PSIR Answer Writing (June) Module – Target 2025

Model Answer
Test – 03

1. “Liberalism evolved into a distinct entity of its own. It’s radical and revolutionary edge has
faded away. ” Critically examine.

As a systematic political creed, liberalism did not exist before the 19th century. However, it was
based on ideas and theories that developed during the previous 300 years. Paul Seabright has
argued that the origins of liberalism can be traced back to early agricultural societies when people
were forced to find ways of trading and living with strangers.
Liberalism as a developed ideology was a product of the breakdown of feudalism in Europe and the
growth of a market or capitalist society. It reflected the aspirations of the rising middle classes,
whose interests conflicted with the established power of absolute monarchs and the landed
aristocracy.
Liberal ideas were radical as they sought fundamental reform and revolutionary change. The
English Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution each embodied elements
that were distinctively liberal. Liberals challenged the absolute power of the monarchy based on the
doctrine of the ‘divine right of kings’. In place of absolutism, they advocated constitutional and
representative government. Liberals criticised the political and economic privileges of the landed
aristocracy and the unfairness of a feudal system in which social position was determined by the
‘accident of birth’. They also supported the movement towards freedom of conscience in religion
and questioned the authority of the established church.
Liberalism has undoubtedly been the most powerful ideological force shaping the Western political
tradition. The character of liberalism changed as the ‘rising middle classes’ succeeded in establishing
their economic and political dominance. The radical and revolutionary edge of liberalism faded with
each liberal success.
Liberalism became increasingly conservative, standing less for change and reform, and more for
maintenance of existing liberal institutions. Liberal ideas could not stand still. From the late
nineteenth century onwards, the progress of industrialisation led liberals to question the ideas of
classical liberalism. Whereas early or classical liberalism had been defined by the desire to minimise
government interference in the lives of its citizens, modern liberalism came to be associated with
welfare provision and economic management. Some commentators have argued that liberalism is an
incoherent ideology, embracing contradictory beliefs, notably about the desirable role of the
state.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta has held that every single liberal principle has turned liberalism into the
opposite of what was intended. Liberalism worked a little too well for a little too long, transforming
from what was once an insurgent ideology into a hegemony that it once fought to upturn. In its
extreme form, “liberal egalitarianism — the idea that you should respect all persons equally — turns
into its opposite of some insipid doctrine that respecting all people equally means respecting all
opinions”.
Furthermore, liberal freedom of speech itself allows for the right to falsehood. Liberal fraternity is
not able to find cohesion because of the liberal assertion of individual rights. A defence of the
market has been stretched to the commodification of all facets of existence.
Liberal institutionalism was based on form, procedure, checks and balances. But, now it produces
consistent gridlock and anaemic politics governed by bureaucrats and lawyers. And they care about
form, whereas the masses care about results.
Liberalism has also lost legitimacy and credibility because it has transformed into neoliberalism. It
furthers the marketisation of relations in all spheres of social life. It results in rising inequality and
the creation of structures of autocracy and oligarchy.
Liberalism has failed to get the balance right between democracy and capitalism.
Liberalism calls for the doctrine of checks and balances and requires limited government to protect
individual rights. But it also uses the state and its executive power to keep the memberships of
political communities distinct. Against a minimum state, liberal society has licensed extraordinary
increase in surveillance powers”.
Hence it can be said that Ideological decline lies at the centre of liberal failure. The debasement of
ideology, democracy, and social harmony have been tarnished by militarism and market economics
and liberals have failed to live up to the ideals of their early precursors.
As held by Timothy Garton Ash, faced with creeping authoritarianism, liberals need to craft a new
agenda—learning from their serious mistakes. A renewed liberalism will have three prongs. The first
is the defence of traditional liberal values and institutions, such as free speech and an independent
judiciary, against threats from both populists and outright authoritarians. The second is to address
dogmatic market fundamentalism. The third prong requires us to meet the daunting global
challenges of our era, including climate change, pandemics and the rise of China. So our new
liberalism has to look both backwards and forward, inward and outward.

2. A discussion of socialism in a global age is a pointless exercise and it is largely the

dynamics unleashed by globalisation that have brought about the demise of socialism.”
Critically Examine.

