MARXIST THEORY OF LAW AND STATE

2.2 – JURISPRUDENCE

SUBMITTED BY:-
ANIKA SHARMA
UID – UG19-16
B.A.LLB(HONS)- I YEAR

SUBMITTED TO:-
PROF. (DR.) SHIRISH L. DESHPANDE
(PROFESSOR OF LAW)

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY , NAGPUR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MARXIST THEORY OF LAW AND STATE................................................................................2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................3
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE.........................................................................................................4
LIMITATION.............................................................................................................................4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS......................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHERS.........................................................................................................5
VLADIMIR LENIN....................................................................................................................5
PASHUKANIS...........................................................................................................................6
FRIEDRICH ENGELS.................................................................................................................7
LAW : AN INSTRUMENT..............................................................................................................7
CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY...............................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................14
BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................15
Online Sources......................................................................................................................15
Sites referred.........................................................................................................................15

1
INTRODUCTION
Marxism has influenced many different branches of study and one of these branches is law
and state. In this paper Marxist theory of law and state will be dealt with by perceiving this
theory by different philosophers and its implications in the contemporary times. With this
paper, I would like to explore about the relationship of law and state as per the Marx and
other propounders of Marxian philosophy. Besides this, it will also make comparative study
of current constitutional system with the Marx’s perception about law and state.
MARXIST THEORY OF LAW AND STATE

Marxist theory of law and state is a comprehensive system of thoughts which deals with
sociology, history, politics and economics. The three leading figures supporting this theory
are Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin.

Marx and Engels never focused much on propounding the theory of law because for them law
is a feature of capitalistic society so their subject of concern is not law but the ways to abolish
law to establish a socialistic society. They, further explained a period of history, when there
was no state and believed that the state comes into existence only when the society is divided
into classes. The state in their view is nothing more than an instrument in the hands of
powerful and influential classes, property owners or capitalists, to exploit the working class.
The state can take varied forms with the progression of history, but it owed its existence to
the physical force because if there exists a state there will be someone who will govern, give
orders and exercise domination over the subjects of the state. In order to retain their authority
and they had a mechanism of physical restraint and the weapon used depends on the technical
level of each epoch. The conflict between the capitalists and workers will intensify leading to
the destruction of the capitalistic state.1 Besides this, new sate organization will emerge
having dictatorship of proletariats, which will work in direction of their own destruction and
lead to the construction of classless society or communism.

In Marx’s writings law and state is seen as the accumulation of economic interests of the
capitalist class. The state is defined as “ executive committee to manage affairs of the
bourgeoisie”. 2The bourgeoisie supress the proletarian interests and state acts as their
oppressive agents. The personnel of the state owe allegiance to the a one particular class of
people i.e., bourgeoisie and the legal practitioners are also considered their waged valet. The
1
James A. Henry, “The Communist Theory of Law”, 46 Messenger Publications (1957), p. 412-415.
2
Jerzy Wroblewskit, “ State and Law in Marxist Theoryof State and Law”, 22 Wayne Law Review (1976), p.
815-820.

2
this oppressive mechanism includes law as its part and also embodies the ideological
bewilderment of bourgeois intellects. The dominating class i.e., bourgeoisie control the
political power through its supremacy over economic power. 3

Law for the Marxist philosophers is a “bourgeois fetish” and the difference between the
administrative decree and legislation is disapproved as “bourgeois fiction”. Legislation has
taken form of government decree and the judges in absence of specific laws made decisions
on the basis of ‘ socialist consciousness of justice’. Law in its restricted form has become an
instrument of government policy and is not worthy of detailed study. The necessity to
formulate communist theory of law came into being with introduction of ‘New Economic
Policy’ in Russia after Second World War. 4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research method so used to write this research paper is doctrinal. It is doctrinal in the
sense that it comes from the credible sources herein books, articles published in renowned
and justifies web pages and journals. The project also uses deductive reasoning for research.
The source of information also consists of theoretical knowledge the researcher possesses as

a law student.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

 T0 study Marxist theory from the perspective of different philosophers.

