.Power they believe is CONCENTRATED on a MINORITY in society

.They believe that Power is used in the interests of the powerful (wealthy)

.They stress the different interests of the POWERFUL and POWERLESS and the potential this has for CONFLICT

Marxists adopt a CONFLICT perspective on power. They see the POWERFUL (Bourgeoisie)POWERFUL (Bourgeoisie) and POWERLESSPOWERLESS (Proletariat)(Proletariat) as having different interestsdifferent interests which often lead to conflict in society.

MARXISM

NOTENOTE: : All the points here are All the points here are SHAREDSHARED with elitists with elitists BUT….BUT…. Marxists Marxists do not assume do not assume that power rests that power rests with those who occupy key positions in with those who occupy key positions in society (the elite ) society (the elite ) For Marxists the source of power is For Marxists the source of power is ECONOMICECONOMIC

• Those who have ECONOMIC CONTROLECONOMIC CONTROL have POWER. • In all stratified societies the MEANS OF PRODUCTIONMEANS OF PRODUCTION (factories) are owned and controlled by the RULING CLASSRULING CLASS. • The relationship of this class to the means of production provides the basis of its dominance.

MARX and ENGELS BELIEVED:

• THEREFORETHEREFORE the only way to only way to return power to the people return power to the people is is communal ownership of the means of productioncommunal ownership of the means of production.. • In a communist society power would be equally distributed among the whole population since no one person would have greater economic power than any other individual

In capitalist societies ruling class power is used to exploit and oppress the subject class. The bourgeoisie appropriate the profits from the proletariat’s labour.

MARX and ENGELS BELIEVED:

Marxists see the use of power to exploit others as COERCION: This is an illegitimate use of powerillegitimate use of power.

ORIGINS OF THE STATE (Engels)• The ‘State’ did not exist in primitive communist societies.• Kinship (Relationships) formed the basis of social groupings.• There was little division of labour.• The Means of production communally owned. Little surplus produced. • People lived on subsistence level, had enough to get by• When societies began to produce a surplus – ruling class emerged, the When societies began to produce a surplus – ruling class emerged, the state was needed to hold antagonisms in check.state was needed to hold antagonisms in check. • In primitive communist societies individuals shared the same interests.

USE OF COERCIONUSE OF COERCION• In class societies a minority benefited at the expense of the majorityminority benefited at the expense of the majority. • Engels argues that the ruling classes needed to hold down the subject hold down the subject classclass, this was done through the use of force or coercion. • Engels believed that the police, army and state run institutions were police, army and state run institutions were used for repressionused for repression. Engels believe that while early states used coercion to control the population, more advanced states were less obviously a more advanced states were less obviously a coercive tool of the ruling classcoercive tool of the ruling class. 

• Engels argued that democracies were the ‘highest form of state’‘highest form of state’ as they foster the ILLUSION OF EQUAL POWERILLUSION OF EQUAL POWER e.g.; through universal suffrage.

• In democracies the existing order is projected as fair, just and legitimate and projected as fair, just and legitimate and consequently it is acceptedconsequently it is accepted by the population, as a result of this the state does not need to rely so heavily on coercion.

• Engels argues that in capitalist societies DEMOCRACY WAS AN ILLUSION as REAL POWER rested in the hands of the owners of owners of the means of production.the means of production.

A States purpose is: - To protect the position of the ruling

class. - To control the subject class.

 

ThereforeTherefore : Once classes disappeared the state would become redundant.

 

• Immediately after the Immediately after the PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONPROLETARIAN REVOLUTION the the proletarians would ‘proletarians would ‘capture the state’ and establish capture the state’ and establish communal ownership of the means of productioncommunal ownership of the means of production..

• They would They would destroy the bourgeoisiedestroy the bourgeoisie. . • Once these objectives were reached Once these objectives were reached class divisions would class divisions would

cease and the state would wither away.cease and the state would wither away.

• Marx believed that, ‘The executive of the modern Marx believed that, ‘The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.the whole bourgeoisie.

•  

• Marx’s work is too generalised, simplistic and vague.

• In societies professing to be communist the state didn’t wither state didn’t wither awayaway..

• Marxists themselves disagree over:– The waysways in which they see the

bourgeoisie controlling the state– The extent to which the state is

independent of the ruling class.– The importance of the state in

maintaining the predominance of the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies.

• . Ralph Milliband was a Marxist theorist (and father of David and Ed) who produced his own version of Marxism

called the NEW LEFTNEW LEFT.• He recognised flaws in

Marxism and was highly critical of harsh communist regimes in post war Europe.

