398

p Once the state had emerged, it did not remain unchanged, but evolved in step with the development of the productive forces and production 399 relations. In the course of history the state’s structure and essence underwent considerable changes. Historical materialism takes these changes into account and distinguishes some types and forms of the state.

p The type ot the state is determined by which class holds power and which production relations the state protects and consolidates.

p Historical materialism distinguishes (three types of exploiting state )and(c^ne type of socialist state. TLne types or exploiting state are: the slave- owning state which represents the dictatorship of the slave-owners designed to protect the slave-owners’ private property and suppress the slaves; the feudal state which is an instrument of the feudal lords for suppressing the peasants; and the capitalist state which expresses the interests of the bourgeoisie, and suppresses the proletariat and other sections of the working people.

p The form of the state indicates how the state power is exercised. By a form of the state we mean, first of all, the form of government. There are, thus, monarchies and republics, with a further subdivision into aristocratic and democratic republics.

“A monarchy,” Lenin wrote, denning forms of the state, “is the power of a single person, a republic is the absence of any non-elected authority; an aristocracy is the power of a relatively small minority, a democracy is the power of the people (democracy in Greek literally means the power of the people).”  [399•1 

400 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1978/MLP519/20070711/499.tx"

p One and the same type of the state may exist in the most diverse forms. Thus, for example, the slave-owning state existed both in the form of a monarchy and in that of a republic. Moreover, it took the forms of both aristocratic and democratic republics. Republics and monarchies existed under feudalism and they still do under capitalism.

p A form of the state is of particular importance for describing a certain state power, but it does not characterise the essence of the state. This is determined by the type of state, i.e. by which class’s dictatorship is embodied in the state power. For example, in spite of differences in form, all slave-owning societies had the same essence. Their basic teature was that the slaves, far from being considered citizens, were not even treated as human beings. Roman Law treated them as objects and the law prescribing punishment for murder, to say nothing of the other laws protecting human dignity, did not apply to them. It protected only the slave-owners, since only they were recognised as full-fledged citizens.  [400•1 

p This pattern holds for both bourgeois and socialist societies. Despite a great variety of forms of bourgeois states, their essence is the same: they represent the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As for the socialist state, a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it may exist in the form of the Paris Commune, a republic of Soviets, or a people’s democracy, etc.

401

The differentiation of types and forms of the state helps to assess any state correctly and expose its class nature.