 T0 kn0w ab0ut law as an instrument in the capitalistic and communist society.
 T0 study the relevance of the constitutional system to the ancient Marxist theory of
law and state.
 To study the criticisms against the theory of law and state by Marx.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

3
Ibid., 832.
4
Henry, Supra note 1.

3
 1. How is the Marxist Theory of State and Law perceived by different philosophers
supporting this theory ?
2. How law acts as an instrument in the capitalistic society and communist society ?
3. How is contemporary constitutional system relevant to the ancient Marxist theory of
law and state ?
4. What are the holes in the Marxist Theory of Law and State ?

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

While c0nducting this research w0rk 0n “Marxist Theory of Law and State”, the researcher
reviewed three t0 f0ur b00ks, five t0 six websites, and s0me articles 0f the fam0us writers.
Alth0ugh g00d am0unt 0f w0rk has been d0ne 0n this t0pic, it was n0t pr0perly d0ne and still
much w0rk needed. S0, the researcher has w0rked 0n this t0pic and c0mpiled it in a pr0per
and understandable way.

In the c0urse 0f this research the first b00k reviewed was The Communist Manifesto by Karl
Marx. The b00k sh0wed g00d quality 0f w0rk and helped the researcher in finding ab0ut the
Marx’s theory.

LIMITATION

The limitati0n 0f the study is th0se characteristics 0f design 0r meth0d0l0gy that impacted 0r
influenced the applicati0n 0r interpretati0n 0f the results 0f the researchers study. They are
the c0nstraints 0f the generalizability and utility 0f findings that are the result 0f the ways in
which the researcher ch0se t0 design the study and/0r the meth0d used t0 establish internal
and external validity.

Lack 0f pri0r research studies 0n the t0pic hindered the research 0f the researcher. M0re0ver,
measures used t0 c0llect data – s0metimes it is a case that, after c 0mpleting the interpretati0n
0f the findings, the researcher disc0vers that the way in which the researcher had gathered the
data inhibited the researcher’s ability t0 c0nduct a th0r0ugh analysis 0f the results.

4
DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHERS

VLADIMIR LENIN
According to the philosopher Lenin workers’ state can be established only when the
bourgeois state apparatus and its representative institutions will be decimated. The critics of
Lenin often depict his argument as encouraging an obsessive, reckless commitment to violent
revolution. There exists a pivotal difference between the worker’s state and every other
earlier form of state. All the Marxist believe that the state is a feature of class society and
needs to be abolished in order to construct a worker’s state and thus the object of the
worker’s movement is to abolish state. The worker’s state is a temporary and transient
construction, by its very nature and aims at its own abolition. In contrary to this, the state is a
permanent construction and “a power standing above society and alienating itself more and
more from it”. The state is considered as an instrument to disempower the mass of the
people. Further, he believed that the existing state institutions ( officials loyal to capitalist are
not actual working class) would not nad could not abolish themselves. They are a part of
class society and the mortal enemies of those who try to overcome the class society. In order
to bring the rule of working class, the class society needs to replaced and destroyed. 5 He is
also convinced by the very fact that the a state without parliamentarianism can only subdue
the efforts of old ruling class to revive its rule and strengthen and diversify the rule of the
working class in the all aspects of social and political decision making. With the construction
of socialism proceeding in the society, such a state will wither away and the power to
function and control the management will pass to the working class from the bureaucratic
apparatus.

5
Mark Tushnet, “Is There a Marxist Theory Of Law?”, 26 American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy
(1983) p. 174-180.

5
PASHUKANIS
Pashukanis propounded commodity exchange theory of law, according to his view in the
capitalistic society there is only exchange of commodity as capitalists are commodity owners
and law is the instrument to govern this exchange. He believes that state comes into being
only when a group or organization enjoying authority has hold over a major part of the
market associations but the law is quite far from any regulation of it by the state. He further
believes in theoretical pre-eminence of state but separated its study from the scope of
jurisprudence because ‘as an organisation of class dominance and an organisation for the
conduct of external wars, the state neither requires-nor essentially admits of – legal
interpretation’. 6
Law, as Pashukanis believes is sui generis to social regulation and thus creates equality
among individuals by not determining their legal stature and capacities on the basis of
economic and social status, such legal relations leads to the disappearance of class positions.
The prerequisite for commodity exchange is the freedom of individuals to procure and
abandon the property.7The need for regulation through law arises when there exists dispute of
private interests. The conflicts already imbibed in the capitalistic society leads to the
emergence of law and not the consensus and general will of the people. There is no need for
the regulation by law of contracts involving the exchange of goods and labour, if there exists
no commodity exchange in the form of economic correlation. Therefore, for him without law
the capitalistic society cannot exist as the private entrepreneurs requires its impersonal
influence.

