- the first and simplest of his three versions of Marx's theory of the state. In this version, the state acts as an instrument of the dominant class, and protects their long-term interests. In a capitalist example, the state protects competition and free trade, in Marx's words, 'the bourgeois state is nothing more than the mutual insurance of the bourgeois class against its individual members, as well as against the exploited class' (3). This would indicate that the state is not autonomous from the ruling class. The instrumentalist view, however, does explain the fact that in many historical examples - such as the 19th century England - the state acts in the dominant class' interests, without having to represent them as a class. Elster claims that Marx overcomes the problem of an autonomous state in two ways. In the first, the 'abdication' theory of the state, Elster shows that the ruling class may choose to abstain or abdicate political power, if it is in their best interests as a class. In England of the last century, the Whigs, the Political party of the landed aristocracy, held a near monopoly on political power. Yet they still acted in the best interests of the bourgeoisie. Elster cites many reasons why it may be in the best interests of the ruling class to abdicate political power, such as to defuse opposition of the exploited class, or concern that members of the business community may not make competent political leaders. Schumpeter expresses this by