Understanding Marxist and Weberian Definitions of the State

Prompt

Based on your readings of Marx and Weber, how would you conceptualize the State? Between the two theorists, whose definition of state do you resonate with the most and why – analyze critically.

Directions:

1. Write your answer with at least 5 connections to the class lecture and/or assigned materials (5X10 = 50 points). Your essay must have a relevant title and a clear thesis statement (10 points).

2. Write 3-5 double-spaced pages in Times New Roman font 12.

3. You must add references following the APA formatting (mentioning the last name of the author with publication year in parenthesis in-text AND a separate reference page). (10 points)

4. Overall argument and organization of the essay = 20 points

5. Grammar and spelling = 10 points

Context of the

Brumaire

A historical materialistic analysis by Marx

the aftermath of French Revolution of 1789

the period from 1789 to 1848 – the

Age of Revolution (by Eric Hobsbawm)

an era marked by social upheaval and

political turbulenceThe Three Notable Periods

The revolutionary era encompassing

the French Revolution and the

Napoleonic Wars which disseminated

revolutionary ideas across Europe.

17891815

The restoration, in which the old regime

comes roaring back marked by the

Congress of Vienna to the establishment

of the so-called July Monarchy.

18151830

The July Monarchy a classical liberal

constitutional monarchy replacing the

preceding conservative monarchy.

18301848Marxist Take

Marx interprets those last two periods in

terms of class dynamics.

He sees the restoration (1815-1830) itself

as a revenge of the landed aristocracy.

He interprets the July Monarchy (1830-

1848) as a bourgeois monarchy, with its

social basis rooted in high finance.Social and

Economic

Background

The other thing to consider is the

immediate background of the 1840s

which is the first big railway

boom. The European railway

network is being built out, and

toward the end of the 1840s, theres

a classic crisis of overproduction and

a sharp cyclical downturn with

deteriorating conditions of wages

and employment. Its what sets the

stage for the 1848 uprising itself…In

February of 1848, amid escalating

levels of this popular suffering, a

widespread uprising against the July

Monarchy erupted.

Interview with Dylan Riley,

Revisiting Marxs Eighteenth Brumaire

Image Source:

https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/363028/view/railway-construction-19th-centuryMARX, KARL. THE

EIGHTEENTH BRUMAIRE OF

LOUIS BONAPARTE, IN THE

MARX-ENGELS READER,

EDITED BY ROBERT TUCKER.

NEW YORK: W.W. NORTON.

In picture: Louis Bonaparte

Source:

https://www.napoleon-empire.org/en/personalities/louis_bonaparte.phpKnow the Class Divisions

Group Who they are Political Name Their Goal

Landed Aristocracy

Old wealthy landowners Bourgeoisie Return to the Bourbon Monarchy (pre-1789 style).

Finance Capital Big bankers/financiers Bourgeoisie Return to Louis Philippes constitutional monarchy.

Industrialists

Factory owners Bourgeoisie Stability for business; they hated the bankers but feared the workers

more.

The Party of Order

A bourgeosie “coalition of fear” The Party of Order A temporary alliance of Landlords and Industrialists to crush the

Left.

Petty Bourgeoisie

Shopkeepers/small business

owners

The Montagne A “Social Democracy” that reconciles classes.

Proletariat

Urban workers The Socialists Radical social reform and “The Social Republic”.

Peasantry

Small landholders Bonapartists They want a “strong man” to protect their small farms.Act I: The

“Social

Republic”

(Feb May

1848)

Main Actors:

The Proletariat (Workers)

The Petty Bourgeoisie (Small shopkeepers and

business owners)

The Industrialists (Factory Owners)

What did they want?

To oust King Louis Phillippe from power.

Why did they want that?

The industrialists wanted electoral reform – to

expand voting rights among themselves and to

take power away from the bankers and

financiers who dominated France under King

Louis Philippe.

The proletariat wanted to establish a social

republic, bring about major social reforms

and justice for laborers.

The Petty Bourgeoisie wanted more political

rights.Act I: The “Social

Republic” (Feb May

1848)

What was the actual outcome?

Soon the classed were in

conflict.

Under the underdeveloped

material conditions, mass

education, and unadvanced

social development, a worker-

friendly social republic became

impossible to achieve.

A provisional coalition

government was formed, but

nobody wanted to commit to

anything long-term.

