The Communist Manifesto and State Theory

By : Anto Sangaji, Kandidat Doktor in York University, Canada

Click here for Indonesian translate

IF THERE Marx's theory of the most contentious, no doubt, that's the theory of the State. This debate may not need to show up, if only Marx had time to realize his plans to write a book on this topic, as we could catch from his letters to F. Lassalle (February 22, 1858) and F. Engels (2 April 1858) (Marx and Engels 1965: 103-4). Tail, among Marxist theorists, the debate about this country, rests on differences roots approach, is not spared. Some are trying to interpret from the Communist Manifesto (Manifesto hereafter), there is a reference to the Capital, or from the works of earlier, as a critique of Hegel, etc., etc., the Marxist theory of the state so colorful.

On the other side , the non - Marxist , misunderstandings often arise , but it is the most widely believed , unifying theory of Marx ( and Marxists ) of the country . They assume , for Marx and Marxists , State , no less or no more , theorized as a tool of the capitalist class . Simple .
This note summarizes the discussion going in the country tradition of Marxism , by weighing a variety of questions in mind . So the thought of color overlapping , then for the purposes of this note , only a few dominant approaches will be highlighted . And because , most often discussed Manifesto , as representative of the Marxist theory of the state , special attention will go there . How exactly characterize Marx and Engels in the Manifesto Country ? Is there a difference between the Manifesto and other works of Marx about this subject ? So, how did the theoretical Marxist State theorized that came later ? These questions will try to answer in this note , and a little reflection records will be placed at the end .

Manifesto : The state as a tool
No doubt, an important aspect of the Manifesto of the State is the nature instrumentalisnya. Namely, the state is an instrument of a certain class. Marx and Engels with light says:

in a real sense, political power [or the state is] organized power of one class for oppressing another class (1962a).

This statement, of course, can also be used to describe a non-capitalist society, people say the feudal mode of production or the other. So, Marx and Engels specifically mentions the state in capitalist society as follows:

Executive of the modern state is a committee that manages the common interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole (1962a: 36).

On the other, when explaining the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the two states, the transition was followed by the adjustment of political power (read state) against the interests of the capitalist class that is growing. They wrote:

 In its place came the free competition [or capitalism], accompanied by a social and political arrangement that is aligned with, and by the economic and political power of the bourgeoisie (1962a: 39).

Light, in the eyes of Marx and Engels , the State is an instrument of the capitalist class .Keep in mind , the Manifesto is not the only text that emphasizes the state as a tool of the bourgeoisie . In the German Ideology , when discussing private property , Marx and Engels stated that the emergence of this type of property rights associated with the birth of the modern State . His birth coincided with the presence of the capitalist class , in which the process of destruction of property relations of pre - capitalist ( feudalism ) paved the way for the State to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie . In this frame , " the State is the entity in which the individuals of the ruling class [ bourgeois ] demonstrate their common interests " ( Marx and Engels , 1976: 99 ) . Or , in the Origin of the Family , Private Property, and the State , Engels pointed to the modern state as a means of exploitation of wage labor by capital ( Marx and Engels , 1962b : 320 ) .In contrast, in a sense still intrumentalis , Manifesto also designate the State as an instrument of the proletariat :

    State [ is ] the proletariat organized as the ruling class ( Marx and Engels,1962a : 53 )

What is Marx and Engels on the State here , must be understood in the context of the transition from one mode of production to another mode of production , ie, from capitalism to socialism / communism . Marx clearly menandaskannya in the Critique of the Gotha Programme :

Between capitalist society and communist society there is a period of revolutionary change . It also covers the period of political transition , in which the state is a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat ( Marx , 1962b : 32-3 [ Italic from original ] ).

The necessity of organized workers as a class for the control of the state , namely , the State of the proletariat after destroying the capitalist state , according to Marx and Engels , aiming to centralize all instruments of production in their grasp . The key task of the proletarian state is socialism character revolutionized economic relations . Here , the notion of the state to centralize all instruments of production is not an end goal , but a part of the transition to socialism . Because , the process of transition from one mode of production to another mode of production takes much longer than just a state political power . The latter can only take place in one night .

In summary , the Manifesto gives a message about the state as a particular class , either the capitalist class , or proletariat.

