Elite's Theory and Marxism Theory in Power and Politics - Coursework Example

Elites Theory and Marxism Theory in Power and Politics According to the Marxism theory the bourgeoisie have all the influence over the political power in a capitalist society. The bourgeoisie who are the owners of capital with the capability of hiring and influencing labour power, using the surplus value from employment of the same labour power to assist them in increasing their capital (McLellan, 1971). The modern state and every form of government is dependant upon taxes and credit which is provided by the capitalists- who are the major stakeholders of every industry in a capitalist economy (Evans, 1995). Furthermore, the capitalists own the media industry as well which is a key instrument in making or breaking the careers of all politicians. The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, can influence the politics not just because they are wealthy, but what is necessary is the active role of using their power of this wealth to make it self-expansive through the exploitation of labour (Miller, 1991). Marx has argued in his theories that the modern state may have become a helping hand or a puppet in the hands of the capitalists and the political infrastructure has become an instrument to further the interests of the same capital class (Taylor, 1995). According to the communist manifesto "The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (Marx & Engels, 1985: 82). Marx’s theory explains that capitalism is an intrinsically contradictory system, overwhelmed by class conflict. Furthermore, as capitalism develops and the capitalists grow more powerful in influencing the state and politics the class conflict worsens. The capitalists therefore need the state to ensure that they retain its hold on power. Marx in his theory writes: “"The bourgeois state is nothing but a mutual insurance pact of the bourgeois class ... against the exploited class" (McLellan, 1971: 182). In Marx’s theory, the state also looks after the long-term interests and benefits of the capitalists. Hence, at times it is very conveniently possible for the state to sacrifice some of the short-term capital interests and interests of the masses inclusive of the working class, if any of the more lucrative long-term gains of the capitalist system can be achieved his way (Dunleavy, 1994). For example, it is in the benefit and long-term achievement of the capitalists to give concessions to the working class when the other option is social instability and disorder (Miller, 1991). It can be explained further by discussing the Nordic welfare state concept. Many concessions such as unemployment benefits, subsidized or free health care and education and pensions for prisoners from the capitalists have defined an extremely stable capitalist system and have in essence ensured the bourgeois class against the labour class (Schwarzmantel, 1987). Marx’s idea of politics and the power driven from it can clearly be seen in his belief of the state (Wetherly, 1998). He sees politics as a class struggle- as long as there are different classes, and not a communist society, there will always be a rift between the classes because there will always be economic inequality leading to capitalist being the only class to hold political and power supremacy in the state (Cloonan, 1997). The state in its true sense becomes the supreme weapon of the bourgeois class in this struggle. Running parallel to Marx’s theory is the recently developed theory known as the Elite’s theory which reflects that the power and politics of the state are influenced by the owners of big organizations who inevitably dominate all large-scale developed societies. Elite theorys stress on the interdependence between elites and non-elites, which is said to set limits on what one side can do to the other. On the other hand, Marxists could not agree about interdependence because they see the conflict between the two rival classes as more basic than any temporary interdependence. The Marxists would say, capitalists need workers to make profits, and workers need jobs in order to survive, but such a harsh set of conditions for workers does not seem like interdependence. Elite theory intersects Marx’s theory on some points but disagrees on others. The theory states that in all modern societies the average citizens at times have the ability to set limits on the actions of elites, especially when the elites have developed a conflict among themselves (Lassman, 2000). This is in contrast to Marx’s view where the capitalists only forego their short-term gain to achieve a more beneficial long-term gain for themselves making them more powerful and politically strong. Elite theory also does not emphasize on classes or class conflict which is the mainstream power defining role for capitalists for their control over the less fortunate labour class (Giddens, 1971). Hence, it does not fully appreciate the level to which stakeholders in capitalism along with their managers dominate other intuitionally based elites within a capitalist economy. Many elected officials within the political elite are needy of wealthy families and corporate leaders for their initial financial support, and military leaders are appointed by the civilians who win control of the executive branch (Gerth, 1967). Nor does elite theory emphasize the class bias that is built into the policy-planning network and other non-profit organizations in the United States, which makes the leaders and experts within those organizations secondary to the leaders in the corporate community (Hall, 1984). The lack of attention to class conflict leads elite theory to underestimate the differences between corporate-dominated