What Is Political Theory

The word state and its cognates in other European Language (state in Italian, Estado in Spanish, state in French, Start in German) ultimately derive from the Latin status, meaning Condition or status. With the revival of the Roman law in the 14th century in Europe, this Latin term was used' to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the various estates of the realm-noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king. The Status rei publicae, the Condition of public matters. In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups and came associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its enforcement.

In English, State is a contraction of the word estate which is similar to the old French estate and the modern French that, both of which signify that a person has status and therefore estate. The highest estates, generally those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power. The early 16th century works of Machiavelli (especially The Prince) played a central role in popularizing the use of the word State in something similar to its modern sense.

The earliest forms of the state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a durable way. Agriculture and writing are almost everywhere associated with this process : agriculture because it allowed for the emergence of a class of people who did not have to spend most of their item providing for their own subsistence, and writing (or the equivalent of writing, like Inch quipus) because it made possible the centralization of vital information.

The first known states were created in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia India, China, the Inch civilization), and others, but it is only in relatively modern, times that states have almost completely displaced alternative ***Stateless forms of political organization of societies all over the planet. Roving bands of hunter gathers an even fairly sizable and complex tribal societies based on herding or agriculture have existed without any full-time specialized state organization, and these stateless forms of political organization have in-fact prevailed for all of the prehistory and much of the history of the human species and civilization.

Initially states emerged over territories built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy. Currently, that is not always the case and these are multinational States, federated states and autonomous areas within states.

Since the late 19th Century, virtually the entirety of the world's inhabitable land has been parcelled up into areas which more or less definite borders claimed by various states. Earlier, quite large-land areas had been either unclaimed or uninhabited, or inhabited by nomadic people who were not organized as states. However, even within present-day states their are vast areas of wilderness, like the Amazon Rainforest, which are uninhabited or inhabited solely or mostly by indigenous people'(and some of them remain uncontacted). Also, there are states which do not hold de facto control over all of their claimed territory of where this control is challenged. Currently the international community comprises around 200 Sovereign States, The vast majority of which are represented in the United Nations.

Various Theories: have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. Some philosophers assert that the state is the result of social contract or an agreement between the people and the sovereign. There are others who feel that it is the direct result of force.

There is yet another set of philosophers who contend that the state is a magnified image of the family. All these theories, however, are maimed and fallacious and have little truth in them.

This led Garner to remark, that the state is neither a handiwork of God, nor the result of a superior physical force, nor the creation of a contract, nor a mere expansion of family. It is a slow process of growth and evolution. The state did not come into existence abruptly.

It has developed from its crude and simple form to the modern, complex structure slowly. In the words of Leacock, the State is growth, an evolution, the result of gradual process running through out all the known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past.

To sum up, the origin of the state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite period. The historical theory regards the state as a product of slow historical evolution extending over a long period. Various factors have contributed to its development. These may be discussed as follows:

• 1. Social Instinct: Aristotle simply stated'a fact when he remarked : Man is by nature a social animal. The germs of social life are laid the very nature of man. It is this elemented instinct which prompted primitive people to live together in groups. The state is thus primarily based on the gregarious instinct of man. According to Aristotle, state is even primary to family. Its origin lies in the basic instinct of sociability of man. State is thus natural outcome of very social nature of man.
• 2. Kinship: The social instinct of man was supplemented by Kinship or blood relationship. The earliest human organizations were based on kinship or blood relationship. Blood relationship was the most important bond of union among the primitive people.

  It knit together clans and groups and gave them unity and cohesion. The people who had their origin in a common ancestor lived together in separate social units. Those who could not establish any blood relationship were treated as enemies. Even today, we see various castes and sub-castes.

  In sociological sense they have their origin in common ancestor and caste is still known by the named of that original ancestor. There is a good deal of controversy among political thinkers as to what the form of social organization was in the primitive ages. Certain philosophers assert that tribes and matriarchal families were the ancient social organizations. Others contend that the most primary social group was a patriarchal family.

  Regardless of this controversy Dr. Leacock remarked, there it may be matriarchal family, there it may be patriarchal family, but there is no denying the fact that the family is at basis of the state. Seeds of the state are found in rigid family discipline. It is in the family that a relationship between command and obedience is established. A family represents the figure of a state in miniature. The entire factors essential for the formation of the state are seen in their diminutive form in the family. The members of the family constitute the population Home is the territory. The patriarch or the head of the family forms the government with sovereign power over its members. Hence the justification of Aristotle's remark. State is the magnified image of the family.

  The original family gradually expanded and developed into a household or a 'gen'. The gens by further multiplications developed into clans and clans united to form tribes. The bond throughout was kinship and persons unconnected by blood relationship could not become members of a tribe unless as a special case one was admitted by adoption.

