How Weber and Marx's Ideas Help Us Understand the Nature of Today's Political Authority - Essay Example

How do the theories and ideas of Marx and/or Weber help us understand the nature of political ity in the contemporary world? Introduction Among the most important features of modern welfare states is the social norm for the exercise of political power. The legitimation confronting most political authorities in the world is ascribed to various factors. Even the traditional perspective of sovereignty as supreme authority has raised intense debates in contemporary societies. This paper investigates how the theories and ideas of Max Weber and Karl Marx help us understand the nature of political authority in the contemporary world. Legitimate authority Many socialists have launched a crusade on the principle of authority. Authority in this case means imposing the will of another on ours. This presupposes the subordination and ascertaining of the ways to dispense the legitimate power accepted as endemic to human beings. However, while power can be exerted through violence or force, authority depends on the subordinate groups that consent to use of power imposed by the superior groups (Treiber 2011, p. 140). According to Max Weber, authority is defined as the chain of commands obeyed by specific group of people. A legitimate authority is justifiable by both the ruler and the ruled. In his sociological work, he identified and distinguished different types of the legitimate domination. These include rational-legal authority, traditional authority and charismatic authority. Rational legal authority depends on the legitimacy of established laws and formal rules. The modern societies depend on the legal rational authority normally mentioned in the constitution. (Lewis 2010, p. 57).The right of the hereditary monarchs to rule is a perfect example of hereditary leadership. The charismatic authority involves the charisma of an individual. This is derived from the ‘gift of grace’, when a leader claims the authority to come from higher powers. However, history has witnessed revolutions and social movements against those three types of authority, never actually existing in a pure state, according to Weber. In his view, authority can be distinguished from power. The “superior” in authority often feel that they have the right to command, while the subordinates feel that they have an obligation to obey. Nevertheless, many socialists and other modern authors argue that authority is a resource available only to incumbents in formal positions. Weber’s Theory of Political Authority Max Weber proposed the theory of authority, in his move towards encouraging the understanding of legitimating authority as a belief system (Lewis 2010, p. 57). As we said, Weber described three forms of authority; traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. Traditional authority This form of authority is legitimated through sanctity of tradition. Right and ability to rule is passed through heredity and is unchangeable over time. This is inconsistent, irrational and perpetuates status quo. Creation of new laws opposing the traditional norms may be deemed impossible, since the traditional authority is embodied in feudalism where a servant depends completely on lords (Giddens 1971, p. 90). Charismatic authority A charismatic leader aims at inspiring others, and such leadership is based on the perceived extraordinary characteristics of a person. A charismatic leader can be perceived as the head of a social movement instilled with supernatural or divine powers. Weber believed the charismatic authority played a strong role in the traditional systems. He described charismatic authority to be routinized where orders are traditionalized (Giddens 1971, p. 91). Legal-rational authority The authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of natural/rational law and legal law. In such authority, obedience is not accorded to a specific person, but it is based on uniform principles. Such governance is normally found in modern states, public and private corporations. According to Weber, the development of the modern state is equivalent to the modern bureaucratic and officialdom organizations. However, Weber pointed out that no authority can be regarded as exclusively bureaucratic, since some positions can be held by various charismatic leaders. On the other hand, the non-bureaucratic legal authority may be found in organizations with strong rotating officers, like the committee and parliamentary administration (Joseph 2006, p. 78). The Inter-relationships The theory of authority by Weber can be considered very intricate and rich. The authority types reviewed can be re-enforced using traits that differentiate them. Traditional authority can be considered impersonal and non-rational, unlike the charisma, which is dynamic, and the legal-rational that is impersonal and dynamic. A particular authority may lose the power in various ways. The evolutionary ideals may be advocated by a charismatic leader, or a rational pursuit of the ends through abstract formal principals that can weaken the authority. The revolutionary movements may be crystallized into bureaucratized or traditional order, or into a rational formal organization. The irrational