'Pluralists and Marxists provide fundamentally different accounts of the distribution of political power'. Discuss.

        In contrast to pluralists, Marxists believe that although democracy is possible, it is not compatible with capitalism. A central point of the Marxist theory is that there is a ruling class, although they do accept that this ruling class can be overcome, which offers slight support for the pluralist approach. The emphasis of the Marxist account is on economics; Those with superior economic power will ultimately hold political power and they use this to dominate and exploit the rest of society. The Marxist analysis of capitalism argues there are two primary classes: Capitalists, who own the means of production and employ the labour capacity of others and the Proletariat, who have to sell their capacity of work to an employer for a wage. Marxists, argue that as a result of this, exploitation is endemic in a capitalist society as the workers always produce more value than what it costs to employ them. Even in this capitalist economy, Marxists still see the need for the state. They see the role of the state as a mediator between conflicting capitalists, also it has the power to prevent a working class revolt and finally, Marxists argue that the state and law are not neutral as pluralists suggest, but instead, they are an agent of capitalism, ensuring that the population accepts and maintains capitalism.

        A major distinction between the pluralist and Marxist account of distribution of political power is the dispute over plurality of political resources and the dominance of economic power. Plurality of sources, argued by pluralists, assumes that everyone has the minimal political resource of the vote, but there are numerous ways in which power can be gained and they dispute the proposition that power is cumulative as those who are powerful in one area are not necessarily powerful in another. This view is supported by Polsby, “Power is a type of influence…a power holder may owe his power to his wealth, ability, reputation or, in general, favourable position with regard to any value.” In direct contrast to this, Marxists, argue that the ruling class use their economic resource to gain and strengthen their power, resulting in a monopoly influence. This contradicts the pluralist idea that those without formal positions can be highly influential and that no-one group can dominate. Richard and Jordan argue this is illustrated in Britain, which has a “style of policy making which leads central government ministers to consult a wide range of groups when proposing political changes”.

        However, pluralists do accept that there is an inequality of political resources, for example, the media it could be argued, has a very strong influence over the public and therefore those who control it are in a superior position. Marxists, would argue that the media is controlled by a ruling class with economic power, however, the pluralist opinion claims, “the combination of a free press, increasing journalistic professionalism, and countervailing powers in the media creates a system which generates the information necessary for effective citizen control over politicians”. Pluralists prefer to suggest that power is gained through skilful deployment of political resources in order to achieve particular objectives, rather than it being a foregone conclusion that those with economic advantages will achieve further substantial power, just on the basis of their economic power.

        Although Marxism contests that capitalism and democracy can go side by side, it does accept the idea of a ‘Capitalist democracy’, which encounters both a political and an economic system. In this there is the co-existence of democratic political arrangements and a capitalist economy. Although the latter contradicts the pluralist view, the democratic political arrangement, being the seven institutional features, can provide links between what at first appear to be two very distinct theories. Also, although economics is a predominant Marxist tenet, it does accept that this is limited and that political development and intervention play a significant role. However, where they differ, is where Marxists claim that the use of the formal political rights, such as voting and standing for election, is shaped by capitalist economic arrangements.

        The 1980’s brought about a leading, pluralist-Marxist debate, in which it argued that there were far more overlaps between the two theories than those that had previously been explored. It can be argued that at times pluralism sometimes relates to certain areas of socialist thought and in this context, “theories of conflict and consensus may be applicable a well as tendencies to tie pluralism to a Marxist perspective and the ideal of a classless society.” However this view is contested by Dahrendorf, who claims, to endeavour to incorporate a Marxist view into the theory of pluralism, is suspect at the least. It has been argued that there have been pluralist developments within Marxism as there are a number of salient social contradictions and movements other than those of class. However, unlike pluralists, Marxists do not accept that these social movements have entirely different causes and conflicting priorities.

        There has been a movement in the pluralist thought through the process of radical critique. This critical pluralism brings rise to the question of economic ownership and class power back into the centre of political analysis, suggesting that the pluralist account of dispersion of political power is converging slightly to the Marxist viewpoint.

        Although there is some validity in the argument that there are links between the pluralist and the Marxist approach to the distribution of political power, for example pluralists accept that social and economic power is important in gaining political power, it is limited when you analyse the key concepts that each of the theories argue, this is shown in the example above as pluralists do no see these as the underlying and only resources of power. The Marxist-Leninist theory fundamentally rejects the liberal understanding of political democracy as unconstrained institutionalised choice between competing parties, whereas pluralists welcome this understanding. The theories in themselves also refute any similarities between them, with pre 1970’s Marxists regarding pluralism as a capitalist ideology with little of value to say about the political forms of the social state. This contradiction of opinions is further supported by the pluralist view that power is a characteristic of groups in society, whereas Marxism seeks an overview of an entire society in which power is related to the mode of production, class and class struggle. Therefore, it would appear that although there may be some tenuous similarities, the two theories do view the distribution of political power fundamentally differently and it does not seem appropriate to try and bring the two together.  

Bibliography

Bottomore, T.B and Rubel, M, Karl Marx selected writings in sociology and social philosophy, Penguin books, 1963.

Young, Ralph… [et al.], Introducing government, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993.

McLennan, Gregor, Marxism, Pluralism and Beyond, Great Britain: Polity Press, 1989.

Chilote, Ronald H, Theories of comparative politics, U.S: Westview Press, 1981.

Grant, Wyn, Pressure groups, politics and Democracy in Britain, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1995.

Dunleavy, Patrick and O’Leary, Brendan, Theories of the State, London: The Macmillian Press Ltd, 1987.