The Dalai Lama was the head of the Theocratic state of Tibet. Another significant thing was that the Holy Roman Empire was torn apart by the wars of the Reformation. . Even if the King is bad, the people have no right to rebel against him. The bourgeois class gradually and steadily captured political power and finally established its authority over all aspects of governmental affairs.
Collecting materials from history Marx has shown that without using the state as an instrument the bourgeoisie could not survive at all because its survival depended upon its ability to accumulate and guard wealth. The control of the bourgeoisie class is not confined within the local political sphere but its influence spreads throughout the national politics. In the Manifesto they uttered almost the same words. One totem group men were to marry all the women of another totem group. There was no law or justice. Reforms should not constitute the goals but they are transitory means for arriving at goals.
There shall be no sign of state as a political institution. Some of these criticisms are: 1. The state consolidated its power against the civil society because in the latter there was dominating influence of bourgeoisie and other factions of capitalists. The strongest person in a tribe is, therefore, made the chief or leader of that tribe. He went to the extent of asserting that the party represents the national popular collective will and aims at the realisation of a higher and total form of modern civilisation.
Thirdly, the theory is historically false. Bluntschli condemned it as highly dangerous, Jeremy Bentham called it a rattle. For anyone who does not know Grizzly Adams think of living without public resources such as water, electricity, and roa … ds. The theory remained popular as long as religion was considered to be the chief motivating force of human activity. In the second place, Sir Henry Maine attacked the theory as one of putting the cart before the horse, because contract is not the beginning of the society, but the end of it. The King who rules over the state is an agent of God on earth.
In the ninth century A. So the general will must be the filtered cream of the will of all. Increasingly, the chief opposition to such ideas came not from the various faiths but from the feudal nobles, so that in both France and England the seventeenth century brought a crisis to the aristocracy. The people retained their right to dispose the king. The purpose of the reforms would be to help the working class in its preparation for revolution. So the first prediction remains unfulfilled. Later on, the Aryans sprawled their kingdoms and broad-based their government and ruled with the backing of the people.
This trio is considered as the godfathers of the social contract theory. That sovereign might be a single person or an assembly of the whole body of citizens. Monarchy is hereditary and it is the divine right of a King that it should pass from father to son; 3. To refute it in great details is to flog a dead horse. The second statement of Engels runs as follows; As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection … as soon as class rule … are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary…. There might not be any social contract anywhere in history but it carried the message of the supremacy of the people in the statecraft and gave encouragement to the growth of democracy and gave a deterrent to the arbitrariness of any government. As a matter of fact, both patriarchal system and matriarchal system prevailed side-by-side.
In The German Ideology Marx and Engels have stressed the point that in every class state the dominant class always dominants the economic, political, cultural and other aspects of state. It was a way of thinking about monarchy that appealed to specifically Christian ideas about the origins of authority. If a king were to be bad and vicious, he Should be done away with. It is because of the lack of historical evidence that a political thinker has to depend upon sociology, biology, ethnology and anthropology for any suggestion as to the circumstances and conditions under which the state came into being. So the state tries to make balance among all the potential forces. Democracy glorifies the individual as opposed to authority.
When human activities were considered the motive force of the state, the divine one receded to the background and finally vanished away. Since the theory of Divine Original defended absolute authority, the democrats all the world over attacked from right and left. Carefully the Crown fostered the evolution of a national Gallican church, firmly Catholic though controlled by the monarchy. The State and the Ideology : Though Marx and Engels have viewed the state from the background of materialism, they have never overlooked the ideological aspect of state. But to perpetuate it something more is essential. The bourgeoisie, in order to establish its full control over the industry in particular and the economy in general, has constantly revolutionised the industry, mode of production. Be that as it may, during a large part of human history the state was viewed as direct divine creation and theocratic in nature.
In the communist society there would not be any class and the special role of the state would prove irrelevant. Criticism of the Theory: The patriarchal theory as the origin of the state is subjected to the following criticisms: In the first place, the origin of the state is due to several factors like family, religion, force, political necessity, etc. First, the theory dashed to the ground the more worthless theory that the state was the creation of God. Definition of Divine Right Divine right of kings was a way of justifying monarchies, particularly in Europe during the 16th to the 18th centuries. If so it will take decisions for its benefits.