  In a tribe, the head of the oldest or the strongest clan became the ruler generally called the 'Chief and his name became the symbol of 'kinship. In the words of Maclver, kinship created society and society at length created the state.

• 3. Religion: Religion has played a vital role in the process of the building up of the state. Religion gave unity to the people both in the primitive and middle ages. As Gettle observes, kinship and religion were simply two aspects of the same thing-Common worship was even more essential than kinship subjecting. The primitive man to authority and discipline and to develop in him a keen sense of social solidarities and cohesion. Those outside were regarded as stranger and even as enemies. People were thus united together under the authority of the same religious sovereign, Religion appeared in the world in different forms of different stages of history. In the very early times, the prevalent religion of mankind was animism-worship of animals, trees and stories. It was later supple-mented with ancestral worship. People descending from the same ancestors were thus united together.

  Later, religion appeared in the form of Nature worship. The Primitive men could not understand such natural phenomena as storms, thunder and lightening, or the change of seasons or the mystery of birth and death. They had implicit faith in the spirits of the nature and the spirits of the dead. They were afraid of the forces of nature. They worshipped them out of awe and reverence.

  In subsequent ages, magician kings made their appearance. The magicians pretended that they could propitiate the evil spirit. Thus taking advantage of the fear, ignorance and superstition of the fellowmen, the magicians established their authority. In course of time, the magician kings gave way to priest kings. The priest kings remained popular till late in the middle ages. Religion came to be organized as a regular institution. The Popes dominated the Christian world, the Caliphs established their authority over the Muslim World, etc. Whatever the form of religion, there is no denying the fact the religion gave unity to the people and thus virtually helped in the process of state building.

• 4. Force: Force also played an important part in the development of the state. In primitive, ages, might was the supreme right. A powerful person would rally round him a number of warriors and attack a certain territory and would establish his domination over it. History is replete with records showing that big state were formed by occupation and conquest through force. The application of force also gave territoriality to modern states. War and migration were important factors responsible for the establishment of various states. The demand for constant warfare often led to the rise of permanent headman or chief. When a tribe was threatened by danger of war, it was driven by necessity to appoint a leader if there was none. The continuation of war was conducive to the establishment of permanent leadership.

  When a leader established his authority over a certain territory by conquest and over the people with whom he had no blood relationship, all these who lived in that territory became his subjects. Kinship remained no longer a bond of unity.

• 5. Economic: Man has unlimited wants. He cannot satisfy them alone. He has to depend upon others to satisfy his needs. So there is always give and take is society. Man is both selfish and selfess. There are always disputes. State is born to regulate the economic relations between man and man.

• 6. Political Consciousness: The sixth factor which contributed to the growth and development of the state was the slow rise of political consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends of political consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends to be attained through political organization. At first the state came into existence merely as an idea, that is, it appeared in a subjective form, without being a physical fact. In course of time, the supreme importance of maintaining peace and order within the community and defending the country against any external aggression was felt. It is here that political consciousness appears in the real form. As Kilson put it, The need for order and security is an ever present factor; man knows instinctively that he can develop the best of which he is capable only by some form of political organization. At the beginning, it might well be that the political consciousness was really political unconsciousness but just as the forces of nature operated long before the discovery of the law of gravitation, political organization really rested on the community of minds, unconscious, dimly conscious or fully con-scions of certain moral ends present throughout the whole course of development

  With the growth of civilization and march of time, man has added to his needs. He requires the cooperation of a large number of persons for the satisfaction of his wants. This, too, is no less an incentive for leading a regulated life in his state. We may conclude with Burgess that the state is the gradual and continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crud but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind. The historical theory of the origin of the state contains the best elements of the other theories of origin of the state. It recognizes the merit of the theory of Divine Origin in as much as human nature has a tendency towards political existence. It also takes into account the idea of the force theory that force in one form or another has been responsible for the establishment of states. The Social Contract Theory suggest that consent on the part of the individual in organization of the state. the form of political consciousness has played an important part in the organization of the state. The Patriarchal and the matriarchal theories suggest the kinship played a prominent role the evolution of the state.

The word state and its cognates in other European Language (state in Italian, Estado in Spanish, state in French, Start in German) ultimately derive from the Latin status, meaning Condition or status. With the revival of the Roman law in the 14th century in Europe, this Latin term was used' to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the various estates of the realm-noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king. The Status rei publicae, the Condition of public matters. In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups and came associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its enforcement.

In English, State is a contraction of the word estate which is similar to the old French estate and the modern French that, both of which signify that a person has status and therefore estate. The highest estates, generally those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power. The early 16th century works of Machiavelli (especially The Prince) played a central role in popularizing the use of the word State in something similar to its modern sense.

