The State Apparatus as the “Vital Force of Society Itself”

The state apparatus, as the material carrier of political power, has always been a key thread for understanding the evolution of human society in terms of the transformation of its essence and functions. The state apparatus is not an eternal social phenomenon but a product of specific historical stages; its form and function continuously evolve with changes in social relations. Marx profoundly pointed out in *The German Ideology*: “It is precisely because of this contradiction between particular and common interests that common interests take on an independent form, detached from the actual individual and overall interests, as the state, and at the same time take on the form of an illusory community.” [1]1 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology* (1845–1846). This classic thesis not only reveals the logic of the origin of the state apparatus but also foreshadows its trajectory of transformation within historical dialectics. From the alienation of the state into a “force ruling over society” in class society to its gradual transformation under socialist conditions into a “vital force of society itself,” this process of transformation profoundly embodies the historical leap of human political civilization from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.

国家机器作为政治权力的物质载体，其本质与功能的演变始终是理解人类社会发展的关键线索。国家机器并非永恒存在的社会现象，而是特定历史阶段的产物，其形态与功能随着社会关系的变革而不断演进。马克思在《德意志意识形态》中深刻指出：“正是由于特殊利益和共同利益之间的这种矛盾，共同利益才采取国家这种与实际的单个利益和全体利益相脱离的独立形式，同时采取虚幻的共同体的形式。”这一经典论断不仅揭示了国家机器的起源逻辑，更预示了其在历史辩证法中的转型轨迹。从阶级社会中将国家异化为“统治社会的力量”，到社会主义条件下使其逐步转化为“社会本身的生命力”，这一转型过程深刻体现了人类政治文明从必然王国向自由王国的历史性跃迁。

The State Apparatus Existing as a “Force Ruling over Society”

作为“统治社会的力量”而存在的国家机器

The essential attribute of the state apparatus has always resided in its dualistic contradiction. Engels incisively pointed out in *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* that the state is “a force that arises from society but places itself above it and becomes increasingly alienated from it.” [2]2 Friedrich Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884). This alienation reaches its extreme in class society. To accurately grasp the historical transformation of the state apparatus, it is first necessary to clarify its essential characteristics. In class society, the state apparatus is primarily manifested in coercive institutions such as the military, police, and courts, whose core function is to safeguard the interests of the ruling class. In *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*, when analyzing the bourgeois state, Marx emphasized: “This executive power, with its enormous bureaucratic and military organization, with its ingenious and extensive state machinery, with a host of officials numbering half a million, besides an army of another half a million.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* (1852). This highly organized machine of violence essentially maintains class rule through “a centralized, organized force that usurps the position of master of society rather than serving as its servant.” [4]4 Ibid. However, the alienated form of the state apparatus is not an eternal category; its internal contradictions always harbor dialectical factors of self-negation. In *State and Revolution*, Lenin, inheriting Marx’s principles of the Paris Commune, proposed that the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat “is already a transitional state, no longer a state in the original sense of the word.” [5]5 V. I. Lenin, *State and Revolution* (1917). This scientific judgment profoundly reveals the internal logic of the historical transformation of the state apparatus.

国家机器的本质属性始终存在于其双重性矛盾之中。恩格斯在《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》中精辟地指出，国家是“从社会中产生但又自居于社会之上并且日益同社会相异化的力量”，这种异化在阶级社会达到极致。要准确把握国家机器的历史转型，首先需要厘清其本质特征。在阶级社会中，国家机器主要表现为军队、警察、法庭等强制性机构，其核心功能是维护统治阶级的利益。马克思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中剖析资产阶级国家时强调：“这个行政权有庞大的官僚机构和军事机构，有复杂而巧妙的国家机器，有五十万人的官吏队伍和五十万人的军队。”这种高度组织化的暴力机器，本质上是通过“集中化的组织起来的窃居社会主人地位而不是充当社会公仆的政府权力”来维持阶级统治。然而，国家机器的异化形态并非永恒范畴，其内在矛盾中始终孕育着自我否定的辩证因素。列宁在《国家与革命》中继承马克思的巴黎公社原则，提出无产阶级专政的国家“已经是过渡性质的国家，已经不是原来意义上的国家”，这一科学判断深刻揭示了国家机器历史转型的内在逻辑。

