The state has been interpreted differently by Marxist and liberal theorists, with their disagreement rooted in contrasting assumptions about human nature, society, and power.

The liberal approach sees the state as a neutral arbiter ensuring law, order, and justice. It emerged in the 17th–18th centuries with thinkers like Locke and Mill, stressing individual liberty, property rights, and limited government. In this view, the state protects citizens from external threats, ensures contracts, and promotes a framework of freedom. Liberalism assumes that individuals are rational beings with natural rights, and the state exists to safeguard them. Hence, constitutionalism, separation of powers, and rule of law are central liberal features.

The Marxist approach, by contrast, treats the state as an instrument of class domination. Rooted in historical materialism, Marx argued that the state reflects the economic base, serving the interests of the ruling class by legitimizing exploitation. For him, the state under capitalism is not neutral but repressive, using coercion and ideology to maintain bourgeois dominance. Marxists view the liberal state as a mask for class power, claiming neutrality while perpetuating inequality. Ultimately, the state, in their view, would “wither away” in a classless society after revolution.

The theoretical differences rest on core premises:

Neutrality vs. Class Bias – Liberals see the state as impartial, Marxists see it as biased.

Purpose – Liberals emphasize liberty and order; Marxists stress economic dominance.

End of the State – Liberals believe the state is permanent, Marxists argue it is transient.

Thus, liberalism legitimizes the state as guardian of individual rights, while Marxism delegitimizes it as a tool of oppression. The two approaches reveal divergent philosophical foundations—individualism in liberalism and collectivism in Marxism.