The earliest forms of the state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a durable way. Agriculture and writing are almost everywhere associated with this process : agriculture because it allowed for the emergence of a class of people who did not have to spend most of their item providing for their own subsistence, and writing (or the equivalent of writing, like Inch quipus) because it made possible the centralization of vital information.

The first known states were created in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia India, China, the Inch civilization), and others, but it is only in relatively modern, times that states have almost completely displaced alternative ***Stateless forms of political organization of societies all over the planet. Roving bands of hunter gathers an even fairly sizable and complex tribal societies based on herding or agriculture have existed without any full-time specialized state organization, and these stateless forms of political organization have in-fact prevailed for all of the prehistory and much of the history of the human species and civilization.

Initially states emerged over territories built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy. Currently, that is not always the case and these are multinational States, federated states and autonomous areas within states.

Since the late 19th Century, virtually the entirety of the world's inhabitable land has been parcelled up into areas which more or less definite borders claimed by various states. Earlier, quite large-land areas had been either unclaimed or uninhabited, or inhabited by nomadic people who were not organized as states. However, even within present-day states their are vast areas of wilderness, like the Amazon Rainforest, which are uninhabited or inhabited solely or mostly by indigenous people'(and some of them remain uncontacted). Also, there are states which do not hold de facto control over all of their claimed territory of where this control is challenged. Currently the international community comprises around 200 Sovereign States, The vast majority of which are represented in the United Nations.

Various Theories: have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. Some philosophers assert that the state is the result of social contract or an agreement between the people and the sovereign. There are others who feel that it is the direct result of force.

There is yet another set of philosophers who contend that the state is a magnified image of the family. All these theories, however, are maimed and fallacious and have little truth in them.

This led Garner to remark, that the state is neither a handiwork of God, nor the result of a superior physical force, nor the creation of a contract, nor a mere expansion of family. It is a slow process of growth and evolution. The state did not come into existence abruptly.

It has developed from its crude and simple form to the modern, complex structure slowly. In the words of Leacock, the State is growth, an evolution, the result of gradual process running through out all the known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past.

To sum up, the origin of the state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite period. The historical theory regards the state as a product of slow historical evolution extending over a long period. Various factors have contributed to its development. These may be discussed as follows:

• 1. Social Instinct: Aristotle simply stated'a fact when he remarked : Man is by nature a social animal. The germs of social life are laid the very nature of man. It is this elemented instinct which prompted primitive people to live together in groups. The state is thus primarily based on the gregarious instinct of man. According to Aristotle, state is even primary to family. Its origin lies in the basic instinct of sociability of man. State is thus natural outcome of very social nature of man.
• 2. Kinship: The social instinct of man was supplemented by Kinship or blood relationship. The earliest human organizations were based on kinship or blood relationship. Blood relationship was the most important bond of union among the primitive people.

  It knit together clans and groups and gave them unity and cohesion. The people who had their origin in a common ancestor lived together in separate social units. Those who could not establish any blood relationship were treated as enemies. Even today, we see various castes and sub-castes.

  In sociological sense they have their origin in common ancestor and caste is still known by the named of that original ancestor. There is a good deal of controversy among political thinkers as to what the form of social organization was in the primitive ages. Certain philosophers assert that tribes and matriarchal families were the ancient social organizations. Others contend that the most primary social group was a patriarchal family.

  Regardless of this controversy Dr. Leacock remarked, there it may be matriarchal family, there it may be patriarchal family, but there is no denying the fact that the family is at basis of the state. Seeds of the state are found in rigid family discipline. It is in the family that a relationship between command and obedience is established. A family represents the figure of a state in miniature. The entire factors essential for the formation of the state are seen in their diminutive form in the family. The members of the family constitute the population Home is the territory. The patriarch or the head of the family forms the government with sovereign power over its members. Hence the justification of Aristotle's remark. State is the magnified image of the family.

  The original family gradually expanded and developed into a household or a 'gen'. The gens by further multiplications developed into clans and clans united to form tribes. The bond throughout was kinship and persons unconnected by blood relationship could not become members of a tribe unless as a special case one was admitted by adoption.

  In a tribe, the head of the oldest or the strongest clan became the ruler generally called the 'Chief and his name became the symbol of 'kinship. In the words of Maclver, kinship created society and society at length created the state.