The capitalist state develops the “force ruling over society” to its extreme form, creating the most complete system of oppression in human history. In Volume III of *Capital*, Marx profoundly analyzed: “The supervisory labor and comprehensive intervention of the government includes two aspects: it includes both the execution of various public affairs arising from the nature of all societies, and the specific functions arising from the opposition between the government and the mass of the people.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume III (1894). This binary opposition, in the stage of monopoly capitalism, further evolves into a deep collusion between the “financial oligarchy” and the “state bureaucracy.” This highly organized ruling machine enables the bourgeoisie to effectively safeguard its class interests. At the same time, the capitalist state has developed more covert means of ideological control. Through channels such as the education system and mass media, the bourgeoisie continuously reinforces the legitimacy of its rule, causing the ruled class to accept the existing order in their ideas and concepts. Modern capitalist states have also developed new functions of economic intervention. Engels pointed out: “The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal total capitalist.” [7]7 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring* (1878). When the alienation of the capitalist state apparatus reaches its historical peak, it increasingly becomes an independent force towering above society, detached from the public interest of society. This state of alienation makes the state apparatus a dual tool for “capital valorization” and “class oppression.” The sharp contradiction between its “political shell” and its “economic content” inevitably leads to the outbreak of the proletarian revolution. In summarizing the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx emphasized: “The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *The Civil War in France* (1871). This important warning profoundly reveals the historical necessity of smashing the old state apparatus and points the direction for the proletarian revolution.

资本主义国家将“统治社会的力量”发展到极致形态，形成了人类历史上最为完备的压迫体系。马克思在《资本论》第三卷中深刻分析道：“政府的监督劳动和全面干涉包括两方面：既包括由一切社会的性质产生的各种公共事务的执行，又包括由政府同人民大众相对立而产生的各种特有的职能。”这种二元对立在垄断资本主义阶段更演变为“金融寡头”与“国家官僚”的深度合谋。这种高度组织化的统治机器，使资产阶级能够有效地维护其阶级利益。同时，资本主义国家发展出了更为隐蔽的意识形态控制手段。通过教育体系、大众传媒等渠道，资产阶级不断强化其统治的合法性，使被统治阶级在思想观念上接受现存秩序。现代资本主义国家还发展出了经济干预的新功能。恩格斯指出：“现代国家，不管它的形式如何，本质上都是资本主义的机器，资本家的国家，理想的总资本家。”当资本主义国家机器的异化程度达到了历史顶峰，它日益成为凌驾于社会之上的独立力量，与社会公共利益相脱离，这种异化状态使得国家机器成为“资本增殖”与“阶级压迫”的双重工具，其“政治外壳”与“经济内容”的尖锐矛盾最终必然导致无产阶级革命的爆发。马克思在总结巴黎公社经验时强调：“工人阶级不能简单地掌握现成的国家机器，并运用它来达到自己的目的。”这一重要警示深刻揭示了打碎旧国家机器的历史必然性，为无产阶级革命指明了方向。

The State Apparatus Transforming into the “Vital Force of Society Itself”