forces and traditional powers can weaken the legal rational authority. The categories of authority do not exist just for the sake of classification of history, but are embedded in a wide range of concepts. The three examples of authority outlined by Weber match up with the three inequality categories of status groups, parties and class. The traditional authority acts as the basis of the status groups. The charismatic authority relates to the marketing scheme, hence the outcome of the class, while the legal-rational authority relates to parties, especially among the bureaucracies (Giddens 1971, p. 91). Application in contemporary society The various authority types Weber described in the theory of authority can be observed in modern politics. For instance, most powers use one type of authority or another in projecting a sense of urgency, when they need to mobilise the population of their countries to either attack or defend against their enemies. In such charismatic authority, the subordinates have high likelihood of trusting their leaders on whatever move they make (Worsley 1982, p. 56). The traditional authority, as described by Weber, acts as basis for defense against invasion in most tribal countries. In rational and legal authority, the institutions give the leaders persuasive ability, with the executive and legislative branches being highly influential. The traditionally-legitimated norms with historic precedent and legitimacy are found in the predilection for certain types of organizations, like the use of the affinity groups. However, some individual anarchists have swaying power that approaches the charismatic authority, but falls short due to general leadership repulsion (Mueller and Max 1982, p. 151). Weber’s ideal types of authority can still be observed today in light of the increasing wars that involve the non-state actors: the Arab Spring, Iraq war and the Syrian Civil War. According to critiques, the characteristics of the recent wars have disrupted the state monopoly which can neither be exercised nor maintained. This ties the state monopoly concept to the concept of violence. Arguing on the confines of Weber’s definition, such states can be considered as failed states or undergoing the transition phase regarding the state. Karl Max According to Karl Marx, people live in a world with uneven distribution of power, resources, life prospects and wealth, mainly due to capitalism. Such maldistribution, as noted by Marx, reflects the inconceivable desert measures or distributive justice. This arises from market characterized by oligopolies and monopolies, cronyism and bought political influence that is self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. The political institutions lay in the hands of those who benefited from the inequality. According to Karl Marx, the society does not comprise a totality of individuals but is an organic whole which constitutes and creates an individual. For him, no individual rights supersede the social rights. The alienation of workers can be expressed in laws of political economy, where despite the worker producing a lot, the amount to consume remains low (Roth and Max 2012, p. 306). Introduction to Marx’s political theory Marx developed the economic theory under the rubric of the critique for political economy. Marxism is interwoven with the formation of different Marxism trends constructed on the basis of contradictory and opposed deductions and theoretical principles. Such a contradiction can be interpreted partly by its revolutionary and conflictual character. This is because it is constituted as critique from the established social and economic order and other ruling forms of ideology aiming to consolidate it. The development of the theory is at the same time affected by political conjuncture and schismatic and conflicting views. The Marxist theory outlines the class struggle between the low and high income earners. It defines a class by relating the members to means of production. Bourgeois and proletariat relate to the two classes; Bourgeois refers to the upper class while proletariat refers to the peasants. Marx holds that the upper class benefits from the proletariat labour (Lassman 2006, p. 478). Since the start of civilization, ordinary men and most leaders have been pondering different options for the society to follow so as to achieve an ideal organization. Government can be defined as a process of governing people and controlling public administration in a political unit. Marxism has been considered as the largest political movement of governing society. The theory appraises communism as a mode of government and is largely affiliated to socialism (Lassman 2006, p. 479). Currently, there has been a new class of people that relates to struggle and production. Societies arise to the established forms of production after the new classes win power. Such a doctrine can be referred to as historical materialism. Since time immemorial, the hard working class has also had less to show for their work. There has been the prevalence of taking the rightfully belonging thing from someone by higher powers. There is always a group that takes dominance on others. According to Marx and Engels, such an authority can be made effective through an uprising. In