John Locke's Social Contract Theory

However, what happens when the roles of the classes turn? This is Karl Marx predicts within his book The Communist Manifesto. The proletariats are the class considered to be the working class, right below the bourgeoise in terms of economic gain. Karl Marx discusses the number ratio between the two classes and discloses the fact that the proletariat outnumber the bourgeoise. Within the class is a sense of belonging, the bourgeoise live their lavish lives and have most of the say so when it comes to power. Most laws and regulations work in the favor of the bourgeoise class, while the working proletariat class is the class of struggle. This is where it ties into man’s self-alienation. Marx’s idea that the working man has alienated himself from humanity by becoming a machine of society, no longer being able to think for himself but rather only thinking of survival and mass production. By focusing on production for the bourgeoise, man is unable to relate to himself or others around him. He is alienated in the fact that he no longer belongs to a community but more so to a factory. This is beneficial to the bourgeoise because they would not have to fear the alliance of the workers against them if each worker felt isolated from one another. Karl Marx describes within his book the overview idea of the working man as a tool for production, a machine himself, isolated

In terms of the American political system, the most significant of the theories of the origin of the state is that of the ‘Social Contract”. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington, and John Locke in england and Jean Jacques Rousseau in France developed this theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Marx 's conflict theory has a very distinct ideology, it is stated that it mainly focuses on the causes and effect of class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The Bourgeoisie represented the members of a higher society which held onto the majority of the wealth and means also known as the owners of the way of manufacture and the capitalistic. While the proletariat class was constructed by individuals who belong to the working class or the poor. While they would focus on the economical, societal, and governmental implications of the rise of the capitalist economy in Europe. With the rise of the capitalist economy, it was theorized that the bourgeoisie,

Marx perceives society made up as two classes, the powerful and exploitive higher class known as the bourgeoisie and the industrial wage earners that must earn their living by selling their labor known as the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is known as the private property owners and the proletariat works for the bourgeoisie. There is an inequality between these two

Marx viewed society as a conflict between two classes in competition for material goods. He looked at the history of class conflicts and determined that the coming of the industrial age was what strengthened the capitalist revolution. Marx called the dominant class in the capitalist society the bourgeoisie and the laborers the proletariat. The bourgeoisie owned or controlled the means of production, exploited laborers, and controlled the goods produced for its own needs. He believed that the oppressed class of laborers was in a position to organize itself against the dominating class. He felt that it was the course of nature, that is, it is the way that society evolves and that the communist society would be free of class conflict, "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Marx & Engels 1948, 37)

Karl Marx and John Locke both formulated philosophical theories that worked to convince people of their rights to freedom and power; however, they had conflicting viewpoints on the idea of private property. Locke felt that property belonged to whoever put their labor into it, and one could accumulate as much property as he or she wants (692). Marx, however, considered the private property of the select few who possessed it to be the product of the exploitation of the working class (1118). Personally, I believe that Locke’s conception of private property is more convincing than Marx’s point of view.

Karl Marx developed his theory on class division by suggesting that all societies have two major classes, a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owned a means of production such as land or capital, whereas the subject class did not. Marx argued that this leads to the ruling class exploiting the subject class. The ruling class use a superstructure of the legal and political systems to justify its position and prevent protests by the subject class. In capitalist societies the main classes are the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and the proletariat (working class). In these societies the bourgeoisie exploits the working class through wage labour. The capitalists pay wages to the workers, but make a profit because they pay the workers less than the value of what they produce. Capitalism is the newest type of class society but it will also be the last. Eventually it will be replaced by a communist society in which the means of production

The Communist Manifesto discusses class and class struggle as a vital part of the capitalist system. Marx and Engels state that class is made up of people who are in the same position in relation to the ownership and control of the means of wealth production.(cite) For Marx and Engels the class struggle between the upper class, or bourgeoisie class and the working class, or the proletariat class is the epitome of modern social change. Marx identified three classes: wage for labor, profit for the capitalist and rent for the landowner (Knox, 1988: 160). Since capitalism succeeded in absorbing the landlord class, which left society with only two social classes: capitalists and workers. The Marxist theory of class is opposed by those people who explain class not in terms of ownership or lack of ownership, but in terms of prestige and

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

Locke took his stance on the appropriation of lands and earthly possessions. Locke proposed the theory of labor. Locke’s

The first being the proletariat or those who work who own the means of production. The second class being the Bourgeoisie, or the owners of the means of production (Morrison, 2006). Marx believed that because one group had power over another is the root cause for social issues. When Marx saw the conflict between these two classes, he began to look for an understanding how it began. Marx focused on the change to a capitalistic society, by looking at the history of economic development. Marx believed that the economy went though different economic stages.

The first idea that John Locke had that is shown in the book cover i’ve made is a social contract. A social contract is when somebody gives up his or her rights such as freedom of state and gets something in return, such as protection. The idea of a social contract became popular around the 17th century. Hobbes and Locke were some of the first to introduce it, even though they had different ideas about what should be in it, they both liked the idea of a government and the people having a pact over some things. In the illustration i have made it can be shown in two different places first with the king and the peasant and secondly with the contract. The more symbolic one includes the king and the peasant shaking hands. Typically when two people

Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls

John Locke’s views on property and liberty, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), have had varying interpretations and treatments by subsequent generations of authors. At one extreme, Locke has been claimed as one of the early originators of Western liberalism, who had sought to lay the foundations for civil government, based on universal consent and the natural rights of individuals. [1] Others have charged that what Locke had really done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was to provide a justification for the entrenched inequality and privileges of the bourgeoisie, in the emerging capitalist society of seventeenth

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau are often associated with modern liberal ideas such as equality for all citizens, freedom and liberty, etc… However, Locke and Rousseau present far more nuanced arguments in their works and although they share views on some aspects they ultimately have a different political philosophy. Locke and Rousseau have clearly distinct social contract theories, interpretations of man and the state of nature. In his work, Discourse on Inequality, establishes the idea of a fraudulent social contract. Rousseau further develops his political theory and discusses contemporary themes like the state of nature in, The Social Contract. There is a clear distinction between Rousseau’s theory and Locke’s theory as laid out