Comparison of Marx and Tocqueville and Weber Analysis of State - Literature review Example

ical Social Theory Marx considered the to be a product of society at a certain phase of development, in which the state became entangled within an inexplicable contradiction with itself, as well as conflicting antagonisms that it finds powerless to discard. The executive of the modern state is fundamentally a committee for managing the shared affairs of the bourgeoisie. Tocqueville, on the other hand, viewed aristocracy and democracy as two social states, two forms of society that exclude each other. Although, Weber was unsuccessful in developing a systematic theory of state, Weber viewed the state as a political organization that perpetuates domination. The three core concepts of politics shaping the state, namely: politics seeking state control, distribution of power, and politics as a struggle. The state is considered the most powerful institution within society, embodying its own interest and acting independently to herald social change. The paper explores how Marx, Tocqueville and Weber examined the concept of state within their works. How Marx, Tocqueville and Weber talk about the state in their analyses Introduction Karl Marx largely described the world in economic terms, especially with regard to the dichotomous character of capitalist societies and the associated deterministic nature. Marx’s ideas regarding the state can be divided into three core areas, namely: pre-capitalist states, states within the capitalist era, and the state within post-capitalist society. According to Marx, the power enjoyed by the state leads anarchism, in which the state is the repressive arm of the bourgeoisie and is also an instrument for the ruling class (Marx, Engels, & McLellan, 1992). The society is cast in largely materialistic in nature, whereby the state exists to direct the affairs of the bourgeoisie and does not necessarily stand for the overall interests of the whole population. Hence, the state exists only to defend the interests of property, which is largely held by the bourgeoisie. Tocqueville, in his book, Democracy in America, explored the burgeoning democratic order in the US in an effort to help people of France gain an appreciation of their position between weakening aristocratic order and rising democratic order. Tocqueville recognized the significance of a strong system of values and beliefs that elevate individual freedom to sustain democratic society free of class and outlined four forms of power, namely: economic, social, cultural, and ideological. Tocqueville highlighted significant cultural and social homogeneity between middle and upper classes: bourgeoisie and aristocracy. Tocqueville, as a liberal theorist, rooted for the cultivation and sustenance of liberty as based on the balance among the liberal, republican, and statist institutional arrangements (Tocqueville, 2010). Max Weber divided the society into diverse strata by highlighting the diverse strata other than class. Although, Weber borrowed heavily from Marx’s writings, he embraced a critical approach and contested majority of Marx’s ideas, especially ideas relating to the modern state. Therefore, a state can be conceived as a political entity that has managed to diffuse into people’s lives, but it is not the only determinant. He defined the state as relation of men controlling men or a relation that is sustained by means of legitimate (regarded as legitimate). The administrative apparatuses are regarded as the primary state institutions, which represent huge network of organization that are operated by appointed officials. Comparison of Marx, Tocqueville and Weber Analysis of State According to Marx, an affiliation manifests between individuals who direct the state and those who possess and control the means of production (means of economic activity) (Marx, Engels, & McLellan, 1992). Both the economic and political realm work in concert, but tend to remain distinct from one another. Weber conceptualized the world in the same way as Marx, but significantly downplayed the scope of class power. Weber was opposed to Marx’s notion that forms of state organization were not a direct outcome of class activities. He also argued that it is impossible and irrational to minimize classes to economic relations since it only represents on element of struggle for power. Weber rejected any form of socialism and what he considered to be economic reductionism manifest in Marxist theory; however, he also retained some elements of a materialist methodology. Weber viewed power as representative of the will, and his perception of politics and society as being increasingly rationalized. Similarly, Tocqueville downplayed the significance of class conflict and class. Nevertheless, is essential to recognize that he did not discard the significance of economics, but disregarded the economic reductionism, which stipulates that economic power is the absolute origin of social power. Tocqueville in his idealism and hope projected democratic societies, but also a society of master and slave. The notion of upper and lower classes can be cited as the closest that Marx and Tocqueville in their understanding of society and class. According to Marx, the state is