At a later date , a reference Manifesto Marxist theories of the State . The experts , called the theory as ' instrumentalist theories country . ' Two examples can be filed . First , Lenin , in State and Revolution , stating that the state as a tool of the proletariat is the definition of the state is very important , but often forgotten . Writing the book , in the spirit of the Russian revolution and the debate among German Social Democratic leader Kautsky , Lenin developed the concept of the state that have been formulated by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto . According to him , the country is a force for restraint class organization . he said ,

Exploiting class requires political power in order to maintain exploitation , in order to meet the interests of a small group that is not how the amount, and at the same time against the interests of the majority group . [ Instead ] the exploited group requires political power in order to put an end to the full all forms of exploitation , which is the interest of the majority of the people and against the interests of minorities , the modern slave owners - the landlords and the capitalist class ( Lenin , 1987:287 ) .

Lenin also said , in response to the capitalist state , it would require an alternative state , the ' state of the proletariat , ' referring to Marx and Engels . He continued , ' proletarian state ' can only be established through the destruction of the bourgeois state . Proletariat requires :

The state as a centralized organization of power , violence organization , with the aim to beat the resistance of the exploiters ( the landlords and capitalists ) and also with the aim of leading the majority of the people - the peasants , petty bourgeoisie , and semi - proletariat - in an attempt to run a socialist economy ( Lenin , 1987: 288 ) .

Second , Ralph Miliband , The State in Capitalist Society the , also represents an instrumentalist theory . In his eyes , as far as dealing with the capitalist society , the views of Marx and Engels on the State already briefly and clearly stated in the Manifesto . He also argues that the works of classical Marxism about politics , generally sourced from certain historical events . It can be seen from the works of the Eighteenth Brumaire Marx of Louis Bonaparte , The Civil War in France , and the works of Lenin's State and Revolution .
Basically , Miliband intends to disarm the arguments of liberal pluralist theorists who believe completely that the modern state is neutral and protection for all groups in society . According to him , the neutrality of the State is only an illusion. To build his argument , Miliband advocated for wear historical and empirical investigation procedure in order to see the relation between the State and the capitalist class . From his studies , according to Miliband , the capitalist class played a decisive role in the political power , because they control the economic life of the region . He stated :

Under the scheme of Marxist theory , " the ruling class " in a capitalist society is the class that owns and controls the means of production (means of production ) . Then , by relying on economic power in his hand , they take advantage of the state as a vehicle to dominate society (2009 [ 1969] : 19 ) .

From empirical observations in the advanced capitalist countries , Miliband saw intrumentalis function of the State, the capitalist class as a waiter , in fact, often used the rhetoric of ' national interest ' as shields this class . He , for example , cites the famous phrase ' what is good for General Motors is good for America ' as an example , how the interests of the company in such a polished way into the U.S. national interest .We know , Miliband got the most scathing criticism of Nicos Poulantzas , other Marxist theoreticians . Although empirical methods Miliband appreciate deemed to overturn the theory of pluralist democratic dogmatism , Poulantzas considers the fundamental problem lies in Miliband's magnified in a very dominant empirical methods . According to him , a critique of the theory must begin with a base bombed epistemology theory to be criticized , not with shortcuts to jump to the concrete questions , as shown Miliband . For Poulantzas , a scientific approach to investigate the facts ' concrete ' must also be preceded by placing clearly epistemology own rules . He admitted , though it is implied rules exist in his work , Poulantzas considers Miliband commit fundamental error , in the absence of light presentation of the rules ( Poulantzas , 2008: 174 ) . In this context , criticism Poulantzas , which is then followed by an exclamation theoretical debate between the two , is seen more as a methodological debate about the debate over the theory of the State ( Barrow , 2002) .

Various TheoriesSociologist Bob Jessop (2007 ) , often seen as the heir Poulantzas , even questioning the business of theorizing the State with reference to the Manifesto . For Jessop , as the Manifesto is a script for a political program , the goal is an invitation to engage in a political struggle , not a detailed analysis of the formation of class and political representation . He on the contrary, considers the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte as an important text for the development and interpretation of Marx's theory of the state . Well , from this manuscript , appearing opposite of the theory of ' the State as an instrument , ' the theory ' state autonomy . ' Theory is more or less said , the State is not a tool of certain classes , the opposite stand in autonomous or relatively autonomous position of the class - the class . In a capitalist system , the State is seen serves to protect the system , not pretend partial , with the favor of the capitalist class . In the German Ideology , Marx and Engels gave indications of such understanding , the more general formula :

The contradiction between special interests and the common good, [ then ] the public interest manifests itself in the form of an independent state , which is separated from the interests of individual and group ( 1976 : 52 ) .