• 3. Religion: Religion has played a vital role in the process of the building up of the state. Religion gave unity to the people both in the primitive and middle ages. As Gettle observes, kinship and religion were simply two aspects of the same thing-Common worship was even more essential than kinship subjecting. The primitive man to authority and discipline and to develop in him a keen sense of social solidarities and cohesion. Those outside were regarded as stranger and even as enemies. People were thus united together under the authority of the same religious sovereign, Religion appeared in the world in different forms of different stages of history. In the very early times, the prevalent religion of mankind was animism-worship of animals, trees and stories. It was later supple-mented with ancestral worship. People descending from the same ancestors were thus united together.

  Later, religion appeared in the form of Nature worship. The Primitive men could not understand such natural phenomena as storms, thunder and lightening, or the change of seasons or the mystery of birth and death. They had implicit faith in the spirits of the nature and the spirits of the dead. They were afraid of the forces of nature. They worshipped them out of awe and reverence.

  In subsequent ages, magician kings made their appearance. The magicians pretended that they could propitiate the evil spirit. Thus taking advantage of the fear, ignorance and superstition of the fellowmen, the magicians established their authority. In course of time, the magician kings gave way to priest kings. The priest kings remained popular till late in the middle ages. Religion came to be organized as a regular institution. The Popes dominated the Christian world, the Caliphs established their authority over the Muslim World, etc. Whatever the form of religion, there is no denying the fact the religion gave unity to the people and thus virtually helped in the process of state building.

• 4. Force: Force also played an important part in the development of the state. In primitive, ages, might was the supreme right. A powerful person would rally round him a number of warriors and attack a certain territory and would establish his domination over it. History is replete with records showing that big state were formed by occupation and conquest through force. The application of force also gave territoriality to modern states. War and migration were important factors responsible for the establishment of various states. The demand for constant warfare often led to the rise of permanent headman or chief. When a tribe was threatened by danger of war, it was driven by necessity to appoint a leader if there was none. The continuation of war was conducive to the establishment of permanent leadership.

  When a leader established his authority over a certain territory by conquest and over the people with whom he had no blood relationship, all these who lived in that territory became his subjects. Kinship remained no longer a bond of unity.

• 5. Economic: Man has unlimited wants. He cannot satisfy them alone. He has to depend upon others to satisfy his needs. So there is always give and take is society. Man is both selfish and selfess. There are always disputes. State is born to regulate the economic relations between man and man.

• 6. Political Consciousness: The sixth factor which contributed to the growth and development of the state was the slow rise of political consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends of political consciousness. It implies the recognition of certain ends to be attained through political organization. At first the state came into existence merely as an idea, that is, it appeared in a subjective form, without being a physical fact. In course of time, the supreme importance of maintaining peace and order within the community and defending the country against any external aggression was felt. It is here that political consciousness appears in the real form. As Kilson put it, The need for order and security is an ever present factor; man knows instinctively that he can develop the best of which he is capable only by some form of political organization. At the beginning, it might well be that the political consciousness was really political unconsciousness but just as the forces of nature operated long before the discovery of the law of gravitation, political organization really rested on the community of minds, unconscious, dimly conscious or fully con-scions of certain moral ends present throughout the whole course of development

  With the growth of civilization and march of time, man has added to his needs. He requires the cooperation of a large number of persons for the satisfaction of his wants. This, too, is no less an incentive for leading a regulated life in his state. We may conclude with Burgess that the state is the gradual and continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crud but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind. The historical theory of the origin of the state contains the best elements of the other theories of origin of the state. It recognizes the merit of the theory of Divine Origin in as much as human nature has a tendency towards political existence. It also takes into account the idea of the force theory that force in one form or another has been responsible for the establishment of states. The Social Contract Theory suggest that consent on the part of the individual in organization of the state. the form of political consciousness has played an important part in the organization of the state. The Patriarchal and the matriarchal theories suggest the kinship played a prominent role the evolution of the state.

What is Politics? It is very difficult to answer this question because it is the most controversial topic of social life. Civilized man has always been searching for answer to this question. Everybody, from the common man to the political philosophers, has been interpreting it in his own way, but no satisfactory solution has been found so far. These days everybody acknowledges this fact that politics is influencing every aspect of human life. Whatever the type of administration, political activities seem to be going on around us. We may, or may not participate in political activities, we can't get rid of politics. People are considered to be the rulers in democratic countries and they are given the right to choose their representatives to rule over them. Therefore, the citizens of such countries are more vigilant about politics. They, not only choose their representatives after every five years, but, go on evaluating the work of their rulers daily. Thus, all citizens take active part in politics in a democracy.

