Compare Mansfield's the Garden Party and Bliss

1430 Words6 Pages
World History since 1900 Max Weber, M.K. Gandhi, and V.I. Lenin were contemporaries, each born within six years of the other (from 1864 to 1870). The German sociologist, the Indian anti-imperialist, and the Russian revolutionary agreed that organized violence was central to the definition of the state but differed on much else. Compare their different analyses of the reasons why the state exists and their different ideas on how state violence can be ended or, in the case of Weber, mitigated through the proper character of the politician wielding state violence. ------------------------------------------------- Max Weber, M.K. Gandhi and V. I. Lenin were powerful men, each of who believed in different ideas of state and violence. Are state and violence connected? Is it possible to rule the state without the use of violence? Max Weber believed that if violence is justified, then it is possible to use it. He defined state in terms of violence, but emphasized on the fact that violence is not necessarily, but rather an extreme measure. However, Gandhi suggested that state should not use violence in any form, and promoted Satyagraha. He used this idea to present a non-violent resistance against the British colonization and for Indian independence movement. He achieved his goals through non-violence and advised the world to do so as well. On the other hand, Lenin could not imagine the state without violence. His revolutionary ideas demonstrated that only through violence could the state know peace and freedom. He emphasized that violence should be used in any possible way to achieve the ultimate goal, and thus create a better future for the new generations. Max Weber was a German sociologist, who defined state in terms of violence in his work “Politics as a Vocation”. By defining the state as a ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force with a given
Open Document