Introduction: The State as a Contested Terrain

The state, in its myriad forms and functions, has long been a central object of political and philosophical inquiry. From ancient conceptions of the polis to modern theories of governance, the state embodies both the promise of collective organization and the perils of concentrated power. In this assessment, we explore the state through the lens of revolutionary left theory, comparing it with Marxist, capitalist, theological (Western Christian), and technocratic paradigms. Drawing on historical and contemporary critiques, we argue that the modern state—particularly in the context of post-neoliberal capitalism—is increasingly irrelevant in addressing humanity’s existential crises. This irrelevance is not accidental but structural, rooted in its integration into global systems of exploitation.

​

Marxist Theories of the State: A Bourgeois Instrument

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels famously described the state as “a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (The Communist Manifesto , 1848)[^1]. According to Marxist theory, the state is an instrument of class domination, designed to maintain the rule of the capitalist class over the proletariat. Vladimir Lenin expanded on this idea in State and Revolution (1917), arguing that the bourgeois state must be dismantled and replaced by a proletarian dictatorship—a transitional phase toward a classless society[^2].

In the context of post-neoliberal capitalism, the Marxist critique remains relevant. The state continues to serve capital accumulation, prioritizing corporate interests over social welfare. For instance, austerity measures imposed during financial crises often deepen inequality, while tax breaks for corporations exacerbate wealth disparities. These dynamics underscore the state’s irrelevance in addressing systemic issues like climate change, economic instability, and technological alienation.

Modern Capitalist Theories of the State: The Market-State Nexus

Contrasting with Marxist critiques, modern capitalist theories view the state as a facilitator of market efficiency. Neoliberal thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman argue that the state should minimize intervention, allowing markets to allocate resources optimally (The Road to Serfdom , 1944; Capitalism and Freedom , 1962)[^3]. However, this perspective ignores how states actively construct and sustain capitalist systems, often at great cost to marginalized communities.

​

Post-neoliberal capitalism reveals the contradictions of this approach. While neoliberal policies have eroded public services, they have also exposed the fragility of unregulated markets. The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated that states remain indispensable in bailing out failing institutions, yet their interventions disproportionately benefit elites. This paradox highlights the state’s inability to transcend its role as an enabler of capitalist exploitation.

Theological Perspectives: The Western Christian State

From a theological standpoint, particularly within Western Christianity, the state has historically been seen as divinely ordained. Augustine of Hippo conceptualized the state as part of God’s providential order, albeit corrupted by human sinfulness (City of God , c. 426)[^4]. Similarly, Thomas Aquinas argued that rulers derive authority from divine law, though they are accountable to natural justice (Summa Theologica , c. 1270)[^5].

​

In the modern era, these theological justifications have waned, but echoes persist in notions of moral governance. For example, debates about abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedom often invoke religious principles to shape state policies. Yet, the entanglement of theology and politics raises questions about whose morality prevails and whether the state can truly act impartially. In hyper-technological societies, where artificial intelligence increasingly governs daily life, the theological state appears increasingly archaic and disconnected from material realities.

​

The Technocratic State: Governance by Experts

The rise of the technocratic state reflects the growing influence of expertise and technology in governance. Proponents argue that technocrats, armed with data-driven insights, can make more rational decisions than elected officials swayed by populism or ideology. However, critics contend that technocracy reinforces existing power structures by privileging elite knowledge over democratic participation.

​

In the age of artificial intelligence, the technocratic state takes on new dimensions. Algorithms now determine everything from credit scores to criminal sentencing, raising concerns about bias, accountability, and transparency. As Evgeny Morozov warns, the “solutionism” of technocratic governance risks reducing complex social problems to technical fixes (To Save Everything, Click Here , 2013)[^6]. This reductionism mirrors the state’s broader irrelevance, as it fails to address root causes of inequality and oppression.

​

Comparative Analysis: Toward a Revolutionary Left Perspective

Each theoretical framework offers valuable insights into the nature of the state, yet none fully captures its current irrelevance. Marxist theories rightly emphasize the state’s role in perpetuating class domination, but they sometimes overlook how globalization and technology have transformed traditional modes of exploitation.

Capitalist theories highlight the importance of markets, yet downplay the state’s complicity in creating and sustaining them. Theological perspectives provide ethical grounding, but struggle to reconcile faith-based values with secular realities. Finally, technocratic approaches offer innovative solutions, but risk sidelining democratic principles in favor of efficiency.

​

From a revolutionary left perspective, the state’s irrelevance stems from its inability to escape the logic of capital. Whether managed by capitalists, technocrats, or theologians, the state remains beholden to systems of domination. Only through grassroots mobilization can the working class dismantle these structures and forge new forms of social organization.

​

Case Study: The Global Crisis of Capitalism

The global crisis of capitalism exemplifies the state’s irrelevance. Climate change, driven by unchecked industrial activity, threatens planetary survival, yet states prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability. Similarly, technological advancements, while promising unprecedented innovation, deepen inequalities by concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few. Populist movements in Europe and nascent revolutionary struggles in the Third World reflect widespread disillusionment with the status quo, signaling the potential for transformative change.

​

Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is particularly instructive here. He argues that dominant classes maintain control not only through coercion but also through cultural and ideological means (Prison Notebooks , 1929–1935)[^7]. Counter-hegemonic movements must therefore challenge both material conditions and ideological frameworks to achieve liberation. This dual focus aligns with Hardt and Negri’s vision of “multitude” resistance in Empire (2000)[^8], emphasizing decentralized networks of solidarity.

Conclusion: Reimagining Beyond the State

The state, as currently constituted, is ill-equipped to address the challenges of our time. Its irrelevance is a product of its integration into global systems of exploitation, which prioritize profit over people. To transcend this impasse, we must look beyond reformist illusions and embrace revolutionary alternatives. Grassroots mobilization, informed by Marxist critiques and guided by principles of equity and justice, offers a path forward. By reimagining social organization beyond the confines of the bourgeois state, we can build a world where humanity thrives rather than merely survives.​