In other words , the State does not serve the special interests that exist in the community , but the wider public interest . Countries , therefore , stands on top of autonomous different interests . In a concrete sense , Marx saw the nature of state autonomy in the imperial era of Louis Bonaparte ( 1852-1870 ) . According to Marx , because there is no class that has enough power to rule over the country , the executive who ruled the state itself , without being influenced by any social class , bourgeois or proletarian . He added that , despite the success of the Bonapartist State modernize the economy in order to advance his power , as the material basis of imperial and military power , but the state did not change the relations of capitalist production . In other words , despite the capitalists did not control the country , Bonaparte still leave them free to accumulate capital .However , this situation becomes the main seeds of contradiction , in which the French bourgeoisie grew into a wealthy, then feel the limitations of space under the autonomous state . They then attempt to control the state apparatus . On the other hand , economic advancement doubles the proletariat and the longer they are increasingly influential force . In the end , the State Bonapartist make compromises with the bourgeoisie . At the end of the Bonaparte regime , we see emerging the most important revolution of the working class at that time , with the emergence of Paris Commune ( Marx and Engels , 1962a ; Draper , 1977) .What is seen is the emergence of the State Bonapartist Marx was born in a period of normal forms of the bourgeois state . This period was marked prominence of class balance , which appears as an intermediate state power , with a certain degree of autonomy to both the capitalist class against the proletariat maunpun . For Marx , the State autonomy appears in two levels: first , under normal conditions , enjoy a number of autonomous state bureaucracy , because the bourgeoisie had no interest in the direct control of state power and also because of conflicts among the bourgeoisie itself . In this condition , the bourgeois class society to hand over the affairs of bureaucratic state power , and in the same time subordinated to the public bureaucracy bourgeois and capitalist production . Second, the autonomy of the States present moment appeared unstable equilibrium in the contradiction between the capitalist and proletariat classes . Here , the State does not become an instrument of the bourgeoisie , but the actions adapted to the conditions of the class struggle ( Marx and Engels , 1962a ; Draper , 1977) .Outside the state autonomy theory , much effort by the Marxist theorising , with reference to various works of Marx . In general , there are three main theories , namely , structural theory , the logic of capital theory , and the theory of class struggle , with many variations . This discussion illustrates three general and brief .First Instance , the structural theory of the state . Nicos Poulantzas , Political Power and Social in Classes , representing this theory . Completely different to Miliband , he stated that the State is not an instrument of bourgeois capitalist class , and assume the functions of the state can be differentiated by social class . First , the working class , the State works to prevent class evolved into a political organization and brought the political class ( 1968:188 ) . Instead , the State seeks to represent the interests of the working class under the ideology of 'public interest ' of all citizens , not the interests of the working class in particular (1968 : 133 ) . By doing this , the State paralyzing political class from the working class , which at times can be a foundation for them to destroy the political base of capitalist exploitation in the capitalist system , the State itself . Second , the capitalist class , the State acted differently . According to Poulantzas , due to a fraction of the capitalist class and the lack of political unity among them , then this class is not free to realize their hegemony over the working class . Instead , the State took over the political interests of the capitalist class ( 1968:284 ) and aimed to unite the factions of this class into a power block to protect their hegemony ( 1968:137 ) . So , in this case , ' the capitalist state , ' according to Poulantzas (1968 : 190 ) , ' do not directly represent the economic interests of the dominant classes [ or capitalist class ] , but their political interests . 