Comparing Locke And Marx's Manifesto Of The Communist Party

Philosophy has shaped the world in almost everything we have done. Philosophy causes everyone to at least question the norms of society and situations. This makes a healthy pattern for society. If we never were to question anything we would just be blind sheep who follow whatever they are told. Many philosophers challenge the norms in a hope to make things better. Karl Marx and Buddha were very influential people in the world of Philosophy and are some of the pioneers of challenging the routine and normal perception of things and ideas. They had their own ideas that helped shaped the practices and things that people do today. They both can be very different in how they would answer basic questions regarding philosophy. Even though, they

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.

Published in 1689, John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration addresses religious toleration in England during the time period. Locke argues that religious intolerance is bad statecraft, and it is counterproductive to developing a civil society.

Basic human rights are now a universal concept, but in Locke’s time these ideas had never been heard before. Furthermore, Locke made foundational contributions to modern government systems. He advocated for the church and state to be seperated, so the church cannot control the government. Locke argued that rulers could only stay in power as long as they had the consent of the ruled. If the people were no longer pleased with the state, they had the right to rebel against the government.

Two of the most influential and celebrated modern political thinkers, Karl Marx and John Locke, have made countless insightful and compelling arguments, expressing their ideas on various conditions of the individual, state, and the interactions between the two. Marx was a German political thinker who was best known for his works with idea of communism and social class divisions. Locke was an English philosopher famous for his social contract and is known as the Father of Liberalism (CITE). Despite the paramount success these men achieved, they had radically different views on the idea of property and the description of freedom, finding only minimal similarity on their views on the right to revolt.

This essay will be arguing that Marx and Burke held heavily contrasted views in regards to the role of religion in political. The topic of religion in politics has been highly debated throughout the ages, and the viewpoints held by these two scholars is meant to exemplify the struggle of opposing political ideologies. Marx believed that religion should be abolished and entirely separated from the state, and Burke believed that church and state should remain united in governance. To support this argument the use of their books the Reflection of the Revolution in France and the Marx-Engels Reader will be referenced to provide evidence.

together and associated with the major historical events that have marked the history of humanity

his religion. Marx writes, "The more man puts into God the less he retains in

Beginning with Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, is the critique of religion. He states that the basis of religious criticism is that “man makes religion; religion does not make man” (53). In a religious society man has lost himself in an abstraction, marveling in the very God he created, which he states is an “inverted world conscious” (53). By criticizing religion it allows man to regain reason and create his own reality rather than focusing on the abstract such as heaven. Once we have criticized religion and removed ourselves from the illusions of religion, the criticism will then lead into a progression of criticism leading into politics, “the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics” (54). Marx then leads in to the criticism of history, where criticism of the past will then bring us an understanding to better criticize the present, and

Generally, Marx’s position on religion is drawn up in an entirely negative manner. In his writings, he expresses his belief that religion is a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, while at the same time bring into servitude the working class people. In addition to that, he argues that the society’s inclination towards religious excitement serves to represent a reaction to disaffection. Also, Marx contends that, since religion causes human beings to feel delusive happiness it makes an erroneous mental representation in as well as of itself. Indeed to him, it is an instrument utilized to sustain cultural systems together with ideologies that in most cases encourages oppression in the society (Parsons 38-46).

Toleration is the key to Locke's theory. Only churches that teach toleration are in Locke's view. In contrast, Locke’s view on atheism suggests that he was far from considering religion as unimportant. As an empiricist, he took practical considerations into account, such

As industry was booming, the mass immigration into the cities proved to be hurtful for some parishes that did not have the space to hold many parishioners. Money from the upper class, however, erected new churches and places of worship, large enough and accommodating for most, but now discriminatory against the lower class. Religious leaders thought that lucrative churches would solve the economic problems of the time, but all it really did is widen the gap between social classes even more.[4] Religion was no longer about faith, but rather it became a business, aiding to the rich, taking from the poor. Karl Marx saw a need for equality without religious interference, and he expressed it in the Communist Manifesto, stating, “Society could no longer live under this bourgeois.”[5]

Religion and private property are thought to be exceedingly influential in regards to politics, and many political theorists would agree with this statement. John Locke, an imperative leader in the Enlightenment movement in Europe, thoroughly expresses the relationship between government, religion, and private property in his writing, The Two Treatises of Government. Locke examines his belief that all humans are free and equal by nature, and they have the the right to life, liberty, and private property. Locke believes that man has the duty to preserve, of preservation, and means of preservation (private property) to thank God for putting us on

Karl Marx and John Locke both place a great deal of importance in both labour and property in discussing their political philosophies. At first glance, the two thinkers seem to possess completely different ideas on property, its importance, and the form of society which should grow from it. The disparity in their beliefs is evident, but they share a similar approach to labour and acceptable conditions while constructing philosophies which inherently attack each other. Locke’s suggestion that capitalism is a natural political progression can only be accomplished when the worker himself becomes a commodity to be traded, a transformation which Marx identifies as a major problem with capitalism. In looking at capitalism

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