In modern time, state is considered a social welfare institution. Therefore, it is always busy in making the daily life of the citizens happy and, consequently, it fulfils every type of their need. This work is done by those persons who are elected rulers by the public. They run the administration according to the will of their voters. Thus, there is close relationship between the rulers (elected representatives) and the ruled (voters). Rulers, for remaining in their position, always try to secure the support of their voters through various means and on the other hand, the voters, with the help of their limited wisdom, try to hand over the reins of administration in the hands of those who work for public interest. Election of the rulers by the voters and the effort to solve the problems of the citizens by the rulers is the most significant problem of the modern times. The solution of this problem gives birth to politics.

It is because of this relationship of politics with common man's life that Aristotle has called man, a political being. Politics is involved in the mutual relations of men, in the relations of citizens and rulers and in the efforts of satisfying the unlimited needs of man with limited means. When Aristotle calls politics, the Master Science, he tries to prove that the knowledge of politics is extremely essential to understand the environment around the man. In the views of Aristotle, political aspect of man's existence is the most important aspect and this aspect determines the other aspects of human life. He has said that legally politics tells us as to what we should do and what not.

Marxist View of Politics: Though, because of spread of communism, there is no dearth of writers who support Marxist view of politics, yet because of the defects in the Marxist ideology, there seem to be certain defects in the Marxist View of Politics. That is why, Marxist View has been critically discussed below.

1. The individual-self is merged in the social-self. Idea of Marx about the individual has actually merged the individual-self with the social-self. The fact is that, in liberalism, society was so much neglected for the individual that some powerful persons of the society fully exploited others, but, on the other hand, because of discussion of the all-round development of the individual as a part of society in communism, free personality of the individual was lost. Perhaps, unknowingly, Marx like Hegel merged the self of the individual in the social self. Thus, it may be liberalism or communism, the class, owing the material resources and political power, uses the common man of the society as a means of the fulfilment of its interest. Marxists claim that politics is an instrument of development of the individual, but, practically, they use him for exploitation. This fact becomes clear by studying social set-up of those countries where dictatorship of the proletariat has been established.
2. Material conditions are not the only basis of politics. Marx recognizes man only in his economic capacity, and he thinks that the other aspects of his life depend only on material conditions. Religious, cultural, moral and other sentimental aspects of individual are influenced by his economic life and direction is provided by it. That is why, Marx has come to the conclusion that material conditions of man are the basis of politics.

This point of view of Marx can not be accepted. It is a fact that material conditions influence politics, but these are not the sole basis. In addition to cultural, religious, spiritual and moral values, traditions and customs of a country also influence its political process. Marx admitted this fact in his later writings and admitted that only economic conditions are not believed to be the whole process of political development. Clarifying this fact, Fyodorov says, "Marxism-Leninism, however, does not consider that whole process of political development is only directly and indirectly dependent on production." Avineri also says that Marx, in his later writings, did not consider politics only as a reflection of the economic conditions. Thus, political process, as explained by Marx, seems to be defective in itself.

3. Politics is not merely the study of class-struggle. Marx has divided the Society into two mutually opposing classes, whose interests are always opposed to each other and they constantly go on struggling. In the present era, it can not be accepted that whole society is divided into two mutually opposite classes (capitalists and labourers). The fact is that every society is divided into various classes and those classes are not necessarily organized on economic basis. Some of these classes may be such that they have no fronomic basis and there is no condition of their being in struggle. Even between the capitalists and the labourers, as explained by Marx, these days, there is cooperation and not struggle because, needs of the labourers having been fulfilled and the functions concerning their welfare having been performed, the difference between the labourers and capitalists, as discussed by Marx, do not seem to be working now. So, saying that politics is merely a study of class-struggle is not logical because that form of class-struggle does not seem to be working in the society.
4. All political conflicts are not class-struggle. It is wrong to accept all political struggles as class conflicts. It may be possible, that there is a very important economic reason behind every political question, but it will not be reasonable to call them class-struggle. For example, in India, it is being demanded that right to vote should be giver at 18. But the arguments, being advanced for this demand, are more political and social than economic. If a young man of 18 can become an able, efficient and reliable soldier who shoulders the responsibility of defence of the country, why should he not be allowed to take part in the politics of the country? Similarly, a young man of is considered fit for handling the property as an adult person, how has he become unable to participate in the administration of the country? We do not see that between 18 years and 21 years' age, there is an economic class of the young men and they have a struggle with the ruling class. Now the youth aged 18 is permitted to cast votes or in other words he has been given adult franchise. The public of a country wants to establish democracy in place of monarchy or wants to establish presidential form of government in place of parliamentary government, the form of this struggle is political or social and not economic. Therefore, it is correct to say that every political struggle is not class-struggle.
5. Economic conditions of the proletariat have improved in the capitalist society, Marx had said that, in a capitalist society, politics is an instrument for exploiting the labourers, and consequently, economic condition of the labourers will worsen but the study of social organisations of capitalist countries indicate that there capitalist class has made many changes and arrangements have been made for ameliorating economic and social conditions of the labourers and for the security of their lives, their health and education. Because of these arrangements, on the one hand, there is amelioration in the economic conditions of the labourers and, on the other hand, their professional efficiency has increased. It does not prove sertion of Karl Marx that politics will become the basis of economic exploitation in the capitalist countries.
6. Politics also did not create consciousness for revolution. The countries, where communist revolutions have occurred, were not industrially advanced, as Marx had claimed. And, in modern times, no revolution has been brought by the labourers in the industrialised countries. The fact is that because of fulfilment of economic, social and cultural demands and because of betterment in their condition, consciousness of class struggle did not develop in the labourers in capitalist countries. If any consciousness had developed it was for co-operation with the capitalists. It is correct that, sometimes, the labour class becomes ready for struggle with the capitalists, but it is not for establishing dictatorship of the proletariat, but for betterment of their economic conditions. So, it is clear that in the capitalist society, politics does not prepare ground for class struggle.
7. The politics could not become a means to establish a new society. According to Marx, after the revolution, Politics will be utilised for destroying remnants of capitalism and to eradicate the traditions and moral values of capitalism and out of it, such a society will be established, in which there is no place for class struggle. The whole of society will become one class in which there is no antagonism of economic classes.

