The modern state comprises the demonstration of legitimacy and sovereignty of public power within a regulated territorial district. The modern state originally connected to the European institution upbringing about late fifteenth century. This led to the eventual introduction of capitalism and absolutism. The proponents attempted gathering a single state’s control in both economy and polity, thereby diffusing power from every other union like religious body into a centralized sovereignty that is state control.
The resultant in the next three to four centuries later is the introduction of state economy policy and a central operating system of taxation, security and diplomacy with other neighboring countries – “ a contemporary state system then evolved” (Niccolo M. n. d). Weber described modern state as a monopolized system where there is the use of legitimated impersonal principles to subdue societal power. Contrary to Weber’s view, some of the states outside Europe show certain deviation making it difficult to categorize how best a state is operated in a single theory.
In a struggle to upgrade the operation of a global economy, modern states in the present age have fast evolved even a global community (e. g. European Union); gathering states together to formulate laws, principles on which their inter-relations are based. States’ Sovereignty The extent of sovereignty of a state is a measure of diplomatic respect accrued from other states; such recognition is limited within the state. The legal landmark to delineate the sovereignty and legitimacy of state is explained by three principal theorists in international relations (as a study) viz. the Marxism theory, the elitism theory and the pluralism theory.
Contemporary Study of Modern States’ Theories Pluralism is popular in the United States. It views state as a “common leveling ground to resolve contending interests and also as a collection of an overall agencies ruling the state” ( Robert Dahl n. d. ). It resolves that the output of a state is the product of pressurized effects from diverse societal groups or agencies (polyarchy).
Wright Mills, in 1956, asserted that elitism is consequential to pluralism in that certain member called elite of the society seat at the corridor of power to dictate and make policies. Marxism in contrast to pluralism, states that a State legitimacy and sovereignty is a function of its capitalist contributions to its economy. There is no leveling ground in the policy here; neither is there a group of agencies which probably will rise against the capitalist and still result in an unfair play ground.
Each key player does so with a reserved interest with no neutrality. The Best Sovereignty: One would argue that if the so called capitalist of a country are neglected in the choice of policy making, their withdrawal from economy bring a big setback and digs a nation’s unemployment deeper, government receiving an end decreases in tax income, and international problem of funding develops, all of these pose big threats to the so called State itself.
No wonder the recent legitimacy and sovereignty of modern state shift heavily towards the capitalist and enthrone Marxism as a best description of governance. They share common interest; the few elites in the polity are strengthened by the fundamental economic input from the capitalist. The withdrawal brings the so called “capitalist strike” in the state leaving the elite helpless.
In conclusion, the few capitalists as described by the Marxism theory are the best major players in every economy in a civilized modern State since the elites or the diverse groups (pluralism) are indirectly or directly dependent on their input to stand in the system. Even if a State claims otherwise, professional probing could retrieve the hidden Marxism at the baseline. Reference A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Preface, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, with some notes by R. Rojas, and Engels: Anti-Duhring (1877), Introduction General.