The royalists and capitalists

started rebuilding and growing

popularity. Image Source:

https://www.structural-learning.com/post/conflict-theoryAct II: The

“Bourgeois

Republic”

(May 1848

May 1849)

Main Actors:

The Bourgeoisie

The Proletariat

What did they want?

To constitute a National Assembly representing

France as a whole, not only the revolutionary

Paris.

What did actually happen?

This Assembly quickly moved to limit the

radicalism of the February days,

They contained the revolution within bourgeois

(middle-class) interests

The Parisian Proletariat saw this Assembly as a

threat and tried to dissolve it

This uprising is called the June Insurrection, it

was brutally crushed

Over 3,000 were killed and 15,000 deported

without trial

The Proletariat lost their main leaders, were

weakened and politically defeatedAct II: The “Bourgeois Republic” (May 1848

May 1849)

The Consequence:

The bourgeois power was now secure; the republic had become a dictatorship

of one class. (the bourgeoisie) over all others. (p.602)

The bourgeois republic became a tool to maintain property, family, religion,

and order

Ironically, these slogans were used to: crush workers, silence liberals, reformers,

and even moderate republicans; arrest or exile anyone slightly left leaning.

This turned France into a police state, enforcing bourgeois power at gunpoint.

Even bourgeois republicans (the so-called party of order) became victims of

their own regime: their homes were raided; they were shot at from balconies;

their press silenced, laws destroyedall in the name of order.Act III: The

Rise of the

Strongma

n (1849

1851)

Main Actors:

The bourgeoisie

The petty bourgeoisie

Luis Bonaparte

What did they want?

The bourgeoisie wanted full power and so

established the parliamentary republic.

Though united, two of these factions within the

bourgeoisie, the landlords and industrialists,

maintained a perpetual state of intrigue against

one another.

In Marxs claim: each of the two great interests into

which the bourgeoisie is splitlanded property and

capitalsought to restore its own supremacy and

the subordination of the other (p.611).

Marx argues that only the democratic republic

allows the different factions of the capitalist class to

co-exist in a peaceful manner and to put the

interests of the class as a whole above the

sectional interests of any particular group of

capitalists. (p.603)

The democratic republic appeared but collapsed

quickly with the retreat of the petty bourgeoisie.Act III: The Rise of the

Strongman (1849 1851)

Why did they want Luis Bonaparte?

The factions worried about the conditions necessary for the serious business under constant political

turmoil.

According to Marx, the bourgeoisie was afraid of the emergence of the socialist ideal.

It wanted to sacrifice the democratic republic to maintain a state of social peace.

Then came the parliamentary republic, which gave full power to the bourgeoisie.

But that too was buried by Louis Bonapartes coup on December 2, 1851.

What did actually happen?

When Bonaparte rose to power, he used these same tools against the bourgeoisie:

He had their own bourgeois citizens shot from their balconies on Dec 4.

Their press was censored, salons surveilled, and National Guard dissolved.

The Church took over education, and the bourgeoisie were exiled or imprisoned without trial.

Bonaparte plundered their wealth while silencing their political voice.The Rule

Under

Louis

Bonaparte

(1848

1870 )

Who supported Bonaparte and how did he

treat them?

A. Small-Holding Peasantry

Bonaparte derived his support from the

small-holding peasantry.

They associated the glory days of their

class with the rule of Napoleon and so his

nephew, Bonaparte.

Bonaparte claimed to represent and

protect the peasantry, but the reality was

different.

They had to pay taxes only to fund the

bureaucracy that gave them nothing in

return.

Instead of foreign invasion, the domestic

debt collectors and tax agents became the

real threat to peasant property.

The bourgeoisie, through capital and

finance, were exploiting the peasants just

as much as the aristocracy once did.The Rule Under Bonaparte (1848 1870 )

(Contd.)

B. Middle-class Bourgeoisie

Bonaparte presented himself as the protector of the middle class, yet he was only in power

because he destroyed their political strength.

The churches and the religious leaders turned into the watchdogs of bureaucracy instead of

divinity and religion.

The army became a degraded form of its former self.

It was made of poor substitutes from the lumpenproletariat instead of heroic peasants.

Its purpose was to suppress the people, not defend them, conducting gendarme-like policing

rather than valiant warfare.

The bourgeoisie told the proletariat: Flee, be silent, keep quiet. Now, Bonaparte says the same

thing to them.

Bonaparte completely turned against the bourgeoisie who wanted to see him in power and

erased their political agency.The Rule Under Bonaparte (1848

1870 ) (Contd.)

C. The Lumpenproletariat (Pp.601, 603, 615)

Bonapartes loyalists were the lumpenproletariat and adventurers:

Vagabonds and Discharged Soldiers: People who have been cut loose

from traditional institutions.

The Marginalized: Discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers,

mountebanks, and pickpockets.

The Unemployed/Unemployable: Rag-pickers, knife-grinders, and

beggars.

This group exploited state institutions for personal profit, using decree and

policy to funnel wealth from the state to them.Key

Takeaways

How would you

explain the legitimacy

of Bonapartes coming

into power?Key

Takeaways

Bonaparte had no true

political legitimacy. Marx calls

him a puppet of drunken

soldiers. (p.603)

Marx sees Bonapartes coup

as a tragic farcethey were

trying to repeat the glories of

the French Revolution but

ended up delivering power to

a parody of Napoleon.Key

Takeaways

(Contd.)

The real danger is not just in the

person of Bonaparte, but in the

centralized state power that

makes his rule possible. True

revolution must smash this

bureaucratic-military machine,

not simply change who controls

it. Until then, society will continue

to fall under “the despotism of an

individual without authority,

propped up by a silent mass who

cannot speak for themselves.

(p.608)

Marx acutely identifies

the systematic

disjuncture between the

roles that political actors

appear to be playing,

the roles that they

understand themselves

to be playing, and the

actual functions that

they fulfill.Key

Takeaways

(Contd.)

Some liberals like Guizot

claim this whole historical

event as the triumph of

socialism. Do you agree

or disagree?Key

Takeaways

(Contd.)

Marx claims that it was not the triumph

of socialism (p.606). It was instead the

victory of executive power over

legislative power, authority over

representation, military force over

democratic deliberation.

From Marxs perspective, the French

society was underdeveloped.

Theres this large peasantry. Even the

bourgeoisie itself is a state-dependent,

rent-seeking stratum. French

bourgeoisie susceptible to betraying its

historical mission of establishing a

representative state. These historical

factors lead to an isolation of the

French working class.

Interview with Dylan Riley,

Revisiting Marxs Eighteenth Brumair

eKey

Takeaways

(Contd.)

The Eighteenth Brumaire had shown that

the working class could now only play a

revolutionary role when it acted

independently of the bourgeoisie.

The interests of the peasants are no

longer…in accord with, but are now in

opposition to bourgeois interests, to

capital, Marx wrote. Hence they find

their natural ally and leader in the urban

proletariat, whose task it is to overthrow

the bourgeois order. (p.611-612)Key

Takeaways

(Contd.)

Another lesson is the importance of class

alliances.

For the working class to emerge as an

effective political force, it must articulate

its interests as the interests of the nation.

And, in a sense, to use a Gramscian term,

thats the way that the working class can

make a claim to hegemony.

The last thing thats going on is the reality

of the state. In the case of The Eighteenth

Brumaire, the reality of the state comes

forward as the final guarantor of the

existing order. Marxs argument is that its

precisely the class struggle that can make

or break a strong state order.

Interview with Dylan Riley,

Revisiting Marxs Eighteenth Brumaire

Marx begins from a materialist

conception of history, arguing that

social change is driven by conflict

between economic classes.

The history of all hitherto existing society

is the history of class struggles. (p.473)I. History as

Class

Struggle

Society is structured by antagonisms

between:

Bourgeoisie (owners of capital)

Proletariat (wage laborers)

These conflicts are not moral or

ideological accidents; they are rooted

in material relations of production.How does Marx –

Define the history of politics

Critique capitalism

Critique bourgeoisie state

Conceptualize the proletariat future?II. Capitalism as

ExploitativeII. Capitalism

as

Exploitative

A system based on the exploitation

of labor.

Workers do not own the means of

production and must sell their

labor power to survive.

The worker becomes all

the poorer the more

wealth he produces, the

more his production

increases in power and

range. (p.71)

The bourgeoisie extracts surplus

value from workers:

Capital is dead labour,

that, vampire-like, only

lives by sucking living

labour. (p.362)

Thus, capitalism is inherently unequal and unstable.How does Marx –

Define the history of politics

Critique capitalism

Critique bourgeoisie state

Conceptualize the proletariat future?III. The

Bourgeois

State as a

Class

InstrumentIII. The

Bourgeois

State as a

Class

Instrument

Marx does not see the state as neutral or

autonomous. Instead, it serves the interests

of the ruling class.