Andrew Heywood has held that some have regarded a discussion of socialism in a global age as a
pointless exercise. The triumph of capitalism heralded the dawn of globalisation which led many
neo-liberal pundits to proclaim the final death and burial of socialism.
At the dawn of capitalist globalisation, socialism was declared dead and buried. Dahrendorf
reiterated that the point has to be made unequivocally that socialism is dead and that none of its
variants can be revived. Giddens asserted: “The idea of burying socialism has become a reality”.
Martin Anderson lamented that the West had won the Cold War. Capitalism was fully vindicated.
The theories of Ludwig von Mises and Hayek, economists who defended the free market system
and predicted that socialism will fall (die), had been confirmed in practice. Socialism was considered
dead because of the end of history.
From this perspective, globalising tendencies have brought about the collapse of communism and
precipitated a further bout of social-democratic revisionism. Orthodox communism was weakened
by the tendency of economic globalization. Economic Globalisation bolstered growth rates in the
capitalist West. It widened the material differentials between capitalism and communism. Increased
media penetration in Eastern Europe helped spread pro-Western and procapitalist values.

‘Accelerated’ globalisation undermined social democracy’s economic viability in a variety of ways.

Traditional social democracy had been based on the assumption that governments can regulate
economic activity within their borders. However, the progressive integration of national economies
into a larger, global capitalist system has weakened governments’ capacity to manage their
economies.
Intensified global competition created pressure on governments to reduce tax and spending levels
and to promote labour flexibility. Globalisation is an irresistible force and is intrinsically linked to
neoliberalism. Hence, socialism would appear to have been consigned to what Trotsky called the
‘dustbin of history’.
However, socialists with a longer sense of history are unlikely to succumb to this despondency. In
the 1960s it was free-market liberalism that was considered to be redundant, while socialism
appeared to be making irresistible progress.
Hopes for the survival of socialism rest largely on the imperfections of the capitalist system. Ralph
Miliband in Socialism for a Sceptical Age, held that the notion that capitalism has been transformed
and represents the best that humankind can ever hope to achieve is a dreadful slur on the human
race. In that sense, socialism is destined to survive because it serves as a reminder that human
development can extend beyond market individualism.
Globalisation may bring opportunities for socialism as well as challenges. Just as capitalism is being
transformed by the growing significance of the transnational dimension of economic life, socialism
is also in the process of being transformed into a critique of global exploitation and inequality.
Socialism may be particularly well positioned to make sense of the new global age, having long
shown an awareness of the pressures and tendencies that have served to create it. For example,
Marx and Engels can be seen as the earliest theorists of economic globalisation, as the Communist
Manifesto emphasizes that capitalist development always has a marked transnational character.
They argued that the desire for profit would drive capitalism to ‘strive to tear down every barrier to
intercourse’ and to ‘conquer the whole Earth for its market’.
Marxist and neo-Marxist theories have also been used to highlight asymmetrical tendencies, and
deepening divisions, within the modern global system. The World-systems theory of Immanuel
Wallerstein suggested that the world economy is best understood as an interlocking capitalist
system which exemplifies many of the features that characterise national capitalism at the
international level. E.g. structural inequalities based on exploitation and a tendency towards
instability and crisis that is rooted in economic contradictions.
Such thinking about the inherent inequalities and injustices of global capitalism has been one of the
key influences on the anti-globalisation, or ‘anti-capitalist’, movement that has emerged since the
1990s.
In these ways, socialism in the twenty-first century may be reborn as global anti-capitalism. This
trend has been particularly apparent since the global financial crisis. A resurgence of leftist
radicalism was thus evident in the Occupy movement, which in 2011 organised demonstrations in
some 82 countries protesting against the dominance of ‘the 1 per cent’.
The current capitalist system has failed to address the wider problems of mankind, such as
unemployment, inequality, oppression, poverty and hunger. This has resurrected the question as to
whether socialism is dead and buried as previously conceived by the neo-liberals. Therefore, since
capitalism has failed to address those mounting problems that have excluded the majority of
humanity from participating in the sharing of global prosperity, the assertion that socialism is dead
and buried has become a mirage.
Just as predictions at the beginning of the twentieth century about the inevitable victory of socialism
proved to be flawed, so proclamations about the death of socialism made in the early twenty-first
century are likely to be unreliable.

3. Do you agree that it is difficult to sum up a phenomenon as resolutely shapeless as fascist

ideology?