The Liberal View: The above given views of the liberals may be criticized as under.

1. Liberals have viewed individual and society differently. Though the focal point of liberalism is the individual, yet it is criticised on this point that they have discussed the individual separately from society. Thus, the individual and the society become opponents of each other. That is why, the liberals advocate the uncontrolled rights to protect the interests of the individual.

And, because of this, they consider the state as a "necessary evil."  In fact, liberals have discussed the interests of the individual and the society separately as opposing each other. For protecting the interests of the individual, liberals have neglected the society. In the modern era, this problem is before even those liberals who are in favour of welfare state. In reality, they face difficulty in discussing the relation of the individual and the society. The fact is that man is a social animal. It is unreasonable to discuss him as separate from the society because the interests of the individual and the society are interdependent. S. Avinan, in his "Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx” says "The individual cannot be conceptually isolated from his social context: by definition any meaningful sentence about individual must simultaneously refer to his environment, and anatomistic model of an individual is philosophically unsound."

2. Open Competition safeguards the interests of the people having power. The liberalists' assumption that it is necessary to have open competition in society for the development and the common good, has been severely criticised by the communists. They have said that few powerful people succeed in a competition whether it is open or closed, and the weaker section of the society becomes more backward. Communists say that the plan of competition has been presented by the catalysts for the exploitation of the weak. Following this plan the weak go on becoming weaker and the rich go on becoming richer. Open competition is not only seen in economic fields but also in political as well as thinking fields. Through political competition the rich keep. Their strong hold over the government and the administration because he has the strength to buy the poor in the elections. In the field of thought, through various means they propagate the theories of the liberals in order to protect their interests. Thus liberalistic, in order to fulfil the common good (interests) and develop the society, advocated such an open competition which has ultimately fulfilled the interests of the capitalists and exploited the toiling millions.
3. The harmony of interest is not possible because the society and the individual are viewed differently. As already discussed, liberalism has considered the individual and the society separately, and, for them, the individual is the end and the state is a means. The aim of liberalism is the protection of the rights of the individuals. On this basis, it is very difficult to create harmony because society has been considered against the interests of the individual. That is why, the more the liberals try to create harmony between the individual and the society, the more conflicting it becomes.
4. The welfare of the weaker sections is not possible. The liberals of the present century consider state as a Welfare state. They feel that the state is in a position to fulfil the needs of the common man. It should perform functions concerning the interest of the public so that there may be welfare of the weaker sections. That is why in the liberal states, the jurisdiction of the state includes education, health and social security etc. But the Communist say that the basic aim of the liberal states is to protect the interests of the capitalists. The state leaves the weaker section for exploration by the capitalists in the name of welfare functions and creates the idea of status quo in the weaker sections. But welfare of the whole society will not be possible until plans are implemented by keeping the whole society, including the above given two opposite classes, in view.
5. Liberal democracy safeguards the interests of the capitalists. In the liberal states, where democracy is appreciated so much, the reality is that it has been organised in such a way that it takes the permission of the poor and the weaker sections for capitalists to rule over them. In no liberal state, the rule of the poor and the weaker sections has been established. The rich, by spending lot of money, buy the votes of the poor and, by thus controlling the government, they frame laws in their favour. Thus, a liberal democracy always protects the rights of the rich.
6. Politics will not establish the rule of order and justice but will ensure the hold of the rulers on society. Liberals feel that politics will establish law and order by ending the present conflict in the society and by doing the welfare functions; it will try to achieve common good. The Communists have vehemently opposed this idea of the liberals. They say that politics is that process which creates conflicts and disagreements. This is an institution for continuing hold of the men in authority over society. In this condition, the powerful men satisfy their interests. Thus, the idea of the liberals, that law and order can be established in the society with the help of Politics, is wrong. The other way, there is more exploitation of the ruled in the liberal States.
   1. Peaceful social change is merely a fraud. The Communists also criticize this point of the liberals that, in the liberal states, the possibilities of peaceful change are always present. According to the Communists in liberal states, there is always one sided competition. The ruling class, with the help of its unlimited resources, rules over the ruled in such a way that the ruled feel that they are being governed by the rulers, according to their (those of the ruled) will. In fact, capitalists, with the help of their unlimited resources, rule over them with the help of their votes.