In contrary to the Marxist theorists, who believes that the freedom and equality of
bourgeoisie is a just a fiction in order to swindle the masses but according to Pashukanis they
are far from being the fictions and equality and freedom of the ruling society (bourgeoisie)
are the basics on which the their society works. Thus forming the core of the commodity
exchange theory of law.

6
Andrew Vincent, “ Marx and Law”, Wiley Cardiff University, Vol. 20 No. 4 1993, p. 372-375.
7
Nancy E. Anderson and David F. Greenberg, “ From Substance to Form: the Legal Theories of Pashukanis and
Edelman”, No.7 1983, p. 70-72.

6
FRIEDRICH ENGELS
Engels believes that the purpose of law is to cast out the differences in the ruling echelon and
to bring together their class positions and law has almost no direct influence over the inter-
class relationships. The state according to the Engels is nothing more than a shield for the
bourgeoisie or the ruling class to protect their interests, for instance, framing comprehensible
rules for the commercial transactions and securing themselves from the external attacks of
other classes and states.8 It is further specified clearly by Engels as :
“The modern state is only the organisation which bourgeois society provides for itself in
order to support the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against
encroachments of the workers as well as of individual capitalists”. 9

The state for Engels is always an entity which inhabit the individuals and not an abstract
concepts. It consists of officials, prison officers along with policemen who all are directed in
different ways by the bourgeoisie class. The law cannot do anything in order to remove class
inequality as the parPurpose of law is ty holding the power given will exercise pressure over
the another party having lesser power due to its class positions which has no concern with the
law. The rights recognized by the modern state is similar to the recognition of slavery by the
state of old.10 He also believed that law represents “average interests” i.e., the interest of the
ruling class which is considered as the entire society and not as the particular community or
sections of society. Lastly, the engels says that if the law is in the hands of the working class
or is under those dominated by the workers that it would act as a strong weapon to bring the
change in the state of things.

LAW : AN INSTRUMENT
CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY

Different philosophers have different views on how is law defined , origin of law,
function of laws and its role in capitalistic society and we will be dealing some them
views and try to define law in capitalistic society.
Renner defines law in relation to economic development and believes law does not
change with the economic development in the society but can be modified according
to the changes. For instance, the contractual relationship that are designed to govern

8
Maureen Cain, “ The Main Themes of Marx’s and Engel’s Sociology of Law”, Wiley Cardiff University, Vol.
1 No. 2 1974, p. 138-141.
9
Friedrich Engels, ANTI-DIIRHING, Vol. 2, pp. 290.
10
Friedrich Engels, ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTYAND THE STATE, pp.500.

7
 the connection between personal and real property and later adapted to fit the
employer-employee relations. The changes in law occurs steadily, slowly, incessantly
and imperceptibly as the grass grows.11 Therefore, he concludes that changes in
society occurs without any alterations in the legal system.

He has a very acute perception regarding the adaptability and durability of concepts
such as contracts. He says that law changes but the legal relationships are static such
as property and contract. This ignorance of difference between the law in general and
legal order is what has made him view the relationship between law and economic
development as weak. His work has little historical significance due to its desertion of
Marxist’s theory of economic structure and superstructure as he stated that there
exists a fatal relationship between them.

Pashukanis has different view regarding law and has opined that law, like the state
will wither away with the emergence of a classless society. There exists a core
relation between the legal superstructure and economic structure in which the former
commensurate with the latter. He, further, elaborates on the distinction between legal
and technical rules. The technical rules apply in the similar way to each and every
person such as train timetable regulating the rail traffics but the legal rules such as
(liability of railroads towards consignors of freight) are inclined to a particular party
12
in a particular event.

