There are numerous theorists that explain the significance of the State in regards to their

The “state” is best understood in relation to a government’s power, influence and involvement with citizens’ rights in a given territory. The larger the state the more involved it is in the lives of its citizens.

Marx theory states that the superstructure kept society in order and kept the proletariat in place by the use of the government, laws the media and education, teaching the future generations the rules of their society. The superstructure also favoured the ruling class by making the rules easier for them to live by and enabling them to do better in life through the better education they could afford and with the press helping them keep the proletariats under a false consciousness. The superstructure shapes the rest of society and enables to conflict between the ruling and working class to

This essay will argue how the society dictates the state, as it will be organized into six sections. The first part of the essay provides the opposing argument that the social compact is dictated by the state. In the next section, I will demonstrate why the opposing points are weak and provide my main arguments. The arguments will comprise of how individuals in a society create laws and we collectively can change and implement new laws. The four ways individuals can

The definition of ‘state’ is ambiguous. The meaning can change depending on the context. For instance, it could relate to agencies within the state such as government bodies, or the practices carried out by individuals. Furthermore, the state is part of everyday life and manifests itself through the combination of institutions, practices, people and discourses. This creates social order (Blakeley and Saward, 2009, p. 360).

Marx seen the economy as the basis of society and called this the infrastructure, he saw the institutions of society such as the political system, the education system, the mass media, religion and even family as developing out of the economic system which he called the superstructure which was shaped by the base (infrastructure), the means of production (everything required to produce), machines, factories, land and raw materials all owned by the bourgeoisie.

Some contemporary Scholars like Quentin Skinner define the state today as "a locus of power distinct from either the ruler or the body of the body of the people." (Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, II, p.355). Yet, others would argue that the potency of the word "state" derives from the fact that it means both ruler and people. In other words, the state is at the same time loved for its promise of order and stability for the whole community and feared for its threat of coercion by the power which does the ordering. Both schools of thought may be right for there is no universal definition of the concept. But no intellectual discussion about the concept of the state is complete without a review of the writings of St. Thomas

Karl Marx believes the substructure controlled the superstructure. The substructure, according to Marx is the economic system, which includes the means of production and the relations of production. The superstructure, is made of the politics, religion and the philosophy, and sits on top of the substructure. To Marx, the substructure is the foundation of the superstructure. Meaning, the economy is the base of the superstructure and wherever the economy is, the superstructure will follow. "People's connections to the economy shaped their lives" (Orum, 14). The substructure, or economy, consisting of the means of production, shaped politics, religion, philosophy, and education. In order for their lives to change, the proletarians need to cease the means of production. Marx makes it very clear that nothing will change unless the means of production were changed. Ralph Milliband agrees with Marx. Milliband and Marx both believe that everything is built on the substructure. The superstructure will follow

According to Marx, political views and cultural ideas simply reflect economic divisions and struggles. Relating to the issue of exploitation, the economic base – the exploitative way it produces its goods – creates the superstructure – its non economic institutions and systems

Though Marx views the communist revolution as an unavoidable outcome of capitalism, his theory stipulates that the proletariat must first develop class consciousness, or an understanding of its place within the economic superstructure. If this universal character of the proletariat does not take shape, then the revolution cannot be accomplished (1846: 192). This necessary condition does not pose a problem within Marx’s theoretical framework, as the formation of class consciousness is inevitable in Marx’s model of society. His writings focus on the idea that economic production determines the social and political structure (1846, 1859). For Marx, social class represents a person’s relation to the means of production, a relation that he believes is independent of

According to Haralambos et al (2004), Marx’s theory began with the view that it was crucial for humans to produce food and materials in order to survive, and to do so it was necessary to enter into relationships with other people. Fulcher et al (2007) suggested that Marx saw societies as social systems that were divided up into two specific parts, these were suggested by Marx to be the base and the superstructure. The base provided the mode of production and the superstructure provided stability through certain social institutions such as the legal and political systems. Marx also argued that the material conditions created contributed to the shape of society, he referred to such conditions as ideologies. According to O’Donnell (1992) Marx suggested that such societies could have only ensured material survival through the exploitation of the propertyless and by using sophisticated means of organised production. Therefore people first must be able to eat and maintain adequate clothing and shelter before they engaged in influential sociological activities such as politics and literature. Individuals were not able to access essential elements such as shelter unless they were able to engage in paid employment through a particular mode of

In conclusion, For Marx the economy is the cause of the resulting social superstructure(ideology, politics, religion,). The disparity between the ruling class, which owns the means of production and the proletariat, which provide labor, results in a history of class inequality and class conflict: Marx predicts that such class warfare would eventually culminate in a communist revolution in which private ownership of the means of production and class differences were abolished for good.

Machiavelli says that the state is just made if the general population participate and work to look after it. The state is likewise one of man's most prominent attempts, and the state outweighs everything else. The state ought to be one's essential concentration, and

Human societies have been class based in some way and the class factor has been the most basic dividing or differentiating factor between broad social groups. In the economic sphere that Marx’s theory focuses on, there is a class that own and control means of economic production which could be referred to as the upper class, and there is the class that maybe own nothing, but their ability to sell their labor power in return for wages which could be referred to as the middle or low class. From that understanding, and based on the conflict theory, one might argue that unequal distribution of resources and access

I have been for the most part skeptical about whether Louis Althusser’s essay on state apparatuses accomplishes anything not previously explained in more humanistic and less functionalist terms by Antonio Gramsci. Indeed, although there appears to be a clear divergence between the two insofar as Gramsci associates ideological work with civil society whereas Althusser locates it in the state, even this distinction is not as stark in light of certain passages in Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Gramsci’s historically specific analysis of domination through hegemony simply seemed to me to constitute a social theory that better accounts for contingency, agency, and change. After further reflection, however, it also clear to me that we can improve upon it by incorporating Althusser’s useful references to materiality and production.

of states and provides a basis of control that states use when dealing with each