The executive of the modern state is but a

committee for managing the common affairs

of the whole bourgeoisie. (p.475)

Law, politics, and institutions exist primarily to

protect private property and capitalist

accumulation.

This is a class-instrumentalist view of the

state.How does Marx –

Define the history of politics

Critique capitalism

Critique bourgeoisie state

Conceptualize the proletariat future?IV. The

Proletariat as a

Revolutionary

ClassThe

Proletariat as

a

Revolutionary

Class

Marx argues that capitalism produces its own

gravediggers.

What the bourgeoisie therefore produces,

above all, are its own grave-diggers. (p.483)

The proletariat, through collective struggle,

will overthrow capitalism and abolish class

society.

The proletarians have nothing to lose but

their chains. They have a world to win. (p.500)How does

Weber critique

Marxs political

concepts?Core

Theoretical

Contrast

Marx

(Manifesto) Weber (Socialism)

Capitalism collapses

Proletariat unifies

Crisis revolution Crisis

Class rule ends

State = bourgeois

instrument State =Core

Theoretical

Contrast

Marx

(Manifesto) Weber (Socialism)

Capitalism collapses Capitalism reorganizes

Proletariat unifies Labor fragments

Crisis revolution Crisis regulation

Class rule ends Officialdom expands

State = bourgeois

instrument

State = bureaucratic

apparatusCollapse of

Capitalism?

Marx predicts:

the progressive concentration of capital

the disappearance of the bourgeois class.

Weber challenges this prediction empirically:

The simple shrinking of the number of

entrepreneurs does not exhaust all the possibilities of the

process. (p.29)

Instead of vanishing, capitalism reorganizes itself:

Through joint-stock companies

Appointed managers

Expanding bureaucraciesCollapse of

Capitalism?

Weber shows that ownership and control will separate.

the number of “appointees”, i.e. of a bureaucracy of private

enterprise. These people, whose interests are far from being on the side of a

proletarian dictatorship, are increasing many times faster than the

workers. (p.29)

The bourgeoisie does not disappear; it mutates into:

Managerial elites

Rentiers

Financial controllersProletariat

Unifies?

Marx predicted increasing proletarianization and class unity.

Weber observes the opposite:

Occupational specialization and technical training are on the

increase rather than diminishing. (p.33)

Instead of one homogeneous working class, capitalism produces:

o Skilled technicians

o Foremen

o Salaried professionals

o Managers

o AdministratorsProletariat

Unifies?

These groups:

o Are wage-dependent

o But do not identify as proletarian

o Seek class distinction, not solidarity

Nothing is further from the minds of these people than

solidarity with the proletariat…All of them strive after at least

similar “class” (“stMndischen”) qualities, be it for themselves or

for their children. An unequivocal tendency towards

proletarianization cannot be established at present. (p.35)Crisis

produces

revolution

or

regulation?

Marx saw economic crises as revolutionary catalysts. Weber argues

that capitalism has developed stabilizing mechanisms:

Market regulation

Credit control

State intervention

Cartels and trusts

Large banks… proceeded to ensure… that periods of over-

speculation occur in substantially smaller proportions than they did

formerly. (p.30)

Crises no longer automatically radicalize the masses.Class rule

ends: who

rises?

Marx assumes that proletarian rule will replace bourgeois rule.

Weber argues that what is actually emerging is rule by officials:

For the time being, at any rate, it is the dictatorship of the

officials which is on the march and not that of the workers.

(p.32)

Whether in:

State industries

Municipal enterprises

Public administration

Control lies with trained bureaucrats, not workers.

In public industries… it is the official and not the worker who has

complete and absolute control. (p.32)Implications

on the

Definition of

State

Weber replaces Marxs class-based theory of domination

with a bureaucratic theory of domination:

Authority is rooted in expertise

Power is institutionalized

Control flows through administration, not ownership

Rather than collapsing, the capitalist state manages

crises through bureaucratic and financial instruments.

The state becomes a stabilizer, not a casualty.

The state, therefore, cannot be understood simply as a class

instrument. It must be analyzed as a rationalized,

administrative, and autonomous structure

THE PROFESSION AND VOCATION OF POLITICS BY

WEBER

Weber examines the relationship between political power, legitimacy, and the

ethical challenges faced by those who pursue politics as a career in modern

democracies.

He established distinction between those who live for politics versus those who

live from politics.