organizations and organizations based in the working class, especially unions. The capitalists and the working class are interdependent, as elite theory stresses, which does set outer limits on what they can do to each other. Moreover, the leaders of unions do work with the leaders of corporate-oriented organizations once their unions are established, as elite theory emphasizes and is in contrast to the Marx’s point of view (Bottomore, 1983). Although the Marxists have created an artificial dichotomy between their position and that of institutional elitists like Mill and Domhoff, they are entirely correct in pointing out that the political leadership does not have to be subject, in any crude way, to corporate control (Schwarzmantel, 1994). Instead, the very structure of the corporate economy and the situations it creates compel the leadership to promote corporate interests out of perceived objective necessity (Giddens, 1982). Given not just the background and assumptions of the policy elite, but the dependence of political on economic stability, policies that stabilize the corporate economy and guarantee steady output and profits are the only imaginable alternatives. And regardless of how progressive the regulatory states ostensible aims, the organizational imperative will make the corporate economys managers and directors the main source of the processed data and technical expertise on which policy makers depend (Mommsen, 1989). From ownership springs the ability to exercise political and ideological power. This follows because the economic institution is considered to be the most necessary institution in any society - if someone can control the production and distribution of something that everyone needs, then this becomes a source of power that can be translated into political power (Mommsen, 1989). In turn, political power that is the control of the institutions of the State, means that the controlling person can effectively transmit ideological messages favourable to their interests. However, Karl Marx being critical of capitalism had argued in his theories that in time, learning form history, there would be a certain dysfunction in capitalism based on economic rationale that will lead to capitalism being replaced by communism (Marx & Engels, 1985). He narrated history as a class struggle between the property owning classes and the working class. This struggle of power according to his definition had to grow more intensive as industrialisation progressed and developed deeper into an economic system. Marx states that the way the modern industry has developed it neglects its concern on the factors on which it has to grow. Therefore, following this system will eventually lead to a rise and then a definitive fall of the bourgeoisie- a victory for the proletariat. (Marx & Engels, 1985). Marx defined utopia as a class less society in which the regulations and the control of the state and the church played no role in the functioning of society. This would be the only way for the working class to own the production sources and make the state’s role as a transitory one- where the power would eventually come in the hands of the working class and not just with the owners of the means of production (Taylor, 1995). This would make people free as the state over the period of time would weaken so much in influencing the division in classes. This deregulation of power would also lead to so much freedom that people would need to borders and would be free to move form one country to another on their own will without any limitations. This specific need in the Marx’s theory may be mainly associated with the soviet union, but many of its derivates are today present in the functioning of the European Union as universal health care, no visa restriction for travel within countries enabling free movement and relatively less economic inequality (Taylor, 1995). The multiple notions of political power that are put forth range from conventional views that simply revolve around the actions of politicians to those who view political power as an insidious form of institutionalized social control - most notably "anarchists" and "radical capitalists" (Dunleavy, 1994). The main views of political power revolve around normative, post-modern, and pragmatic perspectives- which include a combination of theories applied together to form a more economic equal system within a country. There is only ever a fixed amount of power in any society - those who are powerful are powerful at the expense of others. The powerful use their power at the expense of others - to further their own sectional interests. Thus, on these basis, conflict is both inevitable and occurs between, those who possess power and those who do not- the powerful attempt to use their power to consolidate or expand their relatively privileged social positions, whilst the less powerful attempt to take power from those with more power. Since power is seen as a quality of social relationships, it follows that it is also a quality of the ability to control social resources such as wealth production and accumulation, income, status, education and so forth. In this sense, the more resources a group or class is able to control, the more powerful it becomes relative to other groups or classes (Lassman, 2000). In the above respect, the ability to control the institutions of the State, for example, is significant, since this ability confers power across all sections of a society. In addition, power is also cumulative, in the sense that the more resources a group controls, the greater their level of power at the expense of others and, consequently, the greater their chances of accumulating more power. Where elite theorists differ from Marxist conflict theorists is in terms of their ideas about the sources of power in any society (Hall, 1984). If power derives from the control of resources, such resources can be economic, political or ideological - a group, for example, can be ideologically powerful without necessarily being economically powerful- men, for example, tend to be more ideologically powerful than women, yet not all men are economically powerful. Power is not seen as a "once and for all" phenomenon- either they have power or not. In this respect, there can be degrees of power. For example, although Capital is generally more powerful than Labour in a structural sense, since Capitalists own and control a powerful social resource - the means of economic production, Labour can organize politically to place effective limitations upon the way in which Capital is able to exercise its economic power (Cloonan, 1997). Power in any society is ultimately seen to be based upon coercion- the threat of force, but its everyday expression is one of authority - the ideological rationalization of inequality, for example. We can express the relationship between economic power and all other forms of power symbolically, in the following way. The social superstructure is, therefore, supported by the economic infrastructure, such that changes in the former will not produce changes in the latter, for example, changes in the education system cannot produce changes in the class structure (Dunleavy, 1994). Changes in the economic infrastructure, on the other hand, will automatically produce changes in the superstructure- the change from a Feudal to a Capitalist mode of production, for example, will produce a variety of associated political and ideological changes - such as, for example, the introduction of democratic ideas and practices. For Marxists, power does not begin and end with the power to make decisions; power involves all three of Lukes dimensions. These are ownership of the means of production creates, by definition, a class who share the same basic structural position and who, in turn, have an interest in ensuring that their economic ownership is maintained (Wetherly, 1998). Once an economically dominant class develops, it seeks to consolidate its economic power by political and ideological means. As we have seen in the earlier section on the State, the rise of capitalism lead to the creation of a new social class (the bourgeoisie) and the development of democratic political forms as a means of exercising power. Once the political cohesion of the bourgeoisie develops (over many years initially), this class effectively seeks to "capture" the machinery of the State and to shape them to its own interests and ends. The State, in this respect, is never "neutral"; on the contrary, it becomes the capitalist (or bourgeois) State - an institution that protects the interests of the bourgeoisie over all other classes. As Marx and Engels expressed it: "The State becomes the committee for managing the common affaires of the whole bourgeoisie". In order to rule politically, the ruling class have to have an institution (the State) that accords their interests a prime position, whilst also distancing their power from the majority - giving the (ideological) appearance of political democracy that serves to confer legitimacy upon their economic activities or domination. Furthermore, reproducing the power of the ruling class by co-opting personnel, ideas and so forth from the rest of society. In this way, one of the prime structural requisites of capitalism - its reproduction over time - can be fulfilled (Taylor, 1995). Word count: 2,712 Words Works Cited Dunleavy, P. & OLeary, B. 1994, Theories of the State: The politics of liberal democracy, London, Macmillan Education Evans, M. 1995, Elitism in Marsh, David & Stoker, Gerry (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science London, Macmillan Press Gerth, H. & Mills, C. (eds., translation) 1967, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Hall, S.1984, The State in question in McLennan, Gregor; Held, David & Hall, Stuart (eds.) The Idea of the Modern State, Open University Press Lassman, P. 2000, The rule of men over men: politics, power and legitimation in Turner, Stephen (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Weber Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Marx, K. & Engels, F. 1985, The Communist Manifesto, London, Penguin Books McLellan, D. 1971, The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction London, Macmillan Press Miller, R. 1991 Social and political theory: Class, state, revolution in Carver, Terrell (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Marx, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Mommsen, W. 1989, The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber: Collected Essays Cambridge, Polity Press Schwarzmantel, J. 1987, Structures of Power: An Introduction to Politics Brighton, Wheatsheaf Books Schwarzmantel, J. 1994, The State in Contemporary Society: an introduction, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf Taylor, G. 1995, Marxism in Marsh, David & Stoker, Gerry (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, London, Macmillan Press Wetherly, P. 1998, A Capitalist State? Marxs Ambiguous Legacy in Cowling, Mark (ed.) The Communist Manifesto: New Interpretations Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press Bottomore, T. 1983, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Cambridge, Harvard University Press Giddens, A. 1971, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Giddens, A. & Held D. 1982, Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates, Berkeley, University of California Press Read More