Scholars have tried to define the ideological core of fascism. Ernst Nolte calls it a ‘resistance to
transcendence’. A. J. Gregor believes that it looks to construct ‘the total charismatic community’,
and Roger Griffin asserts that it constitutes the rebirth of ultranationalism. Roger Eatwell assert that
it is a ‘holistic-national radical Third Way’. While each of these highlights an important feature of
fascism, it is difficult to accept that any single-sentence formula can sum up a phenomenon as
resolutely shapeless as fascist ideology. Fascism is a difficult ideology to analyse for two reasons-
First, it is sometimes doubted if fascism can be regarded as an ideology. It lacks a rational and
coherent core. Hugh Trevor-Roper has said that fascism appears to be ‘an ill-assorted hodge-podge
of ideas’. Fascists were drawn to ideas and theories not because they helped to make sense of the
world but because they could stimulate political activism. Fascism may thus be better described as a
political movement or even a political religion, rather than an ideology.
Second, fascism has been a complex historical phenomenon and it has been difficult to identify its
core principles. As held by Andrew Heywood it is hard to identify where fascism begins and where it
ends; and which movements and regimes can be classified as genuinely fascist.
As held by Andrew Heywood, the best we can do is identify a collection of themes that, when taken
together, constitute fascism’s structural core. The most significant of these include:
Anti-rationalism- Anti-rationalism has influenced fascism in many ways. It gave fascism a marked
anti-intellectualism. It was reflected in a tendency to despise abstract thinking and revere action. For
example, Mussolini’s favourite slogans included ‘Action not Talk’ and ‘Inactivity Is Death’.
Struggle- Fascists regarded struggle as the natural and inevitable condition of social and
international life. Only competition and conflict guarantee human progress and ensure that the
fittest and strongest will prosper. As Hitler told German officer cadets in 1944, ‘Victory is to the
strong and the weak must go to the wall.’ Fascism’s conception of life as an ‘unending struggle’
gave it a restless and expansionist character.
Leadership and elitism- Fascism is deeply elitist and fiercely patriarchal; its ideas were founded on
the belief that absolute leadership and elitism are natural and desirable. The ‘leader principle’ (the
principle that all authority emanates from the leader personally) became the guiding principle of the
fascist state.
Socialism- Despite the obvious ideological rivalry between fascism and socialism, fascists did have
an affinity for certain socialist ideas and positions such as profound distaste for large-scale
capitalism subscribes to collectivism community above the individual despise the materialism that
capitalism fosters. desire for wealth or profit runs counter to the idealistic vision of national
regeneration or world conquest that inspires fascists.
Ultranationalism- Fascism embraced an extreme version of chauvinistic and expansionist
nationalism. This tradition regarded nations not as equal and interdependent entities, but as rivals in
a struggle for dominance.
Hence, it can be said that fascism has a predominantly negative or destructive character. Fascists
have often been clearer about what they oppose than what they support. Fascism appears to be an
‘anti-philosophy’: it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anticonservative, anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois, anti-
communist and so on.

4. “The state is essentially a contested concept.” In the light of the statement discuss
pluralist and Neo-Pluralist accounts of the state.

There are several rival theories of the state, each offering a different account of its origins,
development and impact. Mainstream political theory is dominated by the liberal theory of the
state which emerged out of the writings of social contract theorists. Social contract theory, such as
that of Hobbes and Locke, explains the need for an orderly and civilized existence. State acts in the
interests of all and represents what can be called the ‘common good’ or ‘public interest’. In liberal
theory, the state is a neutral arbiter among competing groups and individuals in society; it is an
‘umpire’ or ‘referee’, capable of protecting each citizen from the encroachment of his or her fellow
citizens.
This basic theory has been elaborated by modern writers into a pluralist theory of the state.
The pluralist theory of the state holds that political power is dispersed amongst a wide variety of
social groups rather than an elite or ruling class. Robert Dahl termed it as ‘polyarchy’, ruled by the
many. It is distinct from the classical conception of democracy. But this accepts that democratic
processes are at work within the modern state: electoral choice ensures that government must
respond to public opinion, and organized interests offer all citizens a voice in political life.
Pluralists believe that a rough equality exists among organized groups and interests. Each enjoys
some measure of access to government and that government is prepared to listen impartially to all.
Elected politicians are publicly accountable because they operate within an open and competitive
system. Non-elected state bodies like the civil service, judiciary, police, army, and so on, carry out
their responsibilities with strict impartiality and are in any case subordinate to their elected political
masters.
An alternative, neo-pluralist theory of the state has been developed by writers such as J. K.
Galbraith and Charles Lindblom. They view the modern industrialized state as more complex and
less responsive to popular pressures than the classic pluralist model suggests. They do not dispense
with the notion of the state acting as an umpire but insist that this needs qualifying. Neo-pluralists
argue that it is impossible to portray all organized interests as equally powerful. In a capitalist
economy, businesses enjoy advantages which other groups clearly cannot rival.
In The Affluent Society, Galbraith emphasized the ability of business to shape public tastes and
wants through the power of advertising, and drew attention to the domination of major
corporations over small firms and government bodies. Lindblom, in Politics and Markets, held that
businesses are major investors and employers in society and are bound to exercise considerable
sway over any government, whatever its ideological leanings or manifesto promises.

