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]