The state is run by a number of elites. They include cabinet ministers, MP’s, senior police and military officers & top judges

Millibands NEW LEFT

ELITE & THE RULING CLASS

He believes they act together to defend the ruling class. They all share wish to preserve capitalism and defend private property.

Miliband’s views were similar to C Wright Mill’s (power elite)

BUTBUT Milliband sees the elites as acting in the interests of CAPITALISM not just in their own interests.

He produced empirical EVIDENCE – (to try and back his theories) • Many members of bourgeoisie occupy elite positions. • USA (1899–1949) 60% cabinet ministers were businessmen.USA (1899–1949) 60% cabinet ministers were businessmen.• UK (1886–1950) 33% cabinet members were businessmen.UK (1886–1950) 33% cabinet members were businessmen.• Even non-businessmen in state elite act in interests of

bourgeoisie Groups like politicians, senior civil servants, and judges are united by ties of kinship, friendship, and mutual outlook.

• Social origins similar. Education similar (Oxford and Cambridge). They are socialised into identifying with interests of bourgeoisie, any lower class people who join ruling class have undergone a process of ****“bourgeoisification”,**** even if you have come from a lower class you can go through this process.

• Actions of state elites have tended to benefit ruling class. (e.g. Judges’ primary duty to protect private property) Labour since 1945 have done little to challenge ruling class (limited nationalisation, businesses still run in a capitalist way by businessmen).

LEGITIMATION (Indoctrination/ Brainwashing)

Miliband argues:• The subject class is persuadedpersuaded to accept

status quo. • The Third face of power – Ruling class,

determine beliefs and wishes of the population.

• This is what Milliband terms the ‘Process of Legitimation’ requires massive indoctrination – brainwashing through media etc. It uses advertising to back his point. Businesses use advertising to

1. Promote their business2. Make people accept capitalism3. Promote ruling class power and privileges

GREEK MARXIST THINKERGREEK MARXIST THINKER  • Poulantzas also writes Poulantzas also writes

from Marxist from Marxist perspective perspective BUT BUT disagrees with Miliband disagrees with Miliband in many areas.in many areas.

• *He adopts a *He adopts a ‘‘structuralist’structuralist’ approach approach which emphasises the which emphasises the importance of social importance of social structure structure and and minimises minimises the importance of the importance of individuals actionsindividuals actions.***.***

POULANTZASPOULANTZASStructuralist Structuralist

theorytheory

1) State is vital for maintaining capitalism

2) State serves interests of ruling class2) State serves interests of ruling class

3) Ruling class 3) Ruling class don’t have to occupy elite don’t have to occupy elite positions positions in state, capitalist system is in state, capitalist system is sufficient to ensure state works to benefit sufficient to ensure state works to benefit of ruling class.of ruling class.

4) Background of state elite not important, their position not their class origin determines their behaviour. Will act in interest of bourgeoisie regardless of their background.

• The The Capitalist stCapitalist stateate best serves best serves interests of interests of capitalist class capitalist class when when ruling class is ruling class is NOTNOT the the politically governing classpolitically governing class..

• The The Ruling class does not Ruling class does not directly govern but directly govern but its interests its interests are served are served through the medium through the medium of the stateof the state..

• The State is The State is relatively relatively autonomousautonomous from ruling class from ruling class but is still but is still forced to represent forced to represent the interests of the interests of capitalcapital. . (Money)(Money)

• The State The State requires a degree of requires a degree of freedom and independence freedom and independence to to serve ruling class interests. serve ruling class interests. If If it was staffed by members of it was staffed by members of the bourgeoisie it would lose the bourgeoisie it would lose its freedom of actionits freedom of action

• The bourgeoisie is The bourgeoisie is too internally too internally divideddivided, to represent its common , to represent its common interests, state must have freedom to interests, state must have freedom to act on behalf of class as a whole.act on behalf of class as a whole.

• If bourgeoisie ruled directly, its If bourgeoisie ruled directly, its power power might be weakened by internal might be weakened by internal wranglingwrangling, therefore might not have , therefore might not have united frontunited front in class conflicts in class conflicts. Relative . Relative autonomy allows it to rise above autonomy allows it to rise above factionsfactions and represent interests of and represent interests of class as a whole. This gives state class as a whole. This gives state flexibility to deal with threats to ruling flexibility to deal with threats to ruling class dominance.class dominance.

• Relative autonomy Relative autonomy allows the state to allows the state to give concessions to subject class which give concessions to subject class which bourgeoisie might not agree withbourgeoisie might not agree with. . These concessions serve to defuse These concessions serve to defuse radical working class protest.radical working class protest.