T. H. Marshall's Social Citizenship is a political concept first highlighted in his essay, Citizenship and the Social Class” in 1949.

Overview
Marshall's concept defines the social responsibilities the state has to its citizens or, as Marshall puts it, from (granting) the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society. One of the key points made by Marshall is his belief in an evolution of rights in England acquired via citizenship, from civil rights in the eighteenth [century], political in the nineteenth, and social in the twentieth. This evolution however, has been criticized by many for only being from the perspective of the white working man. Marshall concludes his essay with three major factors for the evolution of social rights and for their further evolution, listed below:
1. The lessening of the income gap
2. The great extension of the area of common culture and common experience
3. An enlargement of citizenship and more rights granted to these citizens. Many of the social responsibilities of a state have since become a major part of many state's policies (see United States Social Security). However, these have also become controversial issues as there is a debate over whether a citizen truly has the right to education and even more so, to social welfare.
Criticism
From neo-liberals: Neo-Liberal (Free-Market) ideology (asserts) that state abstention from economic protection is the foundation of a good society, thus they are diametrically opposed to the social rights proposed by Marshall, Neo-liberals instead suggest that welfare programs (some of the social responsibilities discussed by Marshall to help the poor effectively utilize their civil and political rights”), have promoted passivity among the poor, without actually improving their chances, and created a culture of dependency. They instead suggest (and have implemented) welfare requiring fulfillment of obligations.
Proponents of social citizenship are very critical of the Neo-Liberal ideology, suggesting that it is an “assault on the very principle of citizenship, and that the Neo-Liberal institution of fulfillment of obligations as requirement for citizenship, because they suggest that citizenship is inherent and that that is only appropriate to demand fulfillment of the responsibilities after the right to participate is achieved.
From feminists: Some feminist scholars argue that Marshall's essay only reflects the perspective of working class white males. His assertion that in England all people were free and had civil rights is false, as only men had any legal freedom or ability to exercise political or civil rights. Thus, they argue that Marshall fails to discuss the issue of second-class citizens and that he takes for granted the gender and racial hierarchies within society is a fundamental flaw in his work.
However, while Marshall did not discuss the problems associated with having second-class citizenry, he did acknowledge that citizenship itself [has) functioned as an architect of social inequality. Additionally, many feminists see the expansion of social rights as an inherently good thing; especially as today; women in many countries have the same civil and political rights as men. And, feminists see social rights as giving an opportunity to many women to utilize their civil and political rights (just as Marshall suggests white men in England in the 1940s are able to do). Especially as current free-market solutions ſembrace'] a racialized, genderized, and class-biased vision of social equity and community solidarity that favors the interests of the most privileged members of society. Without resources, traditional hierarchies, with white men at the top, are unable to be combated.
The Contract-Charity Dichotomy: Nancy Fraser and Linda Gordon in the essay “Contract versus Charity: Why is there no Social Citizenship in the United States? expanded on T. H. Marshall's original proposition to look at how gender inequality has led to a dismissal of social citizenship within the United States. They argue that, because men were more powerful in civil society, within the male sphere contractual relations dominated, especially in regards to work with wage contracts. Gradually, the male sphere began to dominate more and more of human relations, and thus contractual relations encroached on more and more areas. Because of the hegemony of contract... a specifically modern conception of 'charity' was generated as a complementary other. Thus, welfare and helping the unfortunate became seen as a form of charity, rather than as an obligation. Because of this viewpoint, the receivers of charity were stigmatized for not “earning the charity.
Fraser and Gordon also offer a solution to allowing social citizenship to gain popularity within the United States. They suggest that concentrating the focus of civil citizenship from property-centered to a more solidaristic form would allow citizens to reestablish ties with their community, something they believe is essential for citizens to have in order to believe in welfare and social citizenship as a whole.
Conclusion: T.H. Marshall published his essay in 1949 and it has had a huge impact on many of the citizenship debates which have followed it. Though the original essay fails to view perspectives other than that of a working class white male, social citizenship not only can be but has been applied to myriad peoples. The United States has become disillusioned by the idea of social citizenship, but many industrialized states view social citizenship as their responsibility, even providing welfare outside of their own borders. Marshall's articulation of the idea of social citizenship was vital to the idea's proliferation.