Pluralism has been rejected and criticised by elitist thinkers who believe in the ‘ruling elite’. Classical
elitists such as Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels demonstrated that political
power always lies in the hands of a small elite.
Modern elitists put forward empirical theories about the distribution of power and have concluded
that political power is concentrated in the hands of the few. An example of this was Joseph
Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy suggested the theory of democratic elitism.

Hence, it can be said that the pluralist perspective portrays the state as a mechanism designed to
serve the interests of various groups. It has descriptive as well as normative overtones. On the
descriptive side, it deals with the working of a democratic state in the contemporary world. On the
normative side, it prescribes that wherever the interests of some influential sections in society get
undue prominence at the expense of other sections, the situation should be suitably rectified.

5. Discuss how the political approach of the third wave of feminism was more inclusive,
multicultural and global compared to its predecessors.

The term ‘third-wave feminism’ has been adopted since the 1990s by a younger generation of
feminist theorists for whom the campaigns and demands of the 1960s and 1970s women’s
movement have seemed to be of limited relevance to their own lives. According to Heywood and
Drake, this was both because of the emergence of new issues in feminist politics and because of the
political and social transformations that second-wave feminism has brought about.
According to Nancy Fraser, owing to a greater emphasis on identity politics around gender
differences, other frontiers of discrimination like class, sexuality, ethnicity and race did not fetch
much attention from feminist activists. The emergence of such an awareness amongst feminists led
to the rise of third the wave of feminism in the mid-90s, influenced by the conditions of
postmodernism and postcolonialism.
In this wave, many ideas of gender, sexuality and heteronormativity were inverted. Young activists
saw ideals of feminine beauty as empowering not as repressive objectification by sexist men.
Besides this, the internet revolution contributed to the articulation of the micro-politics of the third
wave. The Internet helped women overcome geographical boundaries in expressing solidarity with
women in the developing world and women of colour.
Third-wave transversal political feminist theory was based on the premise that differences like race,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, etc. should be celebrated as the dynamism of one’s subjective
location. This echoed in the form of multiple political ideologies that developed during this phase —
Cultural Feminism, Black Feminism and Postmodern Feminism.
Radicals viewed the female body as an encumbrance. The cultural feminists, like Jane Alpert,
Adrienne Rich, saw women’s biology as a potent resource. Cultural feminists like Robin Morgan,
Andrea Dworkin and Florence Rush make a distinction between femininity as identified by
patriarchal order with virtues like submissiveness and passiveness vis-a-vis the natural
characteristics of female nature, which they see as loving, caring and egalitarian.
The cultural feminists argue for the preservation of gender distinctions. According to them radical
shift in society would be achieved only with the restoration of culture to its female values of
affection, nurturance and equality. This has led to an emphasis on women’s crafts, art and
literature, and on experiences that are unique to women and promote a sense of ‘sisterhood’, such
as childbirth, motherhood and menstruation.
In the U.S., the Women's Liberation Movement focused primarily on middle-class, white women.
Thus, the Black Feminist Movement developed as a separate movement. The objective of the
movement was to address how class, race and gender intersected to lead these women to their
experience of oppression; and also suggest an action plan against the same.

