The foundations of Marx’s theory are rooted in the judgments regarding the progression of the

economy and the materialist interpretation of history as it pertains to dialectical materialism. Karl
Marx, a philosopher primarily recognized as a revolutionary, derived his ideas from Hegel's
dialectical framework. Together with Friedrich Engels, he further developed this thesis, which
primarily excluded legal considerations. Marxists are drawn to this idea as it illustrates that
phenomena should be understood through their gradual development and highlights society as
inherently filled with contradictions (J. Penner and E. Melissaris, ‘Marxist and Post-Marxist
Theories of Law’, 2012, pp. 201-202). The materialism referenced by Marx encompasses both
social and natural occurrences.

At its core, dialectical materialism emphasizes the significance of class struggle throughout
history. This essential tenet of Marx's thought is regarded as the foundation of materialist
philosophy. Given that the bourgeoisie—those who own the means of production—exploit the
proletariat—those who possess only their labor—conflict arises regarding the economic
expansion's implications. A contemporary illustration of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during
which some capitalist nations reduced essential healthcare services to cut costs. However, the
exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie represents a situation that can be addressed.

Marx’s theory is fundamentally based on the concept of ‘base and superstructure.’ He posited
that law constitutes the ‘base,’ while everything else, including ethics, religion, and ideology, is
part of the ‘superstructure’ (‘Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’
[Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Selected Works (1989), p. 521]). Social structures are
dependent on the economic foundation, which is illustrated by the organization of production.
This connection is defined by the mode of production that determines the elements involved.

Bankowski and Mungham assert that to comprehend law, one must reference the legal system,
particularly the economy. In their work, Images of Law (London: Routledge, 1976), they argue
that an economic ideology can illuminate our understanding of law. However, Akbar Rasulov
challenges this viewpoint in A Marxism for International Law: A New Agenda (2018), arguing
that evaluating law solely through this lens is limited and labeling it an “intellectual dead-end.”
For Marx, law is not merely tied to the economy; it is a fundamental element of society as a
whole.

Marx's concepts of class struggle and superstructure led to the emergence of the principle known
as "class instrumentalism." Influential jurists, such as Hugh Collins, found inspiration in this
idea. According to Marx, law functions as a tool for the ruling class, enabling them to suppress
those of lower status. He contended that the principles of natural justice or human rights serve as
a deceptive mechanism to protect the interests of the ruling class (Marx, K, Capital). To illustrate
this theory of disguised "equal rights," Marx referenced the Victorian Factory Acts in Capital
(Ch. 15 “Machinery and Modern Industry”). He argued that although these acts appear to benefit
workers, they ultimately serve the interests of the ruling class under the surface. This is evident
in negotiations between a worker and an employer, where it is the employer's terms that prevail
rather than those of the proletariat. As a result, this imbalance of power restricts a worker’s
agency—not necessarily in legal terms but in practical reality.
Evgeny Pashukanis established his ‘Commodity Exchange Theory of Law’ in his foundational
text, The General Theory of Law and Marxism. He posits that the economic aspect of society
holds paramount importance, suggesting that institutions form a foundation that governs the
economy within a society. He further asserts that when communism is ultimately achieved, both
law and the state will cease to exist.

Louis Althusser, a structuralist Marxist philosopher, aimed to propose a novel theory about how
society operates to promote the ideals of capitalism. He developed a new framework through a
reevaluation of economic principles. In his work Essays on Ideology (London: Verso, 1984),
Althusser divided the state apparatus into two categories: Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA)
and Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA).

The RSA encompasses institutions like the police, government, courts, and the military. These
entities are often responsible for oppressing the proletariat through coercion and violence. A
recent and tragic instance highlighting this issue was the murder of George Floyd on May 25,
2020. The response to the protests following his death involved severe crackdowns on
demonstrators. In contrast, the ISA consists of organizations such as religious institutions,
educational establishments, and political parties. Although the ISA shares a similar purpose with
the RSA, they operate in a less overtly forceful manner and are seen as more subtle in their
influence. Althusser argues that this reflects the true ideology of Marx.

I maintain the same stance I expressed earlier regarding Marx's perspective on law. Unlike Marx,
I believe that a society fundamentally requires laws to function effectively, regardless of the
economic system in place. Critics of Marxism, as noted in A Critique of Marxism, have pointed
out that class struggle is not the foundational basis of the state; the conflicts between social
classes do not solely drive political change. Additionally, it has been observed that the state does
not always serve to oppress the working class, a view with which I concur, as modern legal
principles hold employers liable for the misconduct of their employees. This concept is known as
Vicarious Liability. Nevertheless, Karl Marx remains a highly influential thinker of the 19th
century, and his theories and insights cannot simply be dismissed.