T. H. Marshall's Social Citizenship is a political concept first highlighted in his essay, Citizenship and the Social Class” in 1949.

Overview
Marshall's concept defines the social responsibilities the state has to its citizens or, as Marshall puts it, from (granting) the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society. One of the key points made by Marshall is his belief in an evolution of rights in England acquired via citizenship, from civil rights in the eighteenth [century], political in the nineteenth, and social in the twentieth. This evolution however, has been criticized by many for only being from the perspective of the white working man. Marshall concludes his essay with three major factors for the evolution of social rights and for their further evolution, listed below:
1. The lessening of the income gap
2. The great extension of the area of common culture and common experience
3. An enlargement of citizenship and more rights granted to these citizens. Many of the social responsibilities of a state have since become a major part of many state's policies (see United States Social Security). However, these have also become controversial issues as there is a debate over whether a citizen truly has the right to education and even more so, to social welfare.
Criticism
From neo-liberals: Neo-Liberal (Free-Market) ideology (asserts) that state abstention from economic protection is the foundation of a good society, thus they are diametrically opposed to the social rights proposed by Marshall, Neo-liberals instead suggest that welfare programs (some of the social responsibilities discussed by Marshall to help the poor effectively utilize their civil and political rights”), have promoted passivity among the poor, without actually improving their chances, and created a culture of dependency. They instead suggest (and have implemented) welfare requiring fulfillment of obligations.
Proponents of social citizenship are very critical of the Neo-Liberal ideology, suggesting that it is an “assault on the very principle of citizenship, and that the Neo-Liberal institution of fulfillment of obligations as requirement for citizenship, because they suggest that citizenship is inherent and that that is only appropriate to demand fulfillment of the responsibilities after the right to participate is achieved.
From feminists: Some feminist scholars argue that Marshall's essay only reflects the perspective of working class white males. His assertion that in England all people were free and had civil rights is false, as only men had any legal freedom or ability to exercise political or civil rights. Thus, they argue that Marshall fails to discuss the issue of second-class citizens and that he takes for granted the gender and racial hierarchies within society is a fundamental flaw in his work.
However, while Marshall did not discuss the problems associated with having second-class citizenry, he did acknowledge that citizenship itself [has) functioned as an architect of social inequality. Additionally, many feminists see the expansion of social rights as an inherently good thing; especially as today; women in many countries have the same civil and political rights as men. And, feminists see social rights as giving an opportunity to many women to utilize their civil and political rights (just as Marshall suggests white men in England in the 1940s are able to do). Especially as current free-market solutions ſembrace'] a racialized, genderized, and class-biased vision of social equity and community solidarity that favors the interests of the most privileged members of society. Without resources, traditional hierarchies, with white men at the top, are unable to be combated.
The Contract-Charity Dichotomy: Nancy Fraser and Linda Gordon in the essay “Contract versus Charity: Why is there no Social Citizenship in the United States? expanded on T. H. Marshall's original proposition to look at how gender inequality has led to a dismissal of social citizenship within the United States. They argue that, because men were more powerful in civil society, within the male sphere contractual relations dominated, especially in regards to work with wage contracts. Gradually, the male sphere began to dominate more and more of human relations, and thus contractual relations encroached on more and more areas. Because of the hegemony of contract... a specifically modern conception of 'charity' was generated as a complementary other. Thus, welfare and helping the unfortunate became seen as a form of charity, rather than as an obligation. Because of this viewpoint, the receivers of charity were stigmatized for not “earning the charity.
Fraser and Gordon also offer a solution to allowing social citizenship to gain popularity within the United States. They suggest that concentrating the focus of civil citizenship from property-centered to a more solidaristic form would allow citizens to reestablish ties with their community, something they believe is essential for citizens to have in order to believe in welfare and social citizenship as a whole.
Conclusion: T.H. Marshall published his essay in 1949 and it has had a huge impact on many of the citizenship debates which have followed it. Though the original essay fails to view perspectives other than that of a working class white male, social citizenship not only can be but has been applied to myriad peoples. The United States has become disillusioned by the idea of social citizenship, but many industrialized states view social citizenship as their responsibility, even providing welfare outside of their own borders. Marshall's articulation of the idea of social citizenship was vital to the idea's proliferation.