The driving force for the economic system in the capitalistic society is the dynamics
of bargaining and competition, which give rise to conflicts between the parties
enjoying social relationship. Whenever there is any transaction between two parties or
they enter into a contracts they are unavoidably drawn into dispute giving rise to legal
action. Thus, the legal system is altogether different arena resolving economic
conflicts but is not equivalent to the system of economy. Its main role is not played by
an economic entity but by the judiciary.

The capitalistic society embodies the features such as individualism, private

autonomy and material self- interest but it also asserts allegiance to the external
authority. The value of the commodity is determined in the marketplace without any
consideration to the will of the parties involved in the transactions, similarly, man is a

11
Alan Stone, “ The Place of Law in the Marxian Structure-Superstructure Archetype”, Law & Society Review
Vol. 19 no.1 1985, p. 40-52.
12
Vincent, Supra note 7.

8
 legal subject and a bearer of rights. The correlation between the commodities and the
will of the autonomous entity are almost equal to each other as legal subjects believes.
The judiciary in the state acts as guarantor of rights and helps in arbitration of the
disputes between the two conflicting parties and a the back of it exits the “ power of
one class over the other”.

A capitalistic society cannot distance itself from law because there are various
arrangements and ideas which the law guarantees. One of these is contract. A contract
includes a promise by one party in order to fulfil the act or promise by another party.
These contracts helps in avoiding the enslaved situations and the status as they are
entered into freely by parties concerned. The transaction between purchaser and
seller, capitalist and labourer and creditor borrower are at the core off contractual
obligations. The governance of contracts in a capitalist society by the state is a
necessary condition for capitalism in the rule of the labour bargain as well as with
13
other areas of commercial life.

Secondly, another feature of capitalism that requires law in order to flourish is private
property. Before the emergence of capitalism, the property was owned both
communally and individually in the feudal society but with the capitalistic society
came the phenomena of private property. The owner of property acquired rights to
alienate other from enjoying the benefits of their property but in the pre- capitalist era
property is viewed as right to revenue but with capitalism it came to seen as right to
material things. 14

COMMUNIST SOCIETY

In the communist society, the state wither away and a society with no class, equal
distribution of resources and community ownership of property is established. With
these features there is no need for law as every person is provided with equal amount
of resources and there is class distinctions and inequality, thus, no conflicts arises and
no law is needed to resolve them. The behaviour of the citizens in a communist state
is governed by social and moral norms. The citizens in this kind of society will be
governed by their conscience and not by the regulation of the state. As there is no

13
James A. Henry, “ The Communist Theory of Law”, Messenger Publications, Vol. 46 No. 184 1957, p. 417-
420.
14
Ibid., p. 413

9
 inequality and disparities among citizens every person will be satisfied and there will
be no crime, thus not even requiring the regulation by the state.

THE STATE AND CONSTITUTION : MARXIST THEORY

For Marxists state is nothing more than a weapon for the ruling class to oppress the working
class but the constitutional law tends to regulate and restrict the power of the state. This does
not let the Marxists accept the constitutionalism because for them it is the conquest of the
bourgeoisie revolution over the old feudal order.

Constitution as discussed today is set of rules which governs the relationship between citizens
and state and also the relation among the various state machinery. As lawyers, politicians and
academics talks about rights as liberal ideas of fairness, equality and justice which are
protected by law and these liberal ideas are collectively referred to as rule of law.

In Britain, when the supreme court ruled and directed the government that whether the
Britain will withdraw from EU or not will be decided by the Parliament and not government.
Similarly, against the decision of U.S. government to ban travel by Muslims, the Supreme
Court ruled. Thus, upholding the rule of law and constitutionalism against the
authoritarianism. The rule of law and constitutionalism is presented in the contemporary
scenario as mechanism of checks and balances against the state in order to protect the
individual rights. 15

Constitution acts as foundation for a state and thus there is a need to understand state in order
to have a clear understanding for the constitution.