'To carry out these two functions , then inevitably , the State should be relatively autonomous from the influence of the capitalist classes and factions among them . By having this kind of autonomy , will give space to the State to participate arrange compromises between the capitalist class . With relative autonomy , the State also can freely intervene to destroy the economic interests of certain factions of this class , thereby protecting the interests of political and economic capitalist class as a whole (1968 : 284-5 ) . Thus , under capitalism , the function of the State , according to Poulantzas , is a ' tool of social cohesion , ' so that the system is not broke .Second , the theory of the logic of capital or commonly known as ' derivationist theory , ' especially the debate in Germany . This theory seeks to develop the concept of a latent state as something embedded in the concept of capital ( Lebowitz , 2009: 329 ) . The method used to follow the two basic procedures , the empirical and historical research on the one hand , and the way of presentation is determined analytically , on the other hand . They consider Marxist political theory must combine between empirical and historical research in order to obtain the facts and explain the facts it is based on the logic of capitalist development , as set out in the Capital ( Barrow , 2000) . They reject the theory of structural intrumentalis Miliband and Poulantzas , because the two theories are considered ignoring the category of ' historical materialism ' of Capital . They also looked at Miliband and Poulantzas made ​​the mistake of separating the economic aspects of Capital ( value , value , and accumulation ) with the political aspects of capital ( such as the discussion of the Factory Act , etc. ) , then choose memfoksukan on the political aspects of the Capital only ( Holloway and Picciotto , 1978:3-4 ) . In short , this theory seeks to understand the general arguments about the theory of the state and its main function to dig directly from the logic of the capitalist mode of production .Among these theorists , the main one is Elmar Altvater ( 1973) . He discussed the state of ' capital in general , ' a concept that Marx used in Capital . The principle of the dialectic , the overall relationship / total and bagian-bagian/individu-individu , Altvater stated , at a conceptual level , ' capital in general ' is translated as ' total social capital , ' which is the combined total ' individual capital ' in the community . He continued , only the 'total social capital , ' not ' individuals capital , ' which reflect the laws of motion of capitalist mode of production . But , at the transaction level , ' individual capital ' that make up the existence of ' total social capital . ' At the conceptual level again , ' capital in general ' is a cornerstone of the capital laws immanent , in which ' capital individuals ' interconnected and form a ' total social capital . ' In other words , ' capital individuals ' established themselves as a ' total social capital ' through competition , the imperative aspects of capitalism .But , according to Altvater , the formation of ' total social capital ' can not fully depend on the competition . If the production of capital by ' individual capital ' is not profitable or could damage the interests of the whole society , which means that capital can not produce entirely through ' individual capital , ' then , here , capital requires a special institution , which stands outside and on top of bourgeois society . This is a State institution . Therefore , memberkan bourgeois society where the state to embody the common interests of capital . However , the State can not be understood either as a ' political tool ' or ' institution designed ' by capital . More than that , the State is a specialized agency , the result of the progress of social existence of capital , which is achieved through competition as a key aspect of the process of social reproduction of capital .

