Key Arguments

• He states: 'A political organisation will be called a “ruling organisation” to the extent that its existence and the validity of its orders can be continually guaranteed within a given geographical area by the application and threat of physical coercion by an administrative staff.', making territorial coercive capacity the defining mark of political organisations.
• He then defines the state: 'An institutionally organised political enterprise (Anstaltsbetrieb) will be called a state if, and to the extent that, its administrative staff can lay claim to a monopoly of legitimate physical force in the execution of its orders.', specifying both institutional form and the monopoly claim over legitimate coercion.
• He later elaborates that 'Formally characteristic of the modern state is an administrative and a legal order subject to change by statute, to which the organised activity of the administrative staff, likewise governed by statute, is oriented.', underlining its rational-legal and institutional character.
• He notes that this order 'lays claims to validity not only for its members—citizens, the majority of whom have acquired membership by birth—but also to a great extent over all action taking place under its jurisdiction.', extending its reach beyond members.
• He asserts that 'Today, the use of force is considered “legitimate” only to the degree that it is permitted or prescribed by the state', giving as an example the survival of the household head’s 'right of chastisement' as a residual of older autonomous powers, thereby illustrating how the state’s monopoly subsumes other authorities.
• He concludes that 'This manner in which the state lays claim to the monopoly of violent rule is as essential a current feature as its character as a rational “institution” and continuing “organisation.”', elevating the monopoly-of-violence claim and rational institutional form as defining features of the modern state.

Source Quotes

The first two of these are especially dependent on the way the legitimate basis of rule is founded. (On this, see Chapter 3.) §17. A political organisation will be called a “ruling organisation” to the extent that its existence and the validity of its orders can be continually guaranteed within a given geographical area by the application and threat of physical coercion by an administrative staff. An institutionally organised political enterprise (Anstaltsbetrieb) will be called a state if, and to the extent that, its administrative staff can lay claim to a monopoly of legitimate physical force in the execution of its orders.

A political organisation will be called a “ruling organisation” to the extent that its existence and the validity of its orders can be continually guaranteed within a given geographical area by the application and threat of physical coercion by an administrative staff. An institutionally organised political enterprise (Anstaltsbetrieb) will be called a state if, and to the extent that, its administrative staff can lay claim to a monopoly of legitimate physical force in the execution of its orders. Social action is “politically oriented,” especially also organisational action, when it is directed to influence over the leadership of a political organisation, in particular, the appropriation, expropriation, redistribution, or allocation of powers of government.

Since the complete development of the concept of the state is quite modern, it is best to define it in terms of the modern type, while at the same time abstracting from those changing substantive purposes with which we are familiar today. Formally characteristic of the modern state is an administrative and a legal order subject to change by statute, to which the organised activity of the administrative staff, likewise governed by statute, is oriented. This order lays claims to validity not only for its members—citizens, the majority of whom have acquired membership by birth—but also to a great extent over all action taking place under its jurisdiction.

This order lays claims to validity not only for its members—citizens, the majority of whom have acquired membership by birth—but also to a great extent over all action taking place under its jurisdiction. Today, the use of force is considered “legitimate” only to the degree that it is permitted or prescribed by the state (e.g., reserving the “right of chastisement” to the head of the household as a survival of the former independent power of the head that stretched to a power to decide on life or death for children or slaves). This manner in which the state lays claim to the monopoly of violent rule is as essential a current feature as its character as a rational “institution” and continuing “organisation.”

Today, the use of force is considered “legitimate” only to the degree that it is permitted or prescribed by the state (e.g., reserving the “right of chastisement” to the head of the household as a survival of the former independent power of the head that stretched to a power to decide on life or death for children or slaves). This manner in which the state lays claim to the monopoly of violent rule is as essential a current feature as its character as a rational “institution” and continuing “organisation.” 4.

Key Concepts

• §17. A political organisation will be called a “ruling organisation” to the extent that its existence and the validity of its orders can be continually guaranteed within a given geographical area by the application and threat of physical coercion by an administrative staff.
• An institutionally organised political enterprise (Anstaltsbetrieb) will be called a state if, and to the extent that, its administrative staff can lay claim to a monopoly of legitimate physical force in the execution of its orders.
• Formally characteristic of the modern state is an administrative and a legal order subject to change by statute, to which the organised activity of the administrative staff, likewise governed by statute, is oriented.
• Today, the use of force is considered “legitimate” only to the degree that it is permitted or prescribed by the state
• This manner in which the state lays claim to the monopoly of violent rule is as essential a current feature as its character as a rational “institution” and continuing “organisation.”

Context

Opening and later explanatory paragraphs of §17, where Weber offers his canonical sociological definitions of 'political organisation' and 'state', especially in relation to legitimate physical force and rational institutional order.