State according to Marxist comes into existence with the rise of production and emergence of
classes in the society. The means by which the order is maintained in the state is the armed
personnel. There are things like state, the prison, the police and the army. The state power has
become a weapon in hands of the class of the possessing class to oppress or suppress the non
-possessing working class. As happened in Athens that the state emerged with increase in
production which lead to division into classes i.e., the owners of means of production and
labourers. These owners of property who are rich and wealthy used their influence in order to
impose the debt, bankruptcy and slavery on the lower working class.

Ben Gliniecki, “ Law and Marxism : the state and the constitution” https://www.marxist.com/law-and-
15

marxism-the-state-and-the-constitution.htm, accessed on 17 -02-2020, 6:00 pm.

10
But, the state does not appear as the rule by the rich and wealthy capitalist but is seen as an
instrument for the protection of the rights of the individuals against those who are powerful
and influential. Besides this, today the state don not even maintain their private armies to
subsume the weak rather everyone even the capitalists follow the rule of law. In contrary to
feudal England and ancient Athens, state today does not suppress the lower class but is
conducive to the class struggle. 16

BOURGEOISIE REVOLUTION AND CONSTITUTION

The bourgeoisie revolution suppressed the hereditary rights and made sure equal political
power to all. The monarch can no longer dominate and require the concurrence of the
Parliament in order to take any actions. The actions of the executives are restricted to the
judiciary, through the courts. Further, democracy, equality before law and the right to choice
the master under whom they wish to work are core of the revolution of the new bourgeoisie
order which limited in the first.

But, this revolution does not bring a sea change in the function of the state. The state in the
capitalistic society is still a weapon for ruling the lower class as in case of feudalism but in a
more refined and perfected manner, besides this protecting the interests of capitalists and not
the feudal lords. 17

In the contemporary times, state is an instrument in the hands of the capitalists and fulfil their
interests. There exists a door between the government and the businessmen in today’s world
through which the civil servants move easily between the government regulations and the
companies they are regulating. The business lobbyists use bribes and threats in order to
induce the government to work in favour of bourgeoisie. The courts, prisons, police and army
protects the interests of the wealthy and the rich with no attention given to the needs of the
poor i.e., food, clothing and housing.

The modern constitutions are doing nothing more than playing a role in beautifying with “
checks and balances” the state which has always been used as a weapon for the struggle
among classes.

COMMODITY EXCHANGE AND CONSTITUTION

Glinieck, Supra note 16.

16

Martin Krygier, “Marxism and Rule of Law: Reflections after the Collapse of Communism”, Wiley American
17

Bar Foundation, Vol. 15 No. 4 1990, p. 655-660.

11
In order to realise the value of the commodities produced, it needs to be exchanged. For the
exchange there is a need for the presence of a conscious human i.e., there should be a legal
owner. This implies that the theory of legal rights of individual ownership is an imbibed part
of production of commodity.

A system of commodity exchange needs the prices of the goods to be decided by the market
and the individually buyer and seller cannot play this roles. “The prices are determined by
general level of techniques in the economy and socially- determined question”. Further, in
order to avoid any disruptions in the process of determining the exchange value both the
buyers and seller needs to abandon their individuality. In brief, both the purchaser and vendor
have to be on equal footing, even if they are not so in reality. 18 This equality determines the
nature of legal relations between the both parties in the exchange. For the purpose of
interacting in the open market between the individuals certain protections needs to be
provided to the individuals and their commodities. If these protections are not provided then
the exchange will not be possible and will come to a halt.

The constitutional law and state are phenomena which are essential to the capitalist society or
capitalistic mode of production, albeit some of its features are evident even in older mode of
production as in ancient Athens which forms the basis for the development of commodity
exchange to some extent.19 The base of capitalistic society is private ownership as a legal
right and on this is build a constitutional scaffold that transformed the feudal , aristocratic
state into a afresh bourgeoisie state. Thus, the possessing class dominating the non-possessing
one.

CRITICISMS OF THE MARXIST THEORY

The complexity of the class structure increased over time and is today more complex than the
older bourgeoisie-proletariat structure. As today in many western nations, in particular ,
developing nations the middle- class own s shares in the companies run by the class referred
to as capitalist by the Marx. The many people currently even own their houses referring them
as their private property and these people are therefore referred as petit-capitalists.