Postmodern Feminists like Judith Butler argue that ‘woman’ is not a ‘stand-alone’ category, it comes
into existence with a bearing of multiple factors like class, race, ethnicity and sexuality. For her,
gender is performative and cannot be construed in any binary. She points out towards inseparability
of the body from social norms and language. Postmodern feminists like Donna Haraway, Mary Joe
Frug, etc. argue that all women do not share common experiences of oppression. Thus, they attach
extreme importance to the categories of queer, homosexual, transgender, etc. in order to
understand the identity politics concerning modern-day women.

Thus, the political approach of the third wave was more inclusive, multicultural and global
compared to its predecessors. Third-wave feminists have tried to rectify an over-emphasis within
earlier forms of feminism on the aspirations and experiences of middle-class, white women in
developed societies, thereby illustrating the extent to which the contemporary women’s movement
is characterized by diversity and hybridity.

6. Explain how feminists have generated a range of very different attitudes towards state
power.

Within feminist theory, states occupy a vexed space. Feminists have not regarded the nature of
state power as a central political issue. They prefer to concentrate on the deeper structure of male
power centred on institutions such as the family and the economic system. Some feminists question
conventional definitions of the state, arguing, for instance, that the idea that the state exercises a
monopoly of legitimate violence is compromised by the routine use of violence and intimidation in
family and domestic life.
Nevertheless, feminists have helped to enrich the state debate by developing novel and challenging
perspectives on state power.
Liberal feminists believe that sexual or gender equality can be brought about through incremental
reform. They have tended to accept an essentially pluralist view of the state. Liberal feminists
believe that all groups (including women) have potentially equal access to state power and that this
can be used impartially to promote justice and the common good. Liberal feminists have viewed the
state in positive terms, seeing state intervention as a means of redressing gender inequality and
enhancing the role of women.
Radical feminists have developed a more critical and negative view of the state. They argue that
state power reflects a deeper structure of oppression in the form of patriarchy. Carol Hanisch
argues that ‘the personal is political’.
Marxist and radical feminists deny that the state is an autonomous entity bent on the pursuit of its
own interests. If Marxists place the state in an economic context, radical feminists place it in a
context of gender inequality. Radical feminists insist that it is essentially an institution of male
power. In common with Marxism, distinctive instrumentalist and structuralist versions of this
feminist position have been developed.
The instrumentalist argument views the state as little more than an agent or ‘tool’ used by men to
defend their own interests and uphold the structures of patriarchy. Patriarchy is rooted in the
division of society into distinct ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres of life, men dominating the former
while women are confined to the latter. The state is run by men, and for men. Instrumentalist
arguments focus on the personnel of the state and the state elite.
Structuralist arguments tend to emphasize the degree to which state institutions are embedded in a
wider patriarchal system.
Modern radical feminists have paid particular attention to the emergence of the welfare state. They
see it as the expression of a new kind of patriarchal power. They argue that welfare upholds
patriarchy by bringing about a transition from private dependence (women as ‘homemakers’ and
dependent on men) to a system of public dependence (women controlled by institutions of state)
The social contract theory of state has been criticised by feminists. Pateman in ‘The Sexual Contract’
has brought out the gendered nature of the contract. She held that social contract reinforces the
idea of a ‘masculine’ citizen to keep out and exclude women from the public sphere or mainstream
of state apparatuses.

The feminist theory encompasses a range of traditions and perspectives and has thus generated a
range of very different attitudes towards state power.

7. “By Swaraj, Gandhi meant both outward and inward freedom.” Discuss.

