Skip to content

Marxism and the State

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The central thesis is that the Marxist theory of the state must be applied dialectically, not formalistically. The state is an instrument of class rule, but the form and degree of violence required to overthrow it depend entirely on the concrete balance of class forces, the maturity of the subjective factor, and the specific historical conjuncture. Woods argues that the reformist and Stalinist leaderships, not the inherent strength of the bourgeois state apparatus, have been the decisive obstacle to socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries since 1945. The article insists that a peaceful transition to socialism is not merely a theoretical possibility but has been a real, concrete possibility on multiple occasions — in France 1968, Portugal 1974, and others — and was only prevented by the cowardice and betrayal of the labour bureaucracy. The task of Marxists is not to mechanically repeat slogans about "smashing the state" and "inevitable civil war," but to patiently win the masses, present the revolution as a defensive necessity, and place the onus for violence squarely on the ruling class and its reformist auxiliaries.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in the classical Marxist tradition of the state as developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, but it explicitly rejects a "cookbook" approach to revolutionary theory. It draws on:

  • Lenin's State and Revolution as the starting point (the need to "smash" the ready-made state machinery), but insists this is "ABC" — not the whole alphabet.
  • Lenin's later, more dialectical writings — particularly "Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petit-Bourgeois Mentality and his 1917 tactical interventions — which show that the same Lenin who wrote State and Revolution also argued that a peaceful revolution was possible in Britain under certain conditions, and that the Bolsheviks should "patiently explain" rather than call for insurrection when they were a minority in the soviets.
  • Trotsky's Transitional Programme and his testimony before the Dewey Commission, where he argued that terror is a "symptom of weakness, not of strength" and that a powerful enough mass movement could paralyse even the Stalinist bureaucracy without bloodshed.
  • The historical experiences of 1917, 1968, and 1974 as the living test of theory — not abstract schemas but concrete class balances.

The article positions itself firmly within the Trotskyist tradition, distinguishing genuine Marxism from both reformism and ultra-left sectarianism. It treats the reformist and Stalinist leaderships as the objective mainstay of capitalism, not merely as mistaken or misguided.

Conjunctural Relevance

Although published in 2008, the article's argument is written in the shadow of the post-war long boom and its aftermath. It makes several conjunctural claims:

  • The working class is stronger than ever. The disappearance of the peasantry in advanced capitalist countries (e.g., France from 50% agricultural population in 1936 to 6% today) and the concentration of production have made the proletariat the decisive majority. A properly organised general strike could bring any advanced economy to a standstill.
  • The crisis of capitalism is also a crisis of reformism. The reformist and Stalinist parties have all embraced "the market" just as it begins to break down. The coming period will see inner convulsions and splits, creating opportunities for Marxists.
  • The danger of Bonapartism and fascism remains, but the social base is different. The peasantry, which formed the backbone of fascism in the interwar period, has largely disappeared. Today's reactionary movements (Le Pen, Berlusconi, the Northern League, the Austrian Freedom Party) draw on a demoralised petit-bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat, but they are brittle. Once the working class moves, these layers can swing behind it.
  • The state is not as strong as it appears. The article uses the example of the Eastern European Stalinist regimes in 1989 — regimes that appeared "granite monoliths" but collapsed without a shot when faced with mass movements. The same principle applies to bourgeois states in the West.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is explicitly positioned as the first part of a broader analysis. It leaves open or points toward:

  • The concrete content of the Bolshevik slogans in 1917 — "Peace, Bread and Land" and "All Power to the Soviets" — which are promised for later treatment.
  • The question of how the revolutionary party is built and how it gains leadership of the mass movement, described as "the most decisive question of all."
  • The specific tactics for winning over the armed forces, including the demand for trade union rights for soldiers and police.
  • The experience of the Workers International League (WIL) during World War II, which is referenced as a successful application of the method but not developed in full.

The article is part of a series on Marxism and the State, and it explicitly references other IDOM articles by Phil Mitchinson, Ted Grant, and Alan Woods on the French Revolution of May 1968, the struggle against imperialism, and the transitional programme.

Connections

  • Lenin, State and Revolution — the canonical text, but treated as a starting point, not a finished manual.
  • Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petit-Bourgeois Mentality — the key text for understanding Lenin's dialectical approach to the possibility of peaceful revolution.
  • Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution — the definitive account of how the Bolsheviks actually prepared for insurrection, including the role of "patiently explain" and the importance of legality.
  • Trotsky, The Transitional Programme — the strategic document for how to connect immediate demands to the overthrow of capitalism.
  • Trotsky, If America Should Go Communist — a pamphlet that explicitly argues that a socialist America could be achieved with minimal violence due to the favourable class balance.
  • Trotsky, On France — his analysis of the 1936 general strike and the possibility of a peaceful revolution.
  • Ted Grant and Alan Woods, Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism — a companion text on the international dimension.
  • The experience of the Portuguese Revolution of 1974 and the French May 1968 are treated as the key "living examples" that test the theory.

Key Quotes

  1. "The state, in the last analysis, consists of armed bodies of men... The fundamental essence of every state... is that it serves the interests of one class in society, in the case of capitalism, the capitalist class."

  2. "Lenin's position on the revolution was concrete and dialectical, not formalistic and abstract. Lenin approached the revolution in the light of the concrete historical conditions prevailing in each country."

  3. "To speak of civil war before people have come to realise the need for it is undoubtedly to fall into Blanquism." (Lenin, quoted approvingly)

  4. "Terror in a revolution is an indication, a symptom of weakness, not of strength... The revolution on a low basis must have more terror than a revolution on a higher basis." (Trotsky, quoted approvingly)

  5. "The only reason why a peaceful revolution was not immediately achieved in Russia was because of the cowardice and treachery of the reformist leaders in the soviets, as Lenin and Trotsky explained a hundred times."

  6. "The events of May [1968] were more than a general strike. This was a revolution, betrayed by the Stalinists. Whoever does not understand this, understands nothing."