this case, the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie and install a socialist rule. Such a rule evolves into communist rule that creates an equal society. Marx argued that, in an equal society, there will be no need for classes. He contended that the private property should benefit every person, because people will work together for a common good, and there would be no need for private ownership as all people will be equal. In politics, private ownership had been embraced, but according to Marx, such an ownership causes social tensions and causes many problems in the society. He noted that the success of the uprising depends on violence and swiftness, with their death as the surest way to win. He noted that proletarians must be class-conscious and realize the problems caused by such social classes in the society. (Treiber 2011, p. 139). Political Criticism by Marx Egalitarianism is a political notion used by Marx in his criticism of political authority. In his view, when people claim that justice requires equal treatment of people, the assumption is that such actions involve the political state. The Bourgeois equality notion is the equality before the law. Marx notes that the distribution in terms of rights of the people applies after narrow horizon of the crossing of bourgeois right in entirety. He developed a confrontation with Hegel where Marx challenged his philosophy on status quo. He had two conceptions; political state and direct democracy. In his bourgeois theory, Marx outlined that, in a civil society, the individual citizens pursue their interests in competition at the expense of the proletariat citizens. In the state, people pursue only their personal interests. The state demands that the civil society could act as limiting factor to the competition through declaration of some form of competition as illegal. Also, the state should provide a basic framework through which competition takes place (Lewis 2010, p. 58). Therefore, the state in this case must guarantee equal rights to all the citizens. Marx attacked vehemently Hegel theory that considered the nation to act as a neutral arbiter serving in order to enhance the realization of individual freedom. In this way, Marx considered the state as a sphere for social life, separate from and opposed to the civil society. Such a contradiction between state and the civil society, for Marx, divides against itself when the function of government is performed against the society. He noted that judiciary and police do not represent the society that administers its universal interests. The bureaucrats performing the state activities use general powers from the state in pursuing their own interests in the state hierarchy. He noted that for individual bureaucrats, the purpose of the state acts as the sole private purpose in hunt for careerism and promotion. Participation of the private individuals in the state activities does not affect the individuals from class distinctions which constitute the civil society. Rather, people engage in political life with the class distinctions that become established as the political distinctions (Joseph 2006, p. 79). In the elaboration of the contradictory position of state bureaucrats, the political sphere was simultaneously denounced on its competitive and hierarchical relations to realize the general interests of the citizenry. This disposes transparency and social equality appropriate for general interest and democracy. The basic conception by Marx is that it should be differentiated from representative democracy where the representatives have the real power. The separation of the civil state from the political state parts the deputies from the electors. The society disputes elements of political existence. The formal contradiction involves the civil society deputies holding the positions for electors by commission or instruction. On the other hand, material contradiction involves representation of actual interests of the representatives in public affairs (Joseph 2003, p. 34). In the reiteration, Marx identifies the material contradiction in the commissioning of the members of atomized and divided civil society. From a formal perspective, deputies can derive their mandate from popular masses after their election. This is distinct from the vision by Marx where the society administers its universal interests. In his theory, efforts by civil society in transforming itself into a political society may manifest itself through achievement of the legislature. He pointed that the political society and the spiritual society are alike, but the state opposes the civil society and must overcome it the same way as the profane world is alike overcome by the religion (Marx and Friedrich 1959, p. 123). According to Marx, the political state can be considered as a modern product of bourgeois relations. However, he noted that the state will tend to separate itself from the civil society. Marx never held any instrumental view of the state as an apparatus for different social classes. His bourgeois expression of interest in a divided society gives a general force to the private property. He argues that the proletariat must represent their general interest in overthrowing of the old society and transforming the