Pluralist Elitist and Marxist Theories of the State Essay

essay A+

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

The three disparate theories of the province, viz. the Elitist, the Pluralist and the Marxist theories are briefly discussed in the essay. They are besides compared and contrasted in item, foregrounding each of their strengths and failings.


There are three places through which a province can be examined. The Pluralist construct of the province references that the province is impersonal comparatively, and a figure of power centres exist in a province. Harmonizing to the Marxist theory, the province serves as an instrument for the rich and the businessperson categories, who attempt invariably to stamp down the working classes or the labor for its ain personal involvements. On the other manus, the belief of the Elitist theory is that the province contains two different facets, force and territoriality. Therefore, modern provinces of the twentieth and 21st centuries frequently resort to violence within its boundary lines. The modern province is like a commission which manages the common issues of the middle class. ( Marx & A ; Engels, 1985 )


The advocate of the Marxist theory, Karl Marx, was of the sentiment that most of the political power of the society is controlled by the businessperson category. The modern province is besides highly reliant on credits and revenue enhancements. Most of the credits and revenue enhancements are besides borne by the businessperson category. What ‘s more, the media such as newspapers or telecasting is besides controlled by the businessperson. This makes it easier for the businessperson to come in political relations and win in political relations. The businessperson province serves as a common insurance treaty which protects the involvements of the businessperson category at the disbursal of the exploited category ( McLellan, 1971 )

Marx was besides the sentiment that the businessperson was fundamentally utilizing the modern province for heightening the life style and chances of the capitalist category of the society. One of the celebrated quotation marks from the Communist pronunciamento, Marx & A ; Engels ( 1985. p.82 ) states ‘The executive of the modern State is but a commission for pull offing the common personal businesss of the whole middle class. ‘ Marx besides believed that communism was the best solution for such a capitalist society. The struggle among the categories keeps increasing as the capitalist economy in the province develops, since the involvements of the businessperson are furthered by the province in capitalist economy.

Furthermore, capitalist economy besides facilitates the middle class to give grants to the labor, in scenarios where there is a societal instability. The public assistance province of the Norse parts is something similar to the Marxist position of the province. Concessions such as unemployment benefits, free instruction, free wellness cheque and pension strategies are given by the businessperson to the labor in certain Norse provinces.


The Pluralist position of the province is wholly different from the Marxist position. The Pluralist does non believe that the province is basically conflicting in nature, as the Marxist and the Elitist schools of idea believe. Rather, the Pluralist position of the province is that it is impersonal in nature ; it is besides believed that the province is susceptible to a figure of influences from assorted groups in the society. The modern province therefore is non merely dominated by one category, that is the capitalist or the bourgeoisie category, which dominates the political power, as believed by the Marxist theory ; the modern province is instead a type of model from wherein a assortment of involvements of the society can be reconciled.

The construct of the province harmonizing to the Pluralist position is besides that there can be assorted beginnings of political power. Therefore, non a individual group can hold monopoly of political power, harmonizing to the Pluralists. Although the capitalist category can hold a really strong bridgehead in the society, they can non nevertheless have complete laterality over the on the job category, as proposed by the Marxists. The labors can widen their power through labour brotherhoods or trade brotherhoods. Since the capitalist category can non make without the labour category, the working category besides exerts a strong influence on the capitalist category, harmonizing to the Pluralists. The modern province is non really an instrument by which one category can rule over the other category. It ‘s instead a model which helps in the rapprochement of diverse society involvements ( Schwarzmantel, 1994 ; Schwarzmantel, 1987 ; Dunleavy & A ; O’Leary, 1987 ) .

The pluralist theoretical account can easy explicate employee organisations and trade brotherhoods. Since organisations and trade brotherhoods have the power over the authorities, the politicians, trade brotherhoods, concerns and the labor have a portion in the province power. The power is dispersed among the authorities, the organisations and the labour brotherhoods as good, turn outing one time once more that the neutrality of the province harmonizing to the Pluralist position is besides valid.


The Elitist theory was put frontward by Max Weber. In his position, the province is used as an instrument through which some groups of a province control the other groups. Hence, the Elitist position of the province is rather similar to the Marxist position of the province. However, the cardinal difference between the theory of Weber and the Marxist position is that the Elitist believes in the thought of legitimacy. For illustration, people follow the regulations of the authorities because they believe that the authorities or the province is legitimate. However, Marxists believe that the province itself should be abolished since it is non legitimate.

The Elitist construct of the province besides lays accent on bureaucratism. Bureaucracy is one of the most effectual methods of forming the modern province. Weber besides believes that the administrative officials form a group of elites. This group of administrative officials is highly political in nature, and has the specializer cognition which the politicians do non possess. The province symbolizes the relation of work forces who dominate work forces. This domination is supported through legitimate force. If the province has to be, the 1s who are dominated must obey the authorization of the dominant group ( Gerth & A ; Mills, 1967 ) .

Another contrasting point between the Elitists and the Marxists and Pluralists is that the Pluralists and Marxists believe the province to hold specific map. For the Marxists, the working categories are suppressed while for the pluralists ; different groups of society are reconciled. However for the Elitists, the province can non be defined in straightforward footings since the province performs several undertakings and has two shaping characteristics, territoriality and force. If certain groups have the right to utilize force over its district, it ‘s because the province has granted the rights. Politicss is all about the power battle, harmonizing to Weber. Power is defined by Weber as a tool to do person execute a undertaking which he otherwise would n’t hold performed ( Lassman, 2000 ; de Jasay, 1985 ) .


The Pluralist, Marxists and Elitist construct of the province basically contains a different sort of political construct. Marx believed that political relations is really a category struggle, and farther adds that political dealingss can be transformed into economic 1s. The Elitist theory of Weber besides has a similar idea procedure. Marxists propose that political relations is about the battle for power, nevertheless Weber disagrees with the point of view of Marx, since he does n’t hold that the Marxist position of cut downing political relations to a category battle and economic factors. Weber is an elitist since Weber emphasizes the significance of a strong political leading ( Held, 1989 ; Dunleavy & A ; O’Leary, 1987 ) .

However, the constructs of Weber and the Marxist are quite elitist in nature, which aggressively contrasts with the Pluralist position of the province. The Pluralists believe that the province is non entirely controlled by the businessperson or the administrative officials ; instead it ‘s the kineticss of assorted societal groups which finally impacts the cloth of the province. Then once more, the Pluralist point of view has certain similarities with the elitist point of views since both of them believe that several beginnings of political power impact the province, unlike the Marxist position which believes that economic factors determine the political kineticss of the province.

All in all, all the point of views of the Pluralist, the Marxist and the Elitist, helped specify and understand the true nature of the province more profoundly. Although each of them has their ain alone manner of construing the workings of the province, all of them give a true image of some of the dimensions of the province.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member