Comparing Marxist Tradition With French Tradition

Marxism is a critical perspective based off of the ideas of Karl Marx, with Marx’s most famous work being the Communist Manifesto. This book illustrates

One of the honors for ‘greatest theories’ in contemporary civilization has to be awarded to Marxism. Invented in late 19th century by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Marxism has had great influences on the development of modern society. Despite its eventual failure, Marxism once led to numerous revolutions that working classes raised against the ruling parties in different countries. Consequently, it paved the way for the erection of the Berlin Wall, the formation of the Warsaw Treaties—communist camp confronting NATO, and the establishment of a world super power, the Soviet Union at the dawn of this century. Even decades later, after all those Marxist milestones

After it was conceived from the mind of Karl Marx, a Communist form of government

Initially we shall examine the concept of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels view of Socialism as described by Michael W. Doyle. At the very beginning of the chapter he states that “[Marx and Engels] are perhaps best known for the materialist conception of history in which the conditions of production shape all other areas of society — institutions, laws, ideas and morality” (Doyle 322). Both of

Both Marx and Rousseau disagree with the classical liberal tradition and offer alternatives. Unlike the classical liberal tradition which is built on the ideas of individual natural rights, Marx and Rousseau believe that there is no such thing as rights by nature. Rousseau believed that you cannot talk about rights until there is consent. He also said that no individual has a claim to anything. For people to have rights in Rousseau’s eyes everyone must sit down as equals in a community and make a unanimous decision on the rights people have. Rousseau calls this the social construct. Marx believed that humans do not have rights by nature and that if you look to the past it will show that there have always been people ruling over others.

Tocqueville and Marx both argue for an egalitarian modern society, but their idea of equality of modern social order differs, which leads to two distinctive conclusions, democracy for former and communism for latter, which is adopted by different nations in the world. Both social theorists place high importance in analysing the history of society to determine modern social order, but have differing conceptions of history that leads to their contrasting views on the fundamental nature of the capitalist society, and their distinct predictions for the future. This essay will examine Tocqueville’s and Marx’s conceptions of history and through it, understand the nature of capitalist society, and comprehend their predictions for an ideal modern state. Using their analysis, I shall argue that Marx’s prediction of the future is more compelling as compared to Tocqueville.

Society is built and run on social and moral obligations and while these two are closely related, both impact cultures around the world in different ways. Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Mill’s On Liberty demonstrate the relationship these obligations have with successful and unsuccessful social constructs. For the purposes of this paper, a moral obligation is a consideration of what is right¬¬¬ and wrong and can vary depending on pressures from external sources such as religion, while a social obligation is a responsibility the individual has to act to benefit the best interests of their class as well as supporting the stability between society and the individual. Marx and Mill differ greatly in their opinions on the role and effects of

In an effort to understand progress and its goal in humanity, philosophers Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx each present their theories with Kant believing progress is made through the reform brought on by antagonism and social instability in humanity which will ultimately lead to perpetual peace, while Marx argues progress comes in the form of a worker’s revolution and the adoption of true communism that will lead to utopia. These German thinkers seek to define the guiding the force beneath humanity’s constant state of evolution to understand where it is headed and advise towards a goal they find ideal for humanity.

99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).

“This fame study of original man, of his real wants, and of the fundamental principle of his duties, is likewise the only good method we can take, to surmount an infinite number of difficulties concerning the Origins of Inequality, the true foundations of political bodies, the reciprocal rights of their members, and a thousand other familiar questions that are as important as they are ill understood.” (Rousseau, Preface lviii)

In this document, Mazzini largely focuses on how the ideas circulated after the French Revolution regarding the rights of man have corrupted the true nature of a nation by creating a culture of greed and egoism. While he openly discourages the erasure and pursuit of these rights, he is quick to point out that individuals’ egoism and each nation’s separation of class “… has grown and grows worse in nearly every country, and especially where I write the price of the necessaries of life has gone on continually rising, the wages of the working-man in many branches of industry falling and the population multiplying” (87). He argues here that allowing any nation to be solely characterized by the rights of its citizens causes a nation to define itself based on the millions of individuals, dividing any community or society—which he believes is the backbone of the nation. In Mazzini’s view, the solution to this is by fostering a national culture of duty to one another. When he asks, “What is Society but a collection of men who have agreed to bring the strength of the many in support of the rights of each?” the audience is forced to question their own personal hierarchy between rights and duties; for what is a nation if there is no work or duty in achieving and maintaining the rights of every man within the nation (89)?

When reading Marx and Tocqueville one may find that both seem to stand on opposite ends of a spectrum. While Tocqueville, as a social theorist, appears to value stability in political systems over all else (Ratcliff, 2014), Marx believes revolutions are the way for which the history of humankind can progress, and that the end of history will arise from the revolt of the people for a communist society (Ratcliff, 2014). Indeed, while both Marx and Tocqueville value liberty and equality, their notions of the two are fundamentally different, resulting in different ideas of the political manifestations of these two ideals. This essay will explore the motivations behind the two works, compare the two conceptions of liberty and equality, and show why Marx and Tocqueville arrive at very different conclusions.

While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately,

Due to state laws and policies, Marx and Rousseau both agree men are not living in a free society. In western democracies today, both philosophers’ ideas are clear and visible.

Though some such as Marx have found a way to work between the differing types tension is present between theorizers of these various camps as they struggle to find balance. Sometimes a theory may require more than one approach in order to see it fully developed and realized and it is in this process that the types overlap (Seidman 2013: 3-5).