classes. This does not only equalize the society but it overthrows the social class relationships worldwide. In his definition of the state, he asserted that a state comprises of people where the ruling class holds a common interest. Nonetheless, any state required legislation and justice. From the definition, it is clear that class rule and state are coterminous. Therefore, the state can be defined as a class where individuals organize themselves nationally to express the average interests through emancipation of the private property from community. In this way, the state serves as a separate entity. The participation of the popular governing class is critical in routing the rational, planned economy and the abolition of the bourgeois civil society (Marx 1970, p. 27). Proletarian Dictatorship According to Marx, a political act comprises overthrowing the ruling power and dissolving the old order. Lack of revolution may hinder socialism. The emergence of distinct transition to socialism enhances understanding of the political power. In this case, the working class substitutes the old civil society and excludes classes with their antagonism. According to Marx, all political movements must be social in nature. The proletarian power is social with the power taking the political form during the transition process to socialism; the antagonisms in civil society are not abolished. This implies the political rule of working class without any existence of the transitional period. This period is characterized by revolutionary change. The proletarian state power aims at bringing production into a common ownership in order to bring expropriation of expropriators (Weber 2000, p. 49). Marx termed proletarian dictatorship a state free of slavery, camouflage or open inconceivable enemies. This means that proletarian gains enough strength to use the general means of force in the struggle against them economically privileged class. Therefore, through revolution, proletarian can raise to governing class. In current society, such a statement can be quite striking but Marx subtly conveys the radical conception of the proletarian democracy. Such a proclamation is distinct from the bourgeois state as Marx implies that working class uses general coercion in enforcing its aims. This means that the authority must assert the class interests of the alienated class through abolition of private property and expropriation of capitalists to enhance socialization as a meaning of production. In this case, Marx implies that workers must take part in the struggle against the bourgeois state through eternal principals. Proletarian dictatorship can, therefore, be used to refer to political power of the armed working class. For Marx, workers power implies particular leadership at helm of the state (Marx and Allen 1988, p. 67). Conclusion Max Weber and Karl Marx have had different views on political authority. Weber described three forms of authority; charismatic, traditional and legal-rational, while Karl Marx describes the proletarian and bourgeois authority. As portrayed in the paper, the two conceptions of authority are prevalent in the contemporary societies, where good authority is portrayed through charismatic and proletarian leadership and bad authority is normally related to bourgeois and traditional leadership. The legal rational authority has been portrayed as a common form of authority among most governments. Modern societies have been said to depend on legal authorities for their constitutions. Karl Marx views that people live in a world with uneven distribution of power and resources mostly due to political influences. He believed that an organization comprises of an organic whole that creates and constitutes an individual. References List Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Joseph, J. (2003). Social Theory: Conflict, Cohesion and Consent. Edinburgh, Edinburgh UP. Joseph, J. (2006). Marxism and Social Theory. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Lassman, P. (2006). Max Weber. Aldershot, Hampshire, England, Ashgate Publishing. Lewis, S. (2010). Commodity Fetishism. W. Somerville, MA, Červená Barva. Marx, K. (1970). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York, International. Marx, K. and Allen, W. W. (1988). Marx Selections. New York, Macmillan. Marx, K. and Friedrich, E. (1959). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow, Foreign Languages Pub. House. Mueller, G, H., and Max, W. (1982). Socialism and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber. The British Journal of Sociology 33(2), p. 151. Roth, G. and Max, W. (2012). History and Sociology in the Work of Max Weber. The British Journal of Sociology 27(3), p. 306. Treiber, H. (2011). Zu Max Webers „Rechtssoziologie“. Rezensionsessay Zu: Max Weber, Max Weber-Gesamtausgabe, Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft. Die Wirtschaft Und Die Gesellschaftlichen Ordnungen Und Mächte. Nachlass. Teilband 3: Recht, Herausgegeben Von Werner Gephart Und Siegfried Hermes (MWG I/22-3), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sociologial Internationalis 49(1), p. 139-55. Weber, M. (2000). Max Weber. Santa Fe, NM, Gerald Peters Gallery. Worsley, P. (1982). Marx and Marxism. Chichester, E. Horwood. Read More