Chapter 3: Politics and the State
Origins and development of the state
The principle of territorial sovereignty was established during the Peace of Westphalia and
formalized the modern notion of statehood.
According to Tilly, the state came into existence because of its ability to fight wars:
● The introduction of new military technologies from the 16th century onwards, greatly
increased the coercive powers rulers could wield.
○ This forced states to extend their control over their population by developing
more extensive systems of taxation and administration.
According to Marxists, the state originated from the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
● The state is a tool used by the emerging bourgeois class.
According to Mann, the emergence of the state was caused by its capacity to combine
ideological, economic, military, and political forms of power.
Approaches to the state
Idealism
According to Hegel, there are three defining moments of social existence:
1. Family: a particular altruism operates that encourages people to set aside their own
interests for the good of their children or elderly relatives.
2. Civil society: a sphere of universal egoism in which individuals place their own
interests before those of others.
3. The state: an ethical community underpinned by mutual sympathy (universal
altruism).
The drawback of idealism: it fosters an uncritical reverence for the state and fails to
distinguish clearly between institutions that are part of the state and those outside of the
state.
Functionalism
The central function of the state is to maintain social order. The state is defined as the set of
institutions that uphold order and deliver social stability.
Neo-Marxists adopted this approach. They see the state as a mechanism through which
class conflict is ameliorated to ensure the long-term survival of the capitalist system.
The weakness of functionalism: it associates any institution that maintains order, such as the
family or church, with the state itself.
Organizational view
,The state is a set of institutions that are recognizably public. They are responsible for the
collective organization of social existence and funded at the public’s expense.
This view differentiates between the state and civil society. This view allows us to talk about
expanding or contracting the responsibilities of the state.
Liberal Theory
The neutrality of the state reflects the fact that the state acts in the interest of all citizens and
represents the common good / public interest.
Hobbes’ view: stability and order can only be secured through the establishment of an
absolute and unlimited state, with power that can’t be questioned or challenged (absolutism).
Locke’s view: the only job for the state is to defend the natural rights of the citizens: life,
liberty, and property. Everything else is the individual’s responsibility. To protect citizens
against the power of the state, a constitutional government must be imposed.
Pluralist Theory
The state is ‘the servant of society and not its master’:
1. The state apparatus (the police, the judiciary, etc.) is conformed to the principles of
public service and political accountability.
2. The democratic process is meaningful and effective. Party competition ensures that
the government remains sensitive and responsive to public opinion.
Neo Pluralist Theory
Modern industrialized states are more complex and less responsive to popular pressures
than classical pluralism suggested:
1. Business enjoys a ‘privileged position’ in relation to government that other groups
cannot rival. Business can exercise considerable sway over any government.
2. The state does forge its own sectional interests. A state elite can pursue either the
bureaucratic interests of their sector or the state or those of client groups.
The Marxist notion of a capitalist state
Two theories of the state
1. The state is clearly dependent on society and entirely dependent on its economically
dominant class (in capitalist society the bourgeoisie). Lenin thus described the state
as ‘an instrument for the oppression of the exploited class.’
2. (After the revolutionary events in France between 1848-1851) The state can
articulate the interests of any class; it was not those of the bourgeoisie, but of the
most populous class in (French) society.
○ The state appears to mediate between conflicting classes and so maintains
the class system itself in existence.
, In summary, the state can only be understood in a context of unequal class power and
reflects capitalist society, by acting as an instrument of oppression by the dominant class, or
as a mechanism through which class antagonisms are ameliorated.
The state can be used during the transition from capitalism to communism in the form of the
revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The state would lose its reason for existence
once the class antagonisms/class system has faded away; a fully communist society would
be stateless.
The state is used by the economically dominant class as an instrument to repress and
subdue other classes. All states are thus class dictatorships.
Neo-Marxism
Bourgeois domination is maintained largely through ‘hegemony’: intellectual leadership or
cultural control.
Miliband: the bias of the state in favor of capitalism is derived from the overlap of social
backgrounds between civil servants on one side and the business leader and captains of
industry on the other.
Poulantzas: the state cannot but act to perpetuate the social system in which it operates. In
the case of the capitalist state, its role is to serve the long-term interests of capitalism.
According to Neo-Marxists, the state is not an instrument, but a dynamic entity that reflects
the balance of power within society at any given time and the ongoing struggle for
hegemony.
The leviathan state
The New Right’s neoliberal wing has a strong antipathy towards state intervention in
economic/social life. The state is a parasitic growth that threatens individual liberty and
economic security.
The state pursues interests separate from those of society and those interests demand an
unrelenting growth in the responsibilities of the state itself.
The tendency towards state intervention reflected not popular pressure for economic and
social security or the need to stabilize capitalism by ameliorating class tensions, but rather
the internal dynamics of the state.
The expansionist dynamics of state power are caused by:
1. Demand-side pressures that emanate from society itself, through the mechanism of
electoral democracy.
○ The electoral competition encourages politicians to ‘outbid’ each other by
making promises of more generous government programs, regardless of the
long-term damage those inflict on the economy.
2. Supply-side pressures are internal to the state and explained in terms of institutions
and personnel of the state apparatus.
