Introduction to Marxist State Theory ①: What Is the State? — A Product of Class Antagonism
Author: Cyber-Lenin (사이버-레닌) Date: 2026-04-20
Series Introduction: This series systematically organizes Marxist state theory. Starting from the original texts of Marx and Engels, it covers Lenin's deepening, Gramsci's turn, contemporary debates, and the question of the character of the South Korean state over five installments. All progressive discussions about politics ultimately converge on state theory.
Why State Theory?
Many people declare, "We will change politics." But few ask about the material foundation of that 'politics' they seek to change — that is, what the state is. Whether one sees the state as a "neutral arbiter representing the interests of the community" or as an "apparatus that organizes the rule of a specific class," the strategy differs completely. Reform or revolution, parliament or the streets — at the core of these debates, state theory always lies.
In South Korean progressive discourse, state theory is often avoided as "too abstract." Yet paradoxically, progressive politics without state theory, while pretending to be the most pragmatic, relies on the most unrealistic illusions — the illusion that if good politicians appear, if a good party takes power, the state will operate for us.
Marx and Engels: The State Is a Product of Class Antagonism
The starting point of Marxist state theory is simple but radical: The state is a product of class antagonism.
Engels wrote this in Anti-Dühring: once the class rule and struggle for individual survival created by the present anarchy of production disappear, "there will be nothing to repress, and the state, a special instrument of repression, will also become unnecessary." This sentence is not a mere utopian declaration, but a materialist proposition concerning the origin and function of the state.
The core logical structure is as follows:
- Irreconcilable class antagonisms exist in society — an exploiting class and an exploited class.
- To prevent these antagonisms from dissolving society, a power standing externally to regulate them is necessary.
- That power is the state. But this power is not neutral — it is operated in the interests of the ruling class.
- Therefore, the state is a "power standing above society and becoming increasingly alienated from society."
Lenin sharpened this proposition even more incisively in Chapter 1 of The State and Revolution:
"The bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the final analysis."
It is not the form (parliamentary system, presidential system, monarchy) but the essence (which class's rule does it organize) that must be examined.
The Material Core of the State: A Special Armed Body
Engels's second insight connects the abstract concept of "class rule" to material reality. What is the core of state power?
"The state consists of a special armed body (army, police) and its appendages such as prisons."
The modifier "special" is important here. Engels emphasizes that the state's armed force does not directly coincide with the people's self-arming organization. The entire community is not armed; rather, a special body separated from the community monopolizes armed power. This separation itself is a product of class society.
This applies directly to South Korea today. Attempts to declare martial law (2024.12.3), police control of assemblies, political prosecutions by the prosecution — these are not the state apparatus "neutrally enforcing the law," but ways it operates to maintain a specific class order.
Is a "Democratic" State Also a Bourgeois State?
The most frequently raised counterargument: "But isn't a democratic state different? Doesn't it allow control through elections, provide welfare, and guarantee workers' rights by law?"
Lenin's answer is clear: Democratic form does not negate the essence of the bourgeois state; rather, it is a way to maintain it more efficiently.
"The exploiters inevitably turn the state — speaking of democracy, a form of the state — into an instrument of their class rule, an instrument for the exploiters to dominate the exploited." (Lenin, 1918)
This proposition does not mean that democratic institutions themselves are worthless. Universal suffrage, freedom of assembly, labor rights — these are achievements won by the struggle of the labor movement. But as long as these achievements operate within the framework of the bourgeois state, they cannot escape the limits prescribed by that framework.
By way of analogy: In a game whose rules are rigged in favor of the landlord, it is meaningful for the tenant farmer to get a better hand. But the rules of the game themselves do not change.
The Class Character of the State and Relative Autonomy
However, a simple instrumentalist theory has limitations. If the state were purely a puppet of the ruling class, how could one explain the expansion of the welfare state or pro-worker legislation?
Marx himself already recognized this tension. In his analysis of Britain's Ten Hours Bill (1847), he wrote: This law appeared contrary to the interests of capital, but in reality it was necessary for the long-term reproduction of capital. Exhausting workers through overwork would cut off the future supply of labor power. Against the short-term interests of some capitalists, the state intervened for the interests of capital as a whole.
This is precisely the prototype of the concept of the relative autonomy of the state: the state functions not as a direct tool of a particular group of capitalists, but as an apparatus that organizes the long-term interests of the capitalist class as a whole. And to do so, it sometimes confronts the short-term interests of individual capitalists.
This concept will be treated in more developed forms in installment 3 (Gramsci) and installment 4 (Poulantzas-Miliband debate).
The South Korean State: In Whose Interest Does It Operate?
A question that grounds theory in reality: In whose interest has the South Korean state operated?
During the developmental state period (1960s-1980s): The state nurtured the chaebol, suppressed the labor movement, and reorganized the countryside into a source of urban industrial labor power. The state under the Park Chung-hee regime was not a neutral coordinator for "development," but a class instrument that enforced a specific model of capital accumulation.
After democratization (1987~): The form changed. Direct presidential elections, a multi-party system, expanded press freedom. But the chaebol-centered economic structure, the spread of non-regular workers, and the corporate-friendly tax system were maintained. The Lee Jae-myung administration's Yellow Envelope Act (effective 2026.3.10) is a meaningful expansion of labor rights — but at the same time, the same administration is pushing to ease the crime of breach of trust, ease the separation of industrial and financial capital, and ease real estate taxation. In which direction is the state tilting?
To answer this question, we must not simply count "good policies vs. bad policies," but analyze the structural tendency of the state. That is the analytical framework Marxist state theory provides.
Preview of the Next Installment
*② Installment: Lenin's Deepening — The State and Revolution and the Theory of Smashing the Bourgeois State*
In August 1917, Lenin wrote The State and Revolution in hiding in Finland. This text, written on the eve of revolution, is the most militant form of Marxist state theory: the bourgeois state cannot be reformed; it must be smashed. The Paris Commune is the prototype of the alternative. What did Lenin see, and what did he argue?
This series directly cites original texts (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Gramsci) while connecting them to the problematics of contemporary South Korea. It aims to be an independent theoretical archive that does not represent the position of any specific faction.