Esssay To Critically Evaluate Two Competing Theories of The State

Esssay to critically evaluate two competing
theories of the state

The essay will compare two conceptions of statehood that have been formative
for political thinking in the twentieth century. Marxism exerted a formidable
influence upon politics insofar as it provided a blueprint for Communist regimes
across the world and a set of ideological principles for building a new type of
society. Pluralism on the other hand articulated a conception of statehood that, at
times, even doubted the existence of an independent set of institutions called state
(Vincent 187; Dunleavy 42).
Both conceptions of the state contain normative as well as descriptive elements

(Vincent 183), and in the course of the essay we need to exercise some caution as to
the exact thrust of the argument put forward by Marxists and Pluralists alike. The
essay will first of all look at Pluralism and then at how Marxists theorise the state.
I Marxism
How do Marxists define the state? Traditionally Marxists prefer an interpretative
approach to the state which owes much to Marx’s critique of capitalism as an
unviable model of economic relationships. For Marx economic structure determine
the nature of social economic and cultural relationships formed in society. The state
was consequently seen as a vehicle to reinforce capitalist modes of production.
Although Marx’s writings permit for some interpretation here (Dunleavy 203), there
can be no doubt that Marxists would emphasise the repressive character of any
state apparatus in society. The state was marked by its functional relationship with
the bourgeoisie whose dominant position within society it was charged to uphold.
Dunleavy distinguishes between three models of the Marxist theory of the state. The
instrumental model runs fairly accurately along the general notion of the state as a
executing agency of the will of the bourgeoisie as mentioned above. The arbiter
model permits theorists to accommodate a more autonomous role for the state
within society. Marx highlighted here the role of the state bureaucracy in particular
as a group where autonomous actions could possibly originate.
However even so, the overall effect even of these attempts at formulating a set of
interests that are specific to the bureaucrats of the state apparatus is still one of
reinforcing the power of the bourgeoisie in society. (Dunleavy 210). The third model
views the state in functional terms and stresses that it is best understood as a
‘means of co-ordinating the social organisation of the complex division of labour’
(Dunleavy 210). Given that the division of labour is a prerequisite for the
maintenance of bourgeois dominance in capitalist society and economy, even this
functional model retains it reference to Marx’s fundamental notion of the state as a
repressive instrument in the ensuing class struggle between the antagonistic forces:
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
The variety of approaches that found their expressions in Marxist thought over the
decades leaves one with the impression that Marx failed to develop a ‘unitary theory
of the state’ at all (Vincent 147). Any attempt to identify a consistent definition of
statehood must fail since Marx uses an interpretative perspective which allows for
no independent notions of what a state is. He frames the discussion about the
essence of the state with the help of his theory of class struggle, subordinating any
definitional attempt to his theory of historical development (Vincent 157). Although
he does hint at the broad location of state within his conceptional framework and
identifies it as a component of the superstructure, he at the same time,
incongruently, asserts that there is no mediation between state and society (Vincent
158).
Marx’s theory of the state may have spawned a whole range of more elaborate
versions, but Western scholars often dismiss the work of Communist historians and
political scientists as ideologically motivated propaganda. Vincent opines:
‘The subsequent history of Marxist theorizing on the state resembles a form of late
medieval scholasticism and appears to be a singularly unfruitful area of study…’
(Vincent 175)
Clearly, Marxism as a theory of society and state experienced a radical

transformation as it was amended in order to be applied to Soviet Russia by Lenin.
The most fundamental change concerned the idea that, as Marx stressed, the state
would ‘wither away’ in a Communist society. This would be the logical consequence
of the fact that the state manifested the repressive nature of bourgeois political,
social and economic dominance, and once the antagonistic class struggle had been
transcended by revolutionary change in the mode of production, states were no
longer needed. Lenin however argued that the state would still be needed (at least in
the transitional period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a term that originates in
Marx’s writings but was fleshed out by Lenin) in order to firmly establish the rule of
the proletariat and eliminate any remaining resistance. In practice, if anything
withered away it was the original notion of the state as a repressive instrument of
the bourgeoisie; under the rule of the Communist party the state was a welcome
vehicle for reinforcing their totalitarian regime.
There are few advantages of Marx’s theory of the state. Clearly since Marx tied the
notion of the state so closely to his analysis of capitalist economy, little room for
interpretative manoeuvre was left for theorists to develop his theory of statehood in
more promising directions. Perhaps, the critical approach of Marx’s interpretation
may be counted as a unique advantage: states very often exhibit a repressive
attitude to societal conflict and are anything but neutral arbiters between the
various social groups in society.
IIPluralism
The pluralist concept of the state enjoys a long pedigree going back to liberal
thinkers such as John Locke and his opponent in kind Thomas Hobbes. Locke argued
that Hobbes’s notion of the state would necessarily lead to a unitary, absolutist form
of regime and he attacked what he believed the monistic tendencies in Hobbes.
Consequently Dunleavy remarks that
‘The rejection of absolute, unified and uncontrolled state power remains the hallmark
of pluralism’ (Dunleavy 13)
In his book Two Treatises of Government Locke contrasted his theory of consent
with that of Hobbes and disputed that there could be one singular origin of power in
society and hence in the state apparatus. Locke, as a quintessential pluralist,
therefore vehemently rejected the notion of sovereignty residing in a unified body or
individual (Dunleavy 14).
Montesquieu developed this idea further and argued that a dissipation of power in
society would produce the best conditions for social and political peace. He put
forward the idea that a separation of the various branches of power, the legislative,
judicial and executive, would guarantee a societal balance from which the public
good would benefit. This idea found its most elaborate expression in the writings of
the Federalists in the United States. Madison, concerned to reconcile the fact that
any society contains social groups pursuing their own interest with the public
interest, writes:
‘The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be
removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.’
(Federalists 45)
This combination of horizontal with vertical checks and balances has prompted
some political theorists to speak of a tension that exists between the institutional
version of pluralism and the non-institutional one (Dunleavy 14). In Madison it is the
diversity of social groups that proves beneficial to the successful search of the
public good; consequently it is the extension of the republic, that is to say the
extension of civil and participatory rights, that is seen as instrumental in bringing
about an effective government and a vibrant society (Dunleavy 14).
In his book Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville added to this that the

intermediate associations in society play a crucial role in reconciling the interests of
the individual with the general interest of society. Once again this emphasises the
need for the dispersal of authority within society rather than its concentration in the
hands of the few (Vincent 198).
The advantages of pluralism are more numerous than those of Marxism. Pluralism,
again, can be viewed as a descriptive or as a normative theory and, in its normative
version it articulates good reasons why political, social and economic power should
not be converge in one particular social group of individuals. Pluralism links the
enjoyment of civil and political rights and freedoms to the structure of the state
institutions, and claims that the state as a set of discrete institutions tied into a
framework of mutual checks and balances is the best guarantee for rights and
liberties in modern society. However, in its rejection of monism and its emphasis on
polyarchy, pluralism fails to see the state as anything but ‘discrete organisations’
(Dunleavy 42).

Esssay To Critically Evaluate Two Competing Theories of The State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esssay To Critically Evaluate Two Competing Theories of The State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esssay To Critically Evaluate Two Competing Theories of The State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esssay to critically evaluate two competing

theories of the state

Both conceptions of the state contain normative as well as descriptive elements

Clearly, Marxism as a theory of society and state experienced a radical

In his book Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville added to this that the

You might also like