8/6/2019 The Question of State

1/2

The question of State

After Lenin not much thought is given to the subject by practitioners of societalchange in relations and confusion reigns, though many relevant new features havetaken shape. The institution of state has assumed much more attributes than ithad initially and since Lenin studied the subject. It needs a re-appraisal.

In his days Lenin characterised the state as an armed instrument of oppression; as

the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the masses. It must be stressed that theinstitution of State is an instrument of minority to subdue the majority by dint ofits armed strength. State is not neutral either, as is dished by theory and believedby many. The state acts and has ability to act in favour of only the powerful andresourceful minority. In the present era it has assumed the characteristic of aninstitution to serve capital; help generate and defend it while Industry and tradeare its chosen priorities for commoditisation to serve capital.

By now the state is impersonalised in its practice. So is capital. Like capital, thestate has the intrinsic tendency to centralise and perpetuate itself. One cannotsubdue the state, neither the capital; they subdue others to the goal; both have

the tendency to convert their one-time masters and subdue them. One-timemasters of the state are masters not to convert its basic characteristic to servecapital and commoditisation.

Disinherited majority hardly needs the institution of state. They can manage forthemselves if left free. To self-manage its own affairs need not be an anarchistidea either. Society was habitual to do it once. It can do it again if conditions areallowed to take shape afresh.

After feudatory, the institution of State has taken a different characteristicaltogether. It is not dependent for sustenance. It has its own independent andcoercive source. State is now a self-perpetuating entity and in fact independent

of social sanction. Conversely, it has come to dominate social sanction. It usuallyhas the tools to manipulate things in its favour.

Capital-based industry and commerce, in this era of financial oligarchies, havetaken over this super-institution and mastered it basically as its instrument, withcertain additional functions that look like for the commons. The state is thusinverted to safeguard the interests of this moneyed-minority in means and help itto flourish by maintaining a congenial atmosphere by persuasion and coercion.

Presently the added attribute to the concept of state as an instrument ofdevelopment has given a twist to its basic character. Political forces justify theircraze for grabbing state authority on this account. The state does shower

privileges to a lot of hangers on. It can dispense largesse to the loyal. But hardlycan it create a society of abundance, justice and peace. The system is destined toact otherwise which mass of the people is not likely to realise initially. Recenthistory of the experiment to build socialism through the organ of state in SovietUnion and companion countries of the camp amply corroborates this lesson.

The practice that Soviet Socialist camp developed had given the state a face ofdoer, which it is not. A facilitator cannot act as doer; if at all the state is madeone. A fallacy gained currency that characteristic of the state changes whenoperator changes: when the operator is a communist the state structure assumesthe role of a doer! It is absurdity of first grade with theory of its own make.

Still, it got stuck.Another factor worked. The people had hated the pervious state apparatus ofrepressive regimes most and when the communist leadership advocated theprospect of wielding its reigns, the argument went into their consciousness. They

8/6/2019 The Question of State

2/2