At the concrete level , according to Altvater , the State is the ' public interest representation of capital , ' the primary function of protecting the capitalist society that could be ravaged by competition . Country in order to give space exploitation by labor wages can work continuously . The state also establish legal relations in order to protect the ' general conditions ' of capitalist production . But , at the same time , the State may punish individuals capital in certain moments when viewed threaten the interests of bourgeois society as a whole .Third , the theory of class struggle , who saw that the core of the Marxist theory of the state must be put in the context of the class struggle . Marx and Engels ' famous phrase in the Manifesto ] history of all existing society today is the history of class struggle ' to signal that the state in all types of communities become central to class struggle . One of the adherents of this theory is the sociologist Simon Clarke (1991 ) . According to him , the most logical reason to understand the State is the class struggle . He said , ' If there is never class struggle , ' because the working class would not submit roundly to capitalist social relations that subordinate them , ' then there will be no State . " Development of the State , therefore , is the most fundamental aspect of the development of the class struggle . In other words , the state can not be isolated from the class struggle .To arrive at such claims , especially in bourgeois society , Clarke considers that the State can not be analyzed directly from the logic of self - reproduction ( self - reproduction ) of capital , as is done by theoreticians logic of capital . To explain the relationship between the state and capital , it is necessary to draft an intermediary , namely the class struggle . By referring to the Capital , about the concept of the ability of self - reproduction of capital relations , no other is the production and reproduction of surplus value ( surplus - value) or reconversion into capital value over a continuous basis , Clarke basing his argument on the relationship between capital and labor . For him , the relationship between capital and labor class is generated only through the production and reproduction of surplus value ( summary, symbolized by M - C { LP + MP } - M 'where M = money , C = commodities , LP = labor , and MP = means of production ) . Necessity for self - reproduction is , on the one hand , the availability of productive forces (productive forces ) , which is the historical foundation of capitalist social relations , and on the other hand , subordination of individual ( worker ) to the relations of production ( relations of production ) capitalists . This means that the reproduction of capital also means the reproduction of the working class as a foundation. But capital does not produce the working class as passive servant , but as a factor which has become an obstacle to the reproduction of capital itself. This is the most fundamental contradictions of the capitalist mode of production , ie the reproduction process characterized by the inevitability of class struggle , having to constantly preserve the working class under the control of the capitalist class . This contradiction is like a time bomb that was never solved , but only delaying the explosion .Clarke dived to his discussion of historical materialism explanation of the relationship between capital and labor , with a look at the relations of production ( relations of productions ) , understood as tersubordinasikannya labor under capital . Pensubordinasian contradicts aspects of ' productive forces ' ( forces of production ) , where workers are active agents in the production . The contradiction comes to the surface as the struggle for mengntrol production . Although , the capitalist class can use their rights - the right to appoint and dismiss - as a weapon to suppress working class individuals , but it also can wear more ways to control the working class collectively , for example , incorporate a variety of rules in the work process ( labor process) and builds a hierarchical division of labor among the working class collectively ( eg separation between mental and manual labor and manual labor put under the control of mental work ) . Clarke considers that the process of capitalist social relations of this kind is purely economic , in which the capitalist class does not need to require the state to guarantee it . For example , to protect the physical properties , this class uses its own methods , without relying on other institutions , say , simply use the alarm , internal security forces , padlocks , CCTV , and others .However , by concentrating workers collectively at the place of production , or unite them with the means of production , it is precisely the seed material for the working class against the capitalist class . In other words , the process of capitalist production are socially uniting the working class into loose soil growing strength of this class is organized . Because every day they work collectively with interdependent with each other under the control of hours of production . They also jointly determine the obligations and rights . Breath of the process of production and reproduction of capital , therefore , determined by the ability of the capitalist class in the class of workers in production control and limit the self-organizing ability of this class as a producer , shaping and sharpening hierarchy among the working class so that they recognize and accept the capitalist class as the central agent . Only this is a capital base , and the separation of the working class control of the means of production , then capital can be continuously reproduced . Therefore , according to Clarke , transplantation of the working class by the capitalist class is not supplied by the external power of separating them from the control of the means of production , but depends entirely on the ability of the capitalist to exploit the material weapons , ideology and politics to effectively maintain its power in the arena 's upper class class struggle .As delivered , capital creates disincentives to reproduction itself and can only be resolved temporally through class struggle , with a leaning to the power base material . Well , in an effort to dispel the obstacles in the expansion of the reproduction of capital , or the accumulation of capital , the capitalists use all weapons , and an important one is the power of the State . Here , according to Clarke , the State is not functional agents utilized to resolve the contradiction , but no more than a complementary body , which is used in an attempt to win the capitalist class struggle , by putting off the explosion of the contradictions of capital itself. At a certain moment , in terms of class struggle contingencies , the capitalist class to try to win influence political processes , for example , influence policy / legislation on low labor costs , against the policies of redistribution , and so forth . In contrast , of the working class , contingent nature of the class struggle could have taken the form of demand wage increases and various benefits , the formation of trade unions , strikes , plant closings , the formation of political parties , or even in the socialist character of the revolution - ie seize state power and then transform capitalist relations of production become socialistic .