Gandhi gave much importance to the concept of Swaraj in his spiritual, political, social and economic
ideas. According to him the word Swaraj was a sacred word meaning self-rule and self-restraint.
Gandhi proclaimed that self-government depended upon one’s internal strength. His writings
included both outward or political freedom and inward or spiritual freedom.
In “outward freedom,” he included national political independence and parliamentary swaraj. They
are forms of outward freedom in that they seek to free people from external control or rule by
others, be they foreigners or one’s own compatriots. The first component of Gandhi’s conception of
swaraj as outward freedom is national political independence. Gandhi argued that national political
independence is only a partial or incomplete meaning or component of it. In his view, a fuller or
deeper conception of swaraj “is infinitely greater than and includes independence.” Besides national
political independence, the fuller conception of swaraj includes two components: a “parliamentary
or democratic swaraj” and swaraj as self-realisation through service to others.
By “inward freedom,” Gandhi meant freedom from such inner impediments as ignorance, illusions,
selfishness, greed, intolerance and hatred. These obstruct the individual’s self-realisation or
attainment of moksha, i.e. the atman’s realisation of its identity with the Brahman or paramatman.
Hence, he writes: “Government over self is the truest Swaraj, it is synonymous with moksha or
salvation.”
Concerning both these types of swaraj, Gandhi talked about his ideal of swaraj as a square, of which
the four inseparable sides are:
Political independence- Gandhi sought to build up a democratic structure from the grassroots level,
the self-government (the real Swaraj) by making the masses aware of their power and dignity.
Economic independence- For Gandhi economic development was related to the concept of Swaraj.
Economic dependence does not allow individuals or nations to formulate and make decisions for
themselves
Non-violence in social relations and moral obligations toward others- Gandhi viewed the evolution
of human civilisation as a steady progress towards non-violence. He wanted to reconstruct society
into a non-violent one revolutionising the values by which that society lived. Moral resistance
through non-violence must be the guiding principle to regulate the relationship between individuals
and society.
Truth as dharma- At the Belgaum Congress in 1924, Gandhi said that ‘Swaraj’ is part of Truth. This
view sanctified and spiritualised the work of national emancipation or freedom.
Hence it can be said that freedom is the essence of man’s spiritual personality. Like Rousseau in The
Social Contract, Gandhi also considers freedom as the essence of man and for Gandhi it carries
inward and outward dimensions.

8. Compare the Instrumentalist Model and the Relative Autonomy Model of the state.

The Marxist perspective of the state offers a critical analysis of its origins, functions, and eventual
dissolution within a class-based society framework. Marxism envisions a classless, exploitation-
free society devoid of a traditional state apparatus.
Engels highlighted the state's role in protecting the interests of property owners and regulating
society. The Marxist theory of state has evolved into two major models: the Relative Autonomy
Model and the Instrumentalist Model.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and subsequent Western Marxist theorists advocated the instrumentalist
theory of the state. It posits that the state primarily serves as a tool for the oppression of the ruled
class by the ruling class. The state is organised to maintain control over the labour and the masses by
the owners of property or the bourgeoisie. The state is structured to serve the interests of the ruling
elite in feudal societies, the lords, and in capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie, safeguarding their
interests. Miliband, in his book State in Capitalist Society, argued that in capitalist societies, it is
essential to differentiate between the ruling class of civil society and the governing class entrenched
within state institutions. He recognised a genuine gap between the state and society, albeit one that
often closes due to the social and economic ties between state personnel and the capitalist class.

In later writings, such as The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and the Civil War in France,
Marx discussed the relative autonomy of the state. Gramsci, Althusser, and Poulantzas popularised
the theory of the relative autonomy of the state. They argued that the state enjoys a certain degree
of relative autonomy and is not merely a tool of the ruling class's internal interests. The state and its
administration operate independently sometimes to some extent, becoming its own controller
rather than solely serving the ruling class. The relative autonomy view emerged as a response to the
reductionist view of the state as merely an instrument of class domination. It acknowledges that the
state possesses some level of independence from direct class control and economic determinants.
Poulantzas, in his book Social Classes, focused on structuralist interpretations of the state. He
emphasised objective structural relations linking the state to class struggle. Poulantzas suggested
that the relative autonomy of the state in capitalist modes of production stemmed from a spatial
separation between the legal-political sphere and the economic sphere. He argued that in specific
historical contexts, the state could exhibit autonomy from the power bloc representing the capitalist
class. This autonomy allowed the state to provide guarantees to certain subordinate classes, even if
they contradicted the short-term economic interests of the dominant classes while aligning with
their political interests and hegemonic control. Poulantzas also noted that the state could maintain a
facade of neutrality among powerful groups vying for power.
However, both idealists and liberals acknowledge the importance of the state. Hegel contended that
the state, formed through moral actions and individual freedom, embodied the unity of rational will
and represents the pinnacle of moral behaviour, emphasising how individual liberty fosters the well-
being of society as a whole. John Stuart Mill says that the state is “evil” but “necessary”.

Thus it can be said that the Marxist perspective on the state presents a distinct doctrine. According
to Marxist theory, the existence of the state is necessary for the ruling class and the withering away
of the state is essential for a classless, exploitation-free, and stateless socialist society.

For any issue related to test series drop mail at

psirtestseries@shubhraranjan.com