Theories of the state abound, divided among those who give greater weight to philosophy, political science, social theory, politico-economic consideration, international relations, or geopolitical analysis. Those considerations often overlap. Just as frequently they present contradictory conclusions. The search for a theory of state that will work for all models is dependent as much upon the empirical evidence available - as it is dependent upon how that evidence is analyzed. This brief essay will discuss two different approaches to theory of state and apply their points of view to contemporary United States society. The two approaches selected for discussion will be the Marxist politico-economic, class-based perspective and the Weberian sociological, violence-as-legitimizer point-of-view.
It is a generally accepted proposition that, despite the voluminous works he left behind, Karl Marx himself never developed a specific theory of the state. His writings, however, gave numerous indications of his thoughts on the matter and, as expected, those ruminations revolve around the division between capital and labor - and class distinctions inherent in that division. The fact that Marx did not specify his theory of the state has consequently led to several different "Marxist" interpretations of the state, both as a matter of theoretical consideration - and as a result of the changing face of the state, capital and labor themselves. Vladimir Lenin, taking the activist stance of the revolutionary, found it necessary to simplify the body of Marxist theory of the state to its barest essentials, which has been termed "economism." Economism, which was the basis of the Soviet Union's claim to social legitimacy, reduces "all politics and the state to a mere reflection of economic forces," according to geopolitical analyst Peter J. Taylor. The Leninist approach has not survived the critique of time and theoretical scrutiny, and since ...