forced to take over and direct ever significant portions of the economy (Marx, 1959). As a result, the capitalist state tends to annex the capitalists, which in itself does not eliminate capitalism, but lays the ground for capture of state power and means of production by workers. However, he did acknowledge that the solution for such state of affairs in which the state exists to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie would be democracy, which would demand more that political emancipation to deliver human liberation. Weber, on the other hand, viewed mass democracy as being accompanied by bureaucracy and the resultant strength of career officials in political parties. Tocqueville envisioned democracy as a social state, a crucial assumption of political democracy and perceived that democracy required individuals who were economically self-sufficient (Tocqueville, 1972). Tocqueville conceived industrial bourgeoisie as the new aristocracy or constituting a new class. In his analysis, Tocqueville mentioned two diverse revolutions, namely: political and social revolution. Weber stipulated that the state, as a structure of command and control, can only gain stability if its subjects subscribe to its legitimacy. Weber argued that the state should be viewed in light of stable or uniform sovereignty, which should be approached in terms of both political and symbolic representation. He also noted that the rise of mass organization functioned as fertile ground for bureaucracy and yielded to the centralization of all power within the hands of few. Weber was also concerned that mass democracy would trigger irrational and emotional forces that would herald to power demagogues such as left-wing socialists. Weber rooted for representative institutions that carry the possibility of moderating the outcomes of universal suffrage. Weber viewed a properly responsible Parliament would be an obstacle to demagoguery and bureaucracy. Both democracy and bureaucracy were linked to the eradication of irrational social and economic privilege and had strong affinities for advanced capitalism. However, democracy was inclined to minimize rule by a “closed group of individuals” and highlight the power of public opinion and charismatic leaders. Hence, Weber felt that, democracy would inevitably clash with the bureaucratic inclinations. This combines the elements of bureaucracy in both administrative and procedural terms. Contrasting of Marx, Tocqueville and Weber Analysis of State Marx stipulated that, the social inequality (class society) persisted, despite “sovereignty of the people” and real democracy was impossible. The highest form of the state centers on the democratic republic where the capitalist class exercises power indirectly. However, such a system knows little of property distinctions. The precondition for the socialist revolution centered on democratic revolution or the conquest of political democracy. Marx, as a socialist figure, embraced the idea of socialist state. Tocqueville, on the other hand, rooted for a democratic state typified by system of checks and balances within the government in which power ought to be checked by power to ensure that no institution gains absolute power, inclusive of a dominant economic class. Tocqueville contended that there must be strong commitment by the people to utilize and depend on voluntary organizations and local institutions (Tocqueville, 2010). The liberty to form and utilize political and civil associations to attain collective and individual goals aids to prevent the transition to dictatorship of a tyrant of a class. Such associations project themselves between the state and the individual, which aids in the creation of public spirit in which individuals, classes, or groups utilize their own efforts to get thing done. Marx stipulated that, overall; the state is directed by the economically dominant group that allows it to sustain control over the alienated classes. According to Marx, the state derived from the urge to maintain class antagonism in check, but simultaneously is situated in the midst of the classes, as a mode of sustaining the interests of the most powerful, economically prominent class that becomes the politically dominant class (Marx, 1959). Weber declined to embrace the notion of a state that is guided by economic liberalism in which markets are self-generating and self-producing. Tocqueville also failed to appreciate that those enjoying control over the means of production possess some form of power, which can be converted into other modes of domination (Tocqueville, 2010). Marx also held that, in a capitalist society, the state is simply an instrument exploited by the ruling class owing to their ownership and control of the means of production. This makes the ruling class to be politically dominant class furthering the oppression of the lower classes. Certain structural constraints of the capitalist system perpetuate policies furthering the accumulation and reproduction of capital; as such, the state exists for the perpetuation of capital, rather than capitalist (Engels & Marx, 1969). Weber declined to associate the rise of the modern state to capitalism asserting that it is not the outcome of capitalism. Conversely, the state existed