Origins and development of the state
The principle of territorial sovereignty was established during the Peace of Westphalia and
formalized the modern notion of statehood.
According to Tilly, the state came into existence because of its ability to fight wars:
● The introduction of new military technologies from the 16th century onwards, greatly
increased the coercive powers rulers could wield.
○ This forced states to extend their control over their population by developing
more extensive systems of taxation and administration.
According to Marxists, the state originated from the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
● The state is a tool used by the emerging bourgeois class.
According to Mann, the emergence of the state was caused by its capacity to combine
ideological, economic, military, and political forms of power.
Approaches to the state
Idealism
According to Hegel, there are three defining moments of social existence:
1. Family: a particular altruism operates that encourages people to set aside their own
interests for the good of their children or elderly relatives.
2. Civil society: a sphere of universal egoism in which individuals place their own
interests before those of others.
3. The state: an ethical community underpinned by mutual sympathy (universal
altruism).
The drawback of idealism: it fosters an uncritical reverence for the state and fails to
distinguish clearly between institutions that are part of the state and those outside of the
state.
Functionalism
The central function of the state is to maintain social order. The state is defined as the set of
institutions that uphold order and deliver social stability.
Neo-Marxists adopted this approach. They see the state as a mechanism through which
class conflict is ameliorated to ensure the long-term survival of the capitalist system.
The weakness of functionalism: it associates any institution that maintains order, such as the
family or church, with the state itself.
Organizational view
,The state is a set of institutions that are recognizably public. They are responsible for the
collective organization of social existence and funded at the public’s expense.
This view differentiates between the state and civil society. This view allows us to talk about
expanding or contracting the responsibilities of the state.
Liberal Theory
The neutrality of the state reflects the fact that the state acts in the interest of all citizens and
represents the common good / public interest.
Hobbes’ view: stability and order can only be secured through the establishment of an
absolute and unlimited state, with power that can’t be questioned or challenged (absolutism).
Locke’s view: the only job for the state is to defend the natural rights of the citizens: life,
liberty, and property. Everything else is the individual’s responsibility. To protect citizens
against the power of the state, a constitutional government must be imposed.
Pluralist Theory
The state is ‘the servant of society and not its master’:
1. The state apparatus (the police, the judiciary, etc.) is conformed to the principles of
public service and political accountability.
2. The democratic process is meaningful and effective. Party competition ensures that
the government remains sensitive and responsive to public opinion.
Neo Pluralist Theory
Modern industrialized states are more complex and less responsive to popular pressures
than classical pluralism suggested:
1. Business enjoys a ‘privileged position’ in relation to government that other groups
cannot rival. Business can exercise considerable sway over any government.
2. The state does forge its own sectional interests. A state elite can pursue either the
bureaucratic interests of their sector or the state or those of client groups.
The Marxist notion of a capitalist state
Two theories of the state
1. The state is clearly dependent on society and entirely dependent on its economically
dominant class (in capitalist society the bourgeoisie). Lenin thus described the state
as ‘an instrument for the oppression of the exploited class.’
2. (After the revolutionary events in France between 1848-1851) The state can
articulate the interests of any class; it was not those of the bourgeoisie, but of the
most populous class in (French) society.
○ The state appears to mediate between conflicting classes and so maintains
the class system itself in existence.
, In summary, the state can only be understood in a context of unequal class power and
reflects capitalist society, by acting as an instrument of oppression by the dominant class, or
as a mechanism through which class antagonisms are ameliorated.
The state can be used during the transition from capitalism to communism in the form of the
revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The state would lose its reason for existence
once the class antagonisms/class system has faded away; a fully communist society would
be stateless.
The state is used by the economically dominant class as an instrument to repress and
subdue other classes. All states are thus class dictatorships.
Neo-Marxism
Bourgeois domination is maintained largely through ‘hegemony’: intellectual leadership or
cultural control.
Miliband: the bias of the state in favor of capitalism is derived from the overlap of social
backgrounds between civil servants on one side and the business leader and captains of
industry on the other.
Poulantzas: the state cannot but act to perpetuate the social system in which it operates. In
the case of the capitalist state, its role is to serve the long-term interests of capitalism.
According to Neo-Marxists, the state is not an instrument, but a dynamic entity that reflects
the balance of power within society at any given time and the ongoing struggle for
hegemony.
The leviathan state
The New Right’s neoliberal wing has a strong antipathy towards state intervention in
economic/social life. The state is a parasitic growth that threatens individual liberty and
economic security.
The state pursues interests separate from those of society and those interests demand an
unrelenting growth in the responsibilities of the state itself.
The tendency towards state intervention reflected not popular pressure for economic and
social security or the need to stabilize capitalism by ameliorating class tensions, but rather
the internal dynamics of the state.
The expansionist dynamics of state power are caused by:
1. Demand-side pressures that emanate from society itself, through the mechanism of
electoral democracy.
○ The electoral competition encourages politicians to ‘outbid’ each other by
making promises of more generous government programs, regardless of the
long-term damage those inflict on the economy.
2. Supply-side pressures are internal to the state and explained in terms of institutions
and personnel of the state apparatus.
