European sociology for long has been influenced by the works of Marx and Durkheim. However, there has been little importance given to the work of Max Weber. Whenever his works were taken into account, they have been focused mainly on their methodological dimension. It is only recently that sociologists have considered the work of Weber on the relations of domination and the state. Born in 1818, Karl Marx is considered, by the diversity of his writings, as a philosopher, a sociologist, and an economist.
[...] Weber distinguishes four types of actions: Affective or emotional action, the traditional action, rational action from an objective and rational action in relation to values. The traditional dominance occurs when the rule is "based, and it is so admitted, on the sanctity of the provisions passed by the time". It may be closer to the traditional action. The rational legal domination is founded on the belief of the legality of orders of those who exercise domination. This can be linked to the domination of legal action against a rational purpose and rational action compared to values. [...]
[...] If Karl Marx agrees with Max Weber that the bureaucratic state was born of the struggle to emerge from feudalism, the fact remains that the author of the Communist Manifesto is not describing a process rationalization but a parasitic phenomenon. Marx wrote in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: "The executive branch, with its enormous bureaucratic and military organization, with its extended state machinery and artificial, ( . ) appalling parasitic body, is like a membrane that covers the body of the French society and mouths every pore, was formed with the decline of feudalism that helped to overthrow.” Thus, the aim of the proletarian revolution is to break this "appalling parasitic body" which is the instrument of domination of one class over another. [...]
[...] From this idea, Marx establishes two theories of the state that can appear contradictory to each other. b. The independent State or the State as a servile tool of the ruling class? In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote: "political power, in the strict sense, is the organized power of one class for oppressing another," i.e. the political power is the means by which the class that is economically dominant maintains its domination and exploitation. The state has to follow, therefore, the interests of the bourgeoisie. [...]
[...] Marx wrote: "Only under the second Bonaparte does the state seem to have become completely independent." These two theories of the state seem to be contradictory and even more so than the idea of Marx that a company that has experienced a feudal past gives birth to a relatively independent state. It seems to refute the idea that another state was the instrument of the bourgeoisie under the Monarchy and the Second Republic. A possible interpretation is that, for Marx, the Bonapartist regime is either a temporary equilibrium between antagonistic classes which is a failure of provisional hegemony exercised by the ruling class in civil society. [...]
[...] Thus, the principle of domination is the principle underlying the State in Marx and Weber is different. However, the domination is not covered under the same angle with one another and among the authors. Hence one may wonder what this means for the operation and therefore the future of the state. II) Endangerment of the state or state in the process of bureaucratization? The proletarian revolution and the withering of the State. a. The internal contradictions of the capitalist system: In the Communist Manifesto, Marx has presented a double contradiction inherent in capitalist system. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