This distinction is important in the way that it establishes the exercise of politics

as a vocation and as a profession.POLITICS AND STATE

The State is the entity that holds the

monopoly on the legitimate use of physical

force within a territory (1994:310-11)

Politics is defined as the pursuit of power or

the influence over its distribution, whether

this happens between states or among

groups inside of a state.POLITICS AND STATE

The legitimacy of political rule (1994:311-12) rests on three distinct foundations:

I. Traditional Authority: derives its legitimacy from long-established customs and

social patterns.

II. Charismatic Authority: stems from the exceptional personal qualities of a

leader.

III. Legal-rational Authority: characteristic of modern states, is based on

established rules and bureaucratic competence.

This classification is fundamental to understanding Webers notions of political

authority and leadership.EXAMPLE OF

TRADITIONAL

AUTHORITY

Queen Victoria (United

Kingdom)

Victoria embodied

constitutional monarchy

rooted in centuries of

royal tradition.

Her legitimacy came

from:

Hereditary rule

Symbolic continuity

National customEXAMPLE OF

CHARISMATIC

AUTHORITY

Napoleon Bonaparte

(France)

Napoleons authority

stemmed from:

Military genius

Revolutionary symbolism

Personal charisma

He rose outside traditional

monarchy and later

transformed charisma into

imperial rule.EXAMPLE OF

LEGAL-RATIONAL

AUTHORITY

Franklin D. Roosevelt

(FDR) (USA)

Though charismatic,

FDRs leadership during

the Great Depression

relied heavily on:

Law

Bureaucracy

Election

Constitutional mandatePOLITICAL VOCATION AND PROFESSIONALIZATION OF

POLITICS

A unique phenomenon of the modern state: the rise of professional politicians

Weber identifies a historical transformation, where politics evolved from an

occasional pursuit of notables to a full-time job (1994:317). It is

This transformation that creates two distinct types of political engagement: those

who live for politics and those who live from politics (1994:318).WHO LIVE FOR

POLITICS

A person who lives for politics does this because it gives to

their life meaning and purpose:

Anyone who lives for politics ‘makes this his life’ in an

inward (innerlich) sense, either enjoying the naked possession

of the power he exercises or feeding his inner balance and

self-esteem from the sense that he is giving his life meaning

and purpose (Sinn) by devoting it to a cause (Sache).

(1994:318).

This implies that:

economic independence is a prerequisite for a political

vocation.

to pursue a cause, a person must have the material means

to sustain themselves.

politics a luxury, something reserved for the wealthy or

those with private means, which yields an income from which

they can live.W H O LIVE FROM

POLITICS

Professional politicians also

derive their income from

professional political activity and

depend on politics for their

livelihood.

Weber classifies professional

politicians as either prebendaries

or salaried officials.

This process has its historical

roots in the early professional

politicians who served princes as

dedicated servants of political

authority.

They did not seek to be lords

themselves but chose to enter

the service of political rulers,

transforming the execution of

political policies into their

material livelihood (1994:316-19).POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

The professionalization of politics led to fundamental changes in political

organizations.

Political parties evolved from loose associations of notables into

professional bureaucracies (1994:338).

This transformation was particularly evident in the development of mass

democracy, where parties required permanent organizations and professional

staff with fixed salaries to manage these increasingly complex political

operations (bureaucratization).BUREAUCRATIZATION AND MODERN POLITICS

Bureaucratization:

Brings efficiency and rationality to administration,

creates tensions with democratic principles and charismatic leadership.

Bureaucratization emerged when the modern state established its monopoly of

legitimate force, centralizing administrative power and separating officials from the

means of administration.

The bureaucratic apparatus, with its trained officials and standardized procedures,

enables efficient administration of large-scale political systems (1994:332).

Weber observes that bureaucratic administration, while efficient, tends to create what

he terms the dictatorship of the official.KEY TAKEAWAYS

The modern state is defined by its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence

within a territory.

Politics is the pursuit of power or influence over its distribution.

Key qualities necessary for the professional politician: a passion for the cause, a

sense of responsibility, and the ability to maintain judgment despite political

pressures. (1994:352)

Political vocation requires both inner strength and practical capability.KEY TAKEAWAYS

Legitimacy Types: Traditional (custom and historical precedent), Charismatic

(exceptional personal qualities), and Legal-rational (established rules and

procedures).

Institutional Framework: Emphasis on formal structures and bureaucratic

organization, where the professional administration brings in efficiency.

Effective political leadership requires balancing the ethics of conviction and the

ethics of responsibility.THE… [Content truncated to 3000 words]

WRITE MY PAPER