Marxism Vs Communist Manifesto

In the course of history, renowned thinkers have proposed different definitions of the state. A popularly referenced definition is present in Max Weber’s Politics as a Vocation, “The modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination. It has been successful in seeking to monopolize the legitimate use of physical force as a means of domination within a territory.” Crawford Young in his analysis of African colonial state emphasizes behavioral imperatives of state apparatus particularly legitimacy, revenue generation and capital accumulation. Although these two definitions do not necessarily follow Marxist ideas, they provide a background for the understanding of the modern State. In the Communist Manifesto,

Therborn argues that the state managers depend on the maintenance of a sustainable level of economic activity. Hence, the state’s finances which are usually obtained through taxation depends on the state of the economy. Another reason for this reliance is that public support for the state typically declines when there is a drop in the level of economic activity. Since the level of economic activity is determined by the private investment decisions of individual capitalists, the state is unlikely to enact policies that will adversely affect the rate of investment. This dependence also results in a tendency to implement programs that encourage private investment and as such serve the general interest of

Working class pressures on the capitalist system expands the state’s power as it allows for an extension into new areas for rationalization. These pressures may lead to more employment or expansion of educational resources but these improvements are usually geared toward the development of capitalism. Although these pressures allow for an expansion of state power, the state must still be wary of damaging business confidence. The state must also consider two more issues; how the class antagonisms from expanding social services will affect their rule and how the state’s power grows with an expanded role. Therborn argues that when state managers concede to working class pressures, they outline new policies that barely affect business confidence and still expand state power. The state’s role has still greatly expanded despite these limitations because of historical periods such as wars and economic recessions where the threat of a decline of business confidence holds little weight. Thus, rationalization can be seen as result of state managers’ dual interest in expanding their own power and in assuring a reasonable level of economic