• Relative autonomy Relative autonomy promotes myth that promotes myth that the state represents the massesthe state represents the masses..

•   

• Poulantzas Poulantzas DISAGREESDISAGREES with Miliband about the with Miliband about the importance of importance of legitimisationlegitimisation. He goes much further in . He goes much further in seeing this process as seeing this process as being directly related to statebeing directly related to state..

•   • Poulantzas has a broader definition of state.Poulantzas has a broader definition of state.• It has two parts:It has two parts:

1) REPRESSIVE APPARATUS1) REPRESSIVE APPARATUSExamplesExamples: (Government, Army, Police, Tribunals and : (Government, Army, Police, Tribunals and Administration)Administration)Exercises coercive powerExercises coercive power

2) IDEOLOGICAL APPARATUS2) IDEOLOGICAL APPARATUSExamplesExamples: (church, political parties, unions, media and : (church, political parties, unions, media and family)family)Manipulates values and beliefsManipulates values and beliefs

• Poulantzas also makes the additional point that:Poulantzas also makes the additional point that:• FamilyFamily is part of state as it is necessary for survival of is part of state as it is necessary for survival of

capitalism.capitalism.• Ideological apparatus Ideological apparatus depends on repressive depends on repressive

apparatus apparatus to maintain it.to maintain it.• Changes in repressive apparatus of state will lead to Changes in repressive apparatus of state will lead to

changes in its ideological apparatus. (Fascist changes in its ideological apparatus. (Fascist Germany state controls each)Germany state controls each)

• Communist aim of ‘withering away of state’ will Communist aim of ‘withering away of state’ will only only be achieved by abolition of institutions like the be achieved by abolition of institutions like the family.family.

•   

• Miliband accuses Poulantzas of structuralist super Miliband accuses Poulantzas of structuralist super determinism (determinism (not all aspects of behaviour of state are not all aspects of behaviour of state are determined by infrastructure: There are fascist and determined by infrastructure: There are fascist and democratic states within capitalismdemocratic states within capitalism).).

• His theories are His theories are not backed by empirical evidencenot backed by empirical evidence to to prove state acts in interests of capitalism.prove state acts in interests of capitalism.

• Miliband disagrees that institutions like the family Miliband disagrees that institutions like the family are part of the stateare part of the state. Families are not directly . Families are not directly controlled by state & are largely independent of it.controlled by state & are largely independent of it.

• His His theory of ‘relative autonomy of state’ is vague theory of ‘relative autonomy of state’ is vague and ambiguousand ambiguous. How is it possible for the state to . How is it possible for the state to have relative autonomy and at the same time always have relative autonomy and at the same time always work in interest of the masses? Relative autonomy work in interest of the masses? Relative autonomy theory impossible to prove or disprove.theory impossible to prove or disprove.

• Neo-Marxists (Gramsci) see concessions as more than Neo-Marxists (Gramsci) see concessions as more than token gestures. Working class have some power and token gestures. Working class have some power and influence over stateinfluence over state..

• Marx & Engel’s views seen as too vague, simplistic and generalised.

• Marxist predictions of proletarian revolutions in capitalist states like Britain, Germany and USA didn’t materialise. What happened in Russia and China - predominantly agricultural.

• State never withered away (very important)

• Marx accused of selectively choosing evidence to accommodate his pre-conceived theories.

• Marxists theory does not accept the fact that there are alternative sources of power e.g. religious power in democratic states or military power.

Poulantzas criticised for:Poulantzas criticised for:• Lacking empirical evidence to back up

his theories.• Theory of relative autonomy vague,

ambiguous and contradictory, Giddens questions how the state can be relatively autonomous from ruling class yet always work in its interests.

• Miliband accuses Poulanatzas of structural super-determinism.

 • From a Pluralist perspective Marxists are

fundamentally wrong when they contend that power is monopolised by the bourgeoisie.

• Pluralists argue that power is widely dispersed and they quote studies like Dahl, Hewitt and Grant and Marsh who have produced evidence that in liberal democracies like UK & USA no one group dominates and that power is widely dispersed.

• They also argue that government can’t afford to uphold the sectional interest of the capitalists as they are voted in by all the people and would therefore jeopardise their prospects of being elected if they consistently favoured one section of the population.

• Pluralist also refute the claim that the state always acts in the interest of the economic elite and rather see the state as an ‘honest broker’ mediating between the conflicting demands of a wide variety of groups