Marx’s idea of praxis leaves his theorising of power in society an open-ended project. The bourgeoisie of his conception is shrinking in numbers as it grows enormously in wealth and economic power. At the same time the capitalist state has acquired unprecedented power to crush popular protest movements

The word power in ordinary language is a very loaded term invoking mixed connotations of strength and intimidation, oppression and violence, even awe and mystery depending on the context of its use. Social scientists have tried to define power as part of social reality, shorn of its emotive overtones. A textbook definition of power can be formulated as the ability to make or influence decisions that affect one’s life or that of others.  To put it somewhat differently, power is the capacity to participate effectively in the decision making process. Those who for some reason or the other cannot influence or make decisions affecting their lives are thus considered to be powerless, and vulnerable to subjugation or exploitation.

Beyond these definitional matters there is little agreement even in social science literature, as we know it, on how power in society is theorised with respect to its sources, its exercise and its consequences. It was Karl Marx who emphasised the centrality of power in the organization of human society as an essential outcome of class divisions. Based on his knowledge of accumulated ethnographical studies in time and space he wrote in the Communist Manifesto, co-authored with Frederick Engel, that with the exception of the earliest hunting-gathering human societies where there was no notion of private property, “the history of hitherto society is the history of class struggle.” The Manifesto went on to say: “Freeman and slave, patricians and plebeians, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden now open fight that each time ended, either in revolution of society at large or in common ruin of the contending classes.”

With the advent of industrial capitalism or capitalist mode of production per se, the two great classes directly facing each other are identified by Marx as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie exploits the labour power of the proletariat by virtue of its ownership or control of the means of production. And class struggle between the two is the key to fundamental social change, according to Marx.

The main interest of Marx was in the exercise of class based power by the capitalist state in what he called the “bourgeois epoch.” As is well known, he concluded that the capitalist state uses its monopoly power on behalf of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Later Marxist scholars have proffered that the state may have substantial autonomy, but for all practical purposes the capitalist state remains the state of the ruling class.             

In the United States, the epicentre of world capitalism, where I received my higher education in sociology between1958-61, Marx was a no, no within the academia, although some intellectual rebels such as C. Wright Mills had started meddling with such unconventional subjects like the “power elite.” Max Weber, another German author whose wok is characterised as a prolonged “debate with the ghost of Marx” was accepted as a major pioneer of sociology. Weber’s main contribution to the study of power was his development of the concept of authority. According to him power becomes authority when it is exercised legitimately, or when it is generally considered valid and justified by those to whom it is applied.

He classified three types of authority or legitimate power. These three types are defined as:

1. Traditional authority, which is legitimated by custom. The authority of tribal chiefs, monarchs and emperors falls in this category.

2. Legal-rational authority, which is the type of authority in which power becomes legitimate by explicitly defined rules and regulations. The authority of the modern state bureaucracies functioning under written constitutions and rules of procedure would fall in this category

3. Charismatic authority is the type of authority in which power is legitimated by the unique and extraordinary qualities attributed to those in positions of power. Such holders of power may also be vested with legal or traditional authority. However, Weber fails to explain why even these legitimate systems of authority come under popular challenge and revolt.     

The other major contribution of Max Weber, to American sociology in particular, was the notion of “value free” science. He believed that no objective scientific inquiry was possible if the investigator approached his/her subject with commitment to certain values. Marx on the other hand believed in praxis, putting scientific theory into practice in order to bring about desirable change. In other words the worth of science for Marx lied not only in its contribution to knowledge, but also in what it contributed to social justice and human well-being. This notion is embodied his oft-quoted adage that “philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

In any case, much water has flowed under the bridge since the pioneering works of Marx and Weber. Marx’s idea of praxis leaves his theorising of power in society an open-ended project. The bourgeoisie of his conception is shrinking in numbers as it grows enormously in wealth and economic power. At the same time the capitalist state has acquired unprecedented power to crush popular protest movements. That perhaps reduces the chances of successful proletarian revolutions in the 21st century, while at the same time increasing the likelihood of “common ruin of the contending classes,” as noted by Marx. Can we pin our hopes on the 99 % Occupy Movement?

Hassan Gardezi is Professor Emeritus of sociology, a previous chair of sociology department, Punjab University, Lahore, now living in Canada. He writes regularly on Pakistan and South Asian affairs.