Theories of State: Aristotle to Marx

Aristotle believes that the concept of the state is rather simplistic. He never looked beyond a
Greek City-state in contemplating the nature of state. He believed that men try to expand
their powers in the city as it is their nature. Thus, he took the community state or the city-
state to be an association of individuals in pursuit of the best possible moral life, which is
again natural to them.
When Aristotle and his contemporaries spoke of citizens, they only referred to the slave
driving, comfort loving people of the city states and not the slaves themselves. This is again
something unthinkable in the modern state. This theory was criticised on this basis and also
on the basis of its inapplicability in the modern world and ambiguity of implying something
intrinsic to human nature.
Medievalists introduced the element of religion and temporal power co-existing in the
state. Thus, extending the idea of an Aristotelian community-state, considered the whole of
Christendom as one large community bound by the religious and spiritual authority of the
church as well as the legal authority of the temporal power of a single empire or many
small kingdom. However, this temporal power within itself was bound by the power of the
church. This limitation was justified on the basis of custom and law of nature.
Along with the criticisms of the Aristotelian theory it is also criticised for the absurdity of
introducing church into the politico-economic sphere, especially since we now live in a
secular environment. The imprecise nature of medieval authority and advocacy of theocracy
by emphasizing the absolute will of nature, or the will of God that was enforced by the
clergymen seems as irrational. The arbitrary interpretation of nature by the clergymen
would now be unacceptable.
However, medievalists advanced form Aristotle in the sense that they looked at temporal
authority as a private authority. This last idea was carried by the subsequent theorists
through the renaissance and the commercial revolutions.
Machiavellis conception of state is morally neutral. The state contains all the authority that
there is within its territory. The state has the utmost priority in an individuals life, coming
only after family. His idea is rather practical (really simple and interesting). He thinks that
the state is an organised mass of humans used by those in control to whatever ends that
they might see fit. However, he assumes that all individuals want to be a part of a strong
polity, thus accepting any authority that satisfies their common ambition by providing at
least security and power. (Rest is quite simple as he attaches this idea to a market). He thus
provided scope of the state only through the ambitions of a monarch and blah blah.
Even so Machiavelli modernised the concept of state by introducing secularism and the idea
of sovereignty.
Contract (Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau) An additional criticism of the contractarians (Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau) is that if society is based on a contract, humans should be able to
withdraw from it upon their will, but today it is no longer a contract but an imprisonment;
you cant leave the social contract. Also, they try to accommodate ape-man into their
conception of society as a contract, which is essentially a capitalist act. They try to assume
that the capitalist man (Bourgeois) has always existed and made such a contract when, it is
actually the converse of it. They assume an absolutely capitalised human nature, driven by
profits.
Hegel came after these contractarians. He adopted a scientific methodology in his analysis
using a contradictory system of materialism and spiritualism but he gave in to the idea of
God being the supreme idea and utterly absurd related idea. The most important thing to
know from his concept of state is that he like Hobbes and others believes that rational man
wishes to control his environment and in this regard, right to private property is
instrumental.
He also concedes to the idea of the sovereignty of the state and that it represents the will of
the people (like Rousseau talks of general will)
1

Marx talks of state in the following terms:
o State is the superstructure that is made upon the base of economy or the means of
production.
o The state is a coercive force that forcefully maintains the social status quo.
o Maintenance of such a status is in the interest of the ruling class.
o The ruling class has acquired its supremacy by the virtue of owning and controlling
the means of production.
o The Marxian society is balanced on contradictions between those haves and have-
nots. These contradictions result in a conflict and the haves use their ruling status to
use status to maintain a status quo as it is not desirable to end this conflict. Thus the
state, instead of forcing reconciliation promotes conflict. These haves are actually
property owners and thus, state is inherently joint with property. This state is in no
way neutral between Property owners and non-owners and is actually an
expression of the general will of the property owners.