With the picture above, what Clarke has to say is that the State was not a necessity under the logic of self-reproduction of capitalist relations. According to him, no State necessity is formal and abstract, in other words, not embedded in the logic of M - C - M 'On the contrary, the State is a historical necessity, born of the development of the class struggle, is a collective tool for class domination. Clarke menandaskannya:

Logically, the state does not grow out of capital [mechanism M - C - M '], but historically, he grew bloom of class struggle (1991:5).

With such a pretext, unlike Clarke instrumentalist theory, structural theory, and the theory of the logic of capital that mengesensialkan capitalistic nature of the State. For him, it's just the nature of such a surface. Essential overview of the state is characteristic of the class.  

ReflectionSince Marx himself never realize his intention to write about the State in particular , and his works on this topic were scattered everywhere , both in the abstract and refer to specific historical events , then in my opinion , the most excellent way out to understand Marx 's theory about the state and or Marxian theory of the state is to re- look at all of his work was with reference to dialectic materialism , scientific method distinguishes science of Marxism from bourgeois ideology ( Marx , 1973: 100-8 , Marx , 1970: 19 ) . This argument leads to four reflective note .First , the methods of the abstract to the concrete ( ' rising from the abstract to the concrete ' ) ( Marx , 1973:100-8 ) , the works of Marx about the state can be traced from texts such as in the German Ideology or Preface to a Contributions to Political Economy . In both works , we can see that the study of the state should start from the most fundamental aspects in historical materialism , ie, by exposing aspects of the mode of production ( the combination of productive forces and the relations of production ) . In the same style , then we have to refer to Capital , Marx's theoretical masterpiece revealing how the capitalist system works . I would argue , Capital is the most solid theoretical foundation for developing a theory of the bourgeois State , which is the abstract of the logic of contradictions within capitalism itself . The theory of the logic of capital and the theory of class struggle , in spite of the differences of both approaches , are examples of how Marxist theorists trying to understand the bourgeois state with such a framework .Second , investigation of concrete to the abstract ( 'to advance from the particular to the general ' ) ( Marx , 1970:19 ) , can see in the work of Marx as the Eighteent Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The Civil War in France . With this investigation procedure , we find certain historical moments in which the properties of specificity states different from one place to another . Works, can be categorized into this group , as he emphasizes specialization in Russian revolutionary experience . Miliband projects which refers to the capitalist countries in Western countries with a strong empirical approach , can also be said to belong here . Therefore , from the contrasting claims about the ' state as a tool ' and ' State autonomy , ' better look at it as a characteristic of the state in a particular historical moment . More fundamental , characteristic of such countries see this as a contingency , which is determined by developments in the class struggle , the inevitable result of internal contradictions .Third , what about the Manifesto ? Can not be refuted , the text refers to a particular historical moment , as alluded historian Hobsbawm (1998 : 13 ) . In my opinion , it is not important Questioning Manifesto , because it does not elaborate on the phrase ' the State as an instrument of the capitalist class , ' or ' proletariat organized as a state , ' let's say , than with the Civil War in France and the Eighteent Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte . Much more important is the second put the phrase in the context of the class struggle in the future . There is also a fundamental aspect to be learned from here ; as a contradictory system , ie , irreconcilable tension between the development of productive forces and the relations of production , capitalism will suffer destruction from within . This is what Marx (1976 ) mean by ' negation of capitalism creates for himself . ' Of course , not like waiting for the lottery , dreaming of the coming destruction , but actively get rid of it through class struggle , including seizing state power , in order to end the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class . Second Manifesto phrase must be read according to the reasoning .Fourth , the development of an increasingly globalized contemporary capitalism increasingly shows bourgeois state never loses its class character . Although state -based political nations formed a national , maintained through manipulation of various symbols of national identity and ideology , but the class character transcend national boundaries , after the internationalization of capital - industrial capital , financial capital , and kapiatl komerial - eroded those boundaries . The proof , contract law and capitalist ownership knocked the national constitution and legal system , integrating the nation state categorically to the logic of capital accumulation on a global scale . And this tendency , always starting with the crises of capitalism , especially since the 1970s . The emergence of neo-liberal state , with extreme orientation protection of private property rights and the imposition of market fundamentalism is an aggressive , no one else was a victory of the capitalist class in the class struggle , to get out of the crisis . The effect , as in the advanced capitalist countries , the breath of the working class increasingly crowded , because the drug crisis is austerity program , no other discipline the working class , to be subject to the neoliberal , with dug deep into his own pocket to finance education , health , and service - other services . 

In the capitalist countries that are developing, such as Indonesia, the brutality of this system takes place, for example, through the exploitation of absolute surplus-value-based, with or extending working hours and workload doubles during work hours, but with the same wages and low. This experience could be easily traced in concrete in capitalist industries in the manufacturing sector, mining, and plantation. No less cruel, or even more, the process of destruction of the forms of pre-capitalist mode of production runs fast and extends everywhere: on the surface, is present in the form of expropriation of the lands of farmers and indigenous peoples, often ongoing bleeding, only with one goal: open a new space for the reinvestment of surplus-value.
Of all these stories, there is no bourgeois state. Business as usual. *** 

Sources : http://indoprogress.com