STATE-DEPENDENT RELATIONS or The State-Dependent Nature of Modern Social Movements

Marx, in line with the theoretical conclusions he reached in his studies on political economy, divides social relations into two categories: human-dependent and commodity-dependent relations. Human-dependent relations refer to the relationships that individuals and society are forced to establish for the reproduction of their biological and species existence. This historical moment is driven by the process of human production and the use-value produced by human activity, compelling people to interact with one another¹.

Commodity-dependent relations, on the other hand, refer to the capitalist era, which Marx defines as the time when social and individual actions are subject to the production, circulation, and accumulation of commodities. In this sense, Marx’s theory of alienation critiques capitalism as the process through which humans lose their essential human qualities². Communism, for Marx, represents humanity’s liberation from commodity-dependent relations, or what he calls the fetishism of commodities³, and all forms of alienation. It envisions the establishment of genuinely free human social relations, in which individuals participate of their free will⁴.

Marx makes two significant errors. First, he assumes that in history there was a given human, unaffected by commodities, and therefore unalienated, resembling a Christian figure before committing the original sin and being expelled from paradise⁵. This assumption is an anthropomorphic approach that has influenced social sciences through religious ideologies and also impacted Marx⁶. Therefore, Marx’s theory of alienation can be seen as a materialist continuation of Christian theology, as filtered through Feuerbach⁷. In this sense, Marx’s theory of communism follows the tradition of classical utopian thinkers⁸.

Contrary to the anthropomorphic perspectives of Marx and others, there is no pre-existing, assumed human, no ideal communal society that has since been lost, nor any essential human nature that was later alienated⁹. A society that does not produce surplus products, or one that remains tied solely to the production of use-values, cannot generate history¹⁰. The glorification of such societal forms only sustains the primitive human condition. This can be easily observed in the differences between the indigenous peoples of South and Central America (like the Aztecs and the Mayans) and the indigenous peoples of North America. While the South American civilizations advanced to the point of independently developing their own writing systems, the North American indigenous peoples retained their “human essence” for thirty thousand years, remaining unalienated¹¹.

Alienation is defined as the social relations that evolve with the production of surplus products—namely, the excess value produced and consequently the appropriation of that surplus¹². The state, as it develops alongside these relations, is also considered in a negative context. Thus, from a class perspective, the emergence of the state is defined as a coercive mechanism for the ruling class to produce and sustain surplus production and to appropriate it¹³. However, states did not initially arise as mechanisms of class oppression created by the division of labor. They gained this function over time but originally emerged from the genuine struggles of primitive societies against one another and against nature¹⁴. State forms developed even without clear class distinctions or as significant variables in social life¹⁵. These structures were formed not only as tools to preserve biological and species existence but also as instruments for maintaining religious life¹⁶. New anthropological findings have shown that humans built sacred sites and temples, and organized complex systems within these religious structures, before transitioning to settled life¹⁷.

The second clear error becomes evident within this framework: the negative view attached to surplus production and the state¹⁸. Surplus production is not the cause of human alienation or, as if there were some “human essence,” the loss of that essence. On the contrary, surplus production forms the real material basis of humanization¹⁹. The humanization of humans began when they developed tools and culture for the production and maintenance of surplus, transitioning away from spending all their time, like animals, on meeting their biological needs. Human liberation, therefore, is not about glorifying sacred labor in the Catholic sense, but about achieving freedom from work and increasing the time available for self-development²⁰.

When Aristotle heard from a philosopher returning from Egypt that the Egyptian priests had made incredible advancements in all areas of science, he responded, “It seems they have a lot of free time”²¹. From this perspective, if we consider history in its entirety—especially considering humanity’s given level of development—states emerge as the tools of humanization, of the production, development, preservation, and reproduction of social structures and cultures²². The negative critiques of states, as seen in Marxism and other theories, stem from the fact that these critiques abstract and isolate the state as merely an instrument of class oppression²³.

States are not just instruments of destruction; they are also real tools for the production, preservation, and reproduction of humanity’s social and cultural-scientific existence²⁴. What we need to eliminate are the negative functions of states, not the states themselves²⁵.

Therefore, it can be said that history cannot be reduced merely to the human and commodity-dependent relations described by Marx²⁶. Marx sought to understand the laws governing society’s reproduction and the real foundations of social relations²⁷. As a political economist, he made an economic reduction²⁸. In addition to human- and commodity-dependent relations, I also introduce the concept of state-dependent relations²⁹. By state-dependent relations, I mean that states are fundamental components of the processes of social reproduction and are the primary variables of the function called history³⁰. Thus, history cannot be reduced to the struggles of two classes or two variables³¹. History is the product of an infinite matrix of variables³². As we discover these variables, we begin to produce historical science³³. No social-historical or natural movement can be reduced to just two or three variables³⁴. Limiting the variables in any movement is a method used to make complex phenomena understandable³⁵. In reality, every movement consists of infinite variables, and the task of science is to discover these variables³⁶. History is the product of the intertwined and composite effects of infinite variables, both in nature and in human society, arising from the movements of individuals and their activities³⁷. History did not emerge through human will or as a result of social relations that individuals deliberately engaged in³⁸. This view reflects the theological and teleological perspectives that place humans at the center of world history, a perspective that has influenced social theories, including Marxism³⁹.