向“社会本身的生命力”转型的国家机器

The establishment of the socialist system opens a new stage in the historical transformation of the state apparatus. The essence of the socialist state lies in gradually transforming the state apparatus from a “force ruling over society” into a “vital force of society itself.” This process of transformation has profound significance for historical dialectics. First, the nature of the socialist state apparatus undergoes a fundamental change. In *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, Marx pointed out: “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875). The primary task of this new type of state apparatus is to gradually eliminate class distinctions and create conditions for the eventual withering away of the state. Second, the organizational principles of the socialist state apparatus are innovated. The system of “servants who can be dismissed at any time” created by the Paris Commune provides an important reference for the organization of the socialist state apparatus. In expounding on the Soviet system, Lenin pointed out that the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer a state in the original sense but a “semi-state” beginning to wither away. [10]10 V. I. Lenin, *State and Revolution* (1917). Finally, the functional focus of the socialist state apparatus shifts. From primarily class rule to primarily social service, the state apparatus increasingly becomes a means of realizing the public interest of society. Engels foresaw: “The first act in which the state really acts as the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—is at the same time its last independent act as a state.” [11]11 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring* (1878). This process of transformation is fully reflected in contemporary China.

社会主义制度的建立开启了国家机器历史转型的新阶段。社会主义国家的本质在于使国家机器从“统治社会的力量”逐步转化为“社会本身的生命力”，这一转化过程具有深刻的历史辩证法意义。首先，社会主义国家机器的性质发生了根本变化。马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中指出：“在资本主义社会和共产主义社会之间，有一个从前者变为后者的革命转变时期。同这个时期相适应的也有一个政治上的过渡时期，这个时期的国家只能是无产阶级的革命专政。”这种新型国家机器的首要任务是逐步消灭阶级差别，为国家的最终消亡创造条件。其次，社会主义国家机器的组织原则实现了革新。巴黎公社创造的“随时可以罢免的勤务员”制度，为社会主义国家机器的组织提供了重要借鉴。列宁在阐述苏维埃政权时指出，无产阶级专政的国家已经不是原来意义上的国家，而是开始走向消亡的“半国家”。最后，社会主义国家机器的功能重心发生了转移。从以阶级统治为主转向以社会服务为主，国家机器日益成为实现社会公共利益的手段。恩格斯预见：“国家真正作为整个社会的代表所采取的第一个行动，即以社会的名义占有生产资料，同时也是它作为国家所采取的最后一个独立行动。”这一转变过程在当代中国得到了充分体现。

The historical transformation from a “force ruling over society” to a “vital force of society itself” is essentially a dialectical development process from “political emancipation” to “human emancipation.” In *On the Jewish Question*, Marx profoundly revealed: “Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation... only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *On the Jewish Question* (1843). The philosophical implication of this emancipation is embodied in the transformation of the state apparatus as the gradual elimination of the opposition between the “political state” and “civil society,” and in institutional practice as the deepening development of human emancipation. The historical transformation of the state apparatus is an important sign of the progress of human political civilization. The process of transformation from a “force ruling over society” to a “vital force of society itself” reflects the historical trend of human society moving from class antagonism towards a free association of individuals. This transformation requires both the full development of material conditions and the continuous improvement of the institutional system, as well as profound changes in ideas and concepts.

从“统治社会的力量”到“社会本身的生命力”的历史转型，本质上是从“政治解放”走向“人类解放”的辩证发展过程。马克思在《论犹太人问题》中深刻揭示：“只有当现实的个人把抽象的公民复归于自身，并且作为个人，在自己的经验生活、自己的个体劳动、自己的个体关系中间，成为类存在物的时候……人类的解放才能完成。”这种解放的哲学意蕴，在国家机器转型中体现为“政治国家”与“市民社会”对立的逐步消除，在制度实践中表现为人类解放的深化发展，国家机器的历史转型是人类政治文明进步的重要标志。从“统治社会的力量”到“社会本身的生命力”的转变过程，体现了人类社会从阶级对立走向自由人联合体的历史趋势。这一转型既需要物质条件的充分发展，也需要制度体系的不断完善，更需要思想观念的深刻变革。

(The authors are, respectively, a doctoral candidate at the School of Marxism, Central China Normal University; and an associate professor at the School of Marxism, Central China Normal University.)

（作者系华中师范大学马克思主义学院博士研究生；华中师范大学马克思主义学院副教授）