before and aided the promotion of capitalist development. Similarly, Tocqueville considered the aristocratic way of life to be the very antithesis of royal centralization, in which Tocqueville conceptualized medieval history as representing a struggle between aristocratic centralization and local liberty. Weber noted that, an essential condition for an entity to be a state centers on retaining such a monopoly. The definition of state details a something is a “state” provided that its administrative staff effectively upholds a declaration on the monopoly of the legitimate utilization of violence within the enforcement of its order. Weber asserted that the role of the state centers on maintaining order, defense of private property, and furthering of economic interests. Marx, on the other hand, stipulated that the capitalist state usually acts autonomously to sustain and safeguard the social order that the economically dominant class profits (Marx, 1853). Hence, on the core functions of the state centers on the regulation of class conflict and guarantee that the stability of the social order. Marx considers the state to represent part of the “superstructure” of the society. Marx divided the human society into material base (foundation) and superstructure that rests on the structure. The base comprises of instruments of production (raw materials, tools, machines), the social classes, primarily the exploiting and working classes of the society and the connection between the classes. The superstructure comprises of political and cultural institutions such as schools and the state, in which the state is regarded as a core element of the superstructure. Weber was highly concerned about the basis of power and its rising concentration within modern society that he considered the outcome of urbanization, commercial capital, and growing agglomeration. Bureaucracy formed part of an apparatus of control and considered state power as representing the ultimate power. The notion of power in this case represents an entity with sovereignty and the notion of the state as an administrative apparatus exercising authority from a center. In contrast to Marx, Weber viewed state power as both irremovable and proliferating. Marx also held that the nature of the material base of any society (mode of production) shapes the nature of the superstructure, which implies that the development of the base informs the evolution of the state. According to Marx, the sum total of the relations between the means of production make up the economic structure of the society on which the political and legal superstructure, which shapes social consciousness (Marx, 1853). Nevertheless, despite the state being an instrument of the economically dominant class, the conflicting classes usually balance each other making the state somehow independent. In such cases, the state acts as a mediator between the classes, this makes the state independent from influence by its various players. As such, the state can be a factor of cohesion in the social formation. This thought is also shared by Tocqueville, who ardently supported liberty or equality; he admitted that modern democracy may pose the risk of inventing new modes of tyranny since radical equality could yield to the materialism of a bloating bourgeoisie and to the selfishness posed by individualism. Conclusion Marx viewed the state as the perfect collective capitalist or capitalist machine that personifies the total national capital. Tocqueville, on the other hand, conceived a democratic society as a society made up of independent people that is aligned by bonds of solidarity, as it no longer categorized into classes. The latter interpreted the capitalist economic structure within the United States as based on egalitarian and democratic values, eventually yielding to a society informed by a disappearance of classes. Weber viewed the state as an entity that manifests a delegatable monopoly on the justifiable utilization of physical force. He also offered a realistic model of the state based on political realism, while Marx offered an instrumentalist model of the state. Weber viewed the state as dominated by bureaucracy typified by hierarchy of offices, division of labor, and depersonalized decision making informed by the employment of abstract rules. He also viewed the state as a structurally precise and historically distinct organization of the control of men over men. As such, it can be argued that it only Tocqueville who cast the state in positive light and who did not view the state as perpetuating domination by the ruling class. References Marx, K. (1853). The British Rule in India. New York Daily Tribune. MECW Vol. 12, 125. Tocqueville, A. (1972). Democracy in America, Vol.2. New York, NY: Knopf Tocqueville, A. (2010). Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition, Vol.1. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Marx, K., Engels, F., & McLellan, D. (1992). The Communist Manifesto. Oxford, UK: OUP Oxford. Marx, K. (1959). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. (M. Milligan, Trans.). Moscow: Progress Publishers. Engels, F. & Marx, K. (1969). Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy. (W. Lough, Trans.). Moscow: Progress Publishers. Read More