Both Lenin and Weber have distinctly different views on the state and explore the pitfalls and praises of democracy through their respective paradigms. In Weber's Politics as a Vocation, he takes an activist 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 takes a traditionally Marxist view of the state, asserting that the simple notion of the state is transitory, evolving, and hallucinatory in the State and Revolution. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay Weber places strong emphasis on the relationship between violence and the state as a compelling solution to stability and government sustainability. Weber's emphasis on the state also centers on three models of authority, which are represented by the state's leaders: the eternal yesterday (actually divine right), the charismatic (with qualities similar to those of the Messiah) and legality (a rational process like democracy). These three models of authority all have power and right to authority in a different sense; the strongest among them is charismatic due to the leader's dedication to the individual and crusade. Weber argues that without a strong leader, preferably one with a charismatic character, or without the military capabilities to enforce geographic and ethnocentric boundaries, the state will ultimately fail as the state is directly brought to its genesis and developed by the actions of the prince. Pure military force is not enough in the modern context, but structuralism within the military with reference to ranks, 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 for economic power beyond simple military power; that, to some extent, economics could play the role of the prince's suitor in place of violence. Weber's overall feelings toward the state are violent and authoritarian, leaving room for a strong, dictatorial leader to control an irrational world. Although Lenin's vision of the state was contrasting, both Lenin and Weber agreed on the use of professionals in politics. Lenin advocates that professional revolutionaries help organize and systematically approach the revolution, allowing workers to follow through on plans made by professional revolutionaries. Like Lenin, Weber also leaned heavily in favor of organizing political power and pushed for professional politicians – people who make politics a vocation with the idea that they dedicate their lives, their money and their purpose to a particular cause or a particular vision. Much like a prophet, Weber considers this vision and charisma essential to the success of a professional politician (who should also not be Christian in his religious practices). Lenin and Weber wanted 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 slowly withers away, 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..