Lenin and Weber both have distinctly different views on the state and explore the pitfalls and praises of democracy through their respective paradigms. In Politics as a Vocation, Weber takes a militant view of the state, arguing that if the notion of violence and militancy did not exist, the concept and existence of the state would also be absent. In contrast, Lenin adopts a traditionally Marxist view of the state, arguing that the mere notion of the state is transitory, evolving and hallucinatory in State and Revolution. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Weber strongly emphasizes the relationship between violence and the state as a binding solution for the stability and sustainability of government. Weber's state emphasis is also centered on three models of authority, which are represented by the leaders of the state: the eternal yesterday (effectively divine right), the charismatic (with messianic qualities) and legality (a rational process as democracy). These three models of authority all have power and right to authority in a different sense; the strongest of these is charismatic due to the leader's devotion to the individual and crusade. Weber argues that without a strong leader, preferably with a charismatic character, or without the military capabilities to enforce geographic and ethnocentric boundaries, the state will ultimately fail as the state will be directly brought into genesis and developed through the actions of the prince. Pure military force is not sufficient in the modern context, however the structuralism within the military with respect to rank, units and division of labor, is directly applicable to the power structures of a modern government, primarily the implementation of bureaucracy. Weber argues that a new source of power lies within the bureaucracy that supports the leader and, in turn, the state. Weber also refers to the potential of economic power surpassing pure military power; that to a certain extent the economy could be the prince's suitor in place of violence. Weber's general feelings towards the state are violent and authoritarian-oriented, leaving room for a strong, dictatorial leader to control an irrational world. While Lenin's vision of the state will prove conflicting, Lenin and Weber both agree on the use of professionals within the political sphere. Lenin argues that professional revolutionaries help systematically organize and deal with the revolution, allowing workers to carry out the plans made by professional revolutionaries. Just like Lenin, Weber also leans heavily on an organization of political power and pushes for professional politicians, people who make politics a vocation in the idea of ​​dedicating their lives, money and purpose to a particular cause or to a particular vision. Just like a prophet, Weber believes that this vision and charisma are crucial to the success of a professional politician (who is not expected to be Christian even in religious practices). Both Lenin and Weber want strong, organized, intellectual and visionary men to be the leaders of these socio-political movements. Lenin's vision of the state draws on a Marxist tradition in which the state is slowly disappearing, allowing a new form of itself, primarily communism, to emerge in place of this old system of government. This transition from capitalism to communism is what Marx focuses on, and the extinction of states is the decay of capitalism. Lenin, and by extension Marx, sees the state as a transitory and non-existent façade for the.