State, Economy, Society

Max Weber

Against the struggle in other countries for voting rights.

In the past the aristocracy was in control of the administrative process.

The liberal state was controlled by the liberal constituency which were just the ones allowed to
vote.

The state is owned by nobody, it becomes an institution who cannot be dependently ran.

The state becomes an abstraction which exist independently from the people that run it.

The state is in fact a machine.

Outlines 3 issues - how to define the state, how does the state as machine maintain its legitimacy,
(what is the source of legitimacy), what sort of politician is required in order to maintain and run
that machine and run it according to liberal principles - principles of democracy, collective
principles.

1.What is the state?

Is the human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical
force in a determined territory. It is not defined by its content, by its values, by what it does, it is
defined by its means. And the means of the state are the means of violence. To have this, does
not define the purposes to which these means can be used. as a machine, if the state claims the
monopoly of the legitimate use of violence, this can be used for liberal or fascist purposes etc. For
liberal or illiberal ends. It cannot be sub-defined by its functions, because it can do everything. the
functions are too broad, nothing is excluded. The state has the concentrated power of coercion.

No individual has coercive power over others. All are governed by the law of contract. everybody
is free to pursue their ends and the do this by means of contract.

Defined as a monopoly holder of violence. Cannot be shared. This monopoly of the political over a
certain territory. exercise the power legitimately. If it is not used legitimately, would be resistant,
would be opposed? Would we deal with a civil war where the state right to use violence is
contested. If this cannot be used legitimately, the days of the state are counted.

It is essential that it is a political community, of domination of one group of men over another. The
state is the organisation of violence of that community.

If Weber is right, and suddenly the office holders are no longer the proprietaries of the office, if the
society becomes a mass one if the means of violence are in fact used by the normal people, the
state as a means, who uses the violence, how the state as a machine can be kept as a liberal
machine?

The modern state is a impersonal form of power, not owned by certain interests. In fact, the
interests have been expropriated, the state has been set free as an institution, as a structure. the
state becomes a machine that can be used for a specific purpose. They implement not on the
basis of values, but on policy decisions -

2. Who makes the decisions to make liberal changes and not illiberal? The administrator does not
fight - whoever fights is the politician - the separation between state and society, the separation
from definite interests, its transformation from an impersonal structure to a machine is like the
transformation of a professor into a politician.

The politician - character who sends images and ideas to a market = the electoral market.

Interested only in re-election. does this class/profession have a vocation of being re-elected time
and time again? Do the legitimise the process? No.

3 kinds of legitimation

1. tradition - habits, the chief of the club, of the family, of the tribe, king, queen - it is long gone -
this kind of legitimation no longer obtains

2. charisma - normally association with founders - of religion, of persons, commanders, who can
influence and shape directive purposes of what other people feel and want to do. This
charisma as a source of legitimation - this is gone too.

3. rational/legal legitimation - has to do with the rule of law - things are done according to this,
done not because of privilege, but because of everybody are equals before the law - this is the
modern form of legitimation.

Ethics - define a certain character of politicians - how they act, how they command the markets,
how they catch voters, how they speak to people

Ethics of conviction - “this is bad, this is awful, this is dangerous, vote fro me and I will do right” -
vote for me and I will sort it what whatever the consequences - a demagog - eg. Lenin

Ethics of responsibility - vote for me and i will make sure everything will be as good as possible,
we have a responsibility for everything, each one of you have different interests and collide, i will
work in order to get everyone what they want and need - eg. Merkel

The politician as a demagog is dangerous - legitimise themselves - if they get the state as means
and the guns - dangerous - use it - and then society changes it shape - how to keep them - with
politicians that get ethics of responsibility - their re-election depends on the relations between
people not being changed.

To be re-elected - has to have an essence of responsibility and ethics of conviction during the
election time in order to get the vote out - elections becomes a theatre, a platform - the ethics of
convictions has to catch people - once people vote, the politician has to return to the ethics of
responsibility - the ethics of conviction is there to get your vote.

A modern politician - the one who leads the mass party and uses it in order to organise and
capture, fight on the electoral battlefield - a politician who can both mobilise and de-mobilise
people - the who is governed by the ethics of conviction has to keep mobilise people all the time,
while the ethics of responsibility driven politician mobilises you to vote for him and de-mobilise
you to be able to govern.

A dictator of the electorial battlefield - perfect politician - come out, get your vote, come out 4
years later again. in between, the govern.

The ethics have to combine, they do in both political part and parliamentary groupings.