of the individual in society and symbolizes the ultimate liberation 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—that illusory community that flies the banner of "common interest." In a new social structure of the 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 use it as a powerful support for the realization of individual free development. The state and all its machinery will, like the spinning wheel and the bronze axe, be displayed in museums as cultural relics of history, becoming witnesses to a bygone era—that is, society will re-incorporate the power of the state.
(Author's Unit: Institute of Philosophy, Hebei Academy of Social Sciences)
Source: Marxist Studies, Issue 4, 2025
Web Editor: Paul