18
Nancy E. Anderson and David F. Greenberg, “ From Substance to Form: The Legal Theories of Pashukanis
and Edelman”, Duke University Press, No. 7 1983, p. 72-76.
19
Glinieck, Supra note 17.

12
Capitalism in the contemporary times, is less exploitative. In the corporate world with
introduction of human resource development, the employees also began to be considered the
assets of the corporation, thus, due concern is given to their interests and efforts are made to
satisfy their needs in all ways possible so that they work effectively and efficiently and
company is profitable. Further, labour laws are introduced in order to protect the unskilled
workers from being exploited by their masters. 20

Marx believed that the structure of society and also the direction of history are determined by
economic laws. On contemplation it is very much explicit that the history of a society also
shaped by other factors as well. Different societies have taken the capitalism into a different
direction as some has taken it to the neo – liberalism, some towards the social democratic line
and used it as an instrument for the protection of non-possessing class from the possessing
class. Some rejected it in the favour socialist dictatorship.

According the Marxist theory, it seems that the superstructure is under the control of the
bourgeoisie class, who creates false consciousness. But in the post-modern society, the
culture ( media) is independent of the domination of the bourgeoisie. If no institution is
controlled by the bourgeoisie, then there will no false consciousness. As per post- modernist,
the society should be free and with no existence of class and people are identified by the
products they buy which are the final result of the successful capitalist mode of production. 21

The modern corporation, today, no longer alienate the worker but instead encourage their
participation and cordially invite their suggestions. With formation of trade unions and new
management techniques being applied, their participation increased such as emergence of
human resource development department.

In different parts of world the communist revolution emerged such in Eastern Europe did not
lead to the freedom and equality which Marx has aspired for. Thus no alternative for
capitalism could be found, as the communism failed to achieve its objectives.

20
Mike Macnair, “ Law and State as Holes in Marxist Theory”, Journal of Socialist Theory, Vol. 34 No. 3 2006,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03017600600994646?scroll=top&needAccess=true, accessed on
15-02-2020, 9:00 pm.
21
Karl Thompson, “ Eight Criticism of the Traditional Marxist View of society”,
https://revisesociology.com/2016/04/11/eight-criticisms-of-the-traditional-marxist-view-of-society/, accessed on
26-01-2020, 12:00 pm.

13
CONCLUSION
Marxist theory does not have much concern with the law and state as for Marx an ideal
society exits when there is no law and state. But, this idea is too a large extent imaginary and
can never come into being i.e., communist society ca never exist. A society without law and
state will recede to the natural state where according to Hobbes the man is poor, nasty,
brutish, solitary and weak. Further, without law an society is lawless and might also lead to
anarchy and huge disturbances.

Even today almost all countries works on the line of the capitalistic system but in a refined
and beautified manner with some rights given to the lower class as well. The inequality
always exists not because of the class but because of the efforts of the individuals. A person
working hard will earn more as compared to a beggar doing nothing or person sitting idle just
imaging a lavish life. Thus, there can never equal distribution of resources. Similarly,
conflicts are also inevitable in a society where individuals interact and exchange and in order
to resolve these conflicts there is need for legal action and mechanism.

Humans have natural tendency of being greedy which led to the emergence of the concept of
private property. They will never let anybody else enjoy the benefits of their resources and
their property and then imagining them to share their private property with the non-
possessing class is a far-fetched action. Therefore, establishment of a communist state or
society in the current scenario is in no way possible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY-

 The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

 Origin Of The Family, Private Property and The State by Friedrich Engels

 Marxist Theory of Law and State by Evgeny Pashukanis

 The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin

 Anti-During by Friedrich Engels

References
Online Sources
 jstor
 Heinonline
 Researchgate

14
Sites referred
 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03017600600994646?
scroll=top&needAccess=true
 https://www.marxist.com/law-and-marxism-the-state-and-the-constitution.htm

 https://revisesociology.com/2016/04/11/eight-criticisms-of-the-traditional-marxist-view-of-
society/

15