Critique Of Marx And Burke

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.

Compare the views of these two scholars by answering the following questions. Be sure to find specific examples in the selections to support your answers.

The French Revolution was based on an assortment of Enlightenment ideals. French philosophers, including Voltaire and Rousseau led the revolution leading up to the revolution, so to speak, coming up with progressive ideals as to government, social structure, and the nature of people. Indeed, the ideals which the revolution was fought in the name of progressed throughout France and, eventually, Europe. Though the revolution took wrong turns along the way, the ideals which it was based on never wavered. Even during the heart of his Reign of Terror, Robespierre spoke of a state where each citizen wants to do good by his country. This shows Robespierre with an unwavering commitment to the state, an ideal which came out of the Enlightenment. Though he may have carried out his beliefs in a gruesome and perhaps wrong way, his ideals were the same as the Enlightenment philosophers: make the state better for all to live in.

Summarize both thinkers view and how they are similar and different. Three quotes from each.

“The two authors are historically known for their work for establishing as well as clarifying the ideas of general men in terms of response to their government. Both the authors work on the same time, however presents a bit different explanation of their philosophies.”

During the Enlightenment, many western political and economic philosophers attempted to describe the transition of mankind towards modernity. Specifically, Edmund Burke (1729-1797) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) were both heavily influenced by the American Revolution (1775-1783) and French Revolution (1789-1799), which compelled each to write about the existence of inequalities in society and transformations that aim to address these inequalities. Burke and Rousseau differed in their interpretations of why inequalities exist within society and had diverging views on radical transformation within society. These differences stem from their conflicting ideology pertaining to the role

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).

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

There have been some instances where, religion has been used by man as a means of explaining the unexplainable, as well as to provide a way out for those who want escape from the harsh realities that plague their lives. At the same time, for Marx’s criticism to be valid, religion has to be abused, and it has to be abused to the point where it becomes a hinderance on the stability and progress of society. Therefore, the use of religion would have to be to an extremity. While I said that his criticism of capitalism was more substantial than his criticism of religion, the aforementioned premise is remarkably similar to the basis of Marx’s criticism of capitalism. Capitalism would also have to be abused to the degree of it being a detriment to society as a

While it is undeniable that Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity had a profound impact on Marx’s atheism, and ultimately led to the ‘Feuerbachian-Marxist postulate that human emancipation’ could be achieved through liberation from religion, the approaches toward this objective considerably vary. Despite Ricoeur’s defence that Feuerbach should be considered a ‘master of suspicion’, because Marx’s atheism is ‘an elaboration... a further development of Feuerbachianism’, this questions whether Feuerbach’s and Marx’s atheisms are as compatible as initially perceived.

However these two perspectives have some traits which make one unique from another and these are discussions as below,

Marx conceived the base and superstructure approach that defines capitalist society. The base relates to all that is a function of production in society and conversely, the superstructure, which can be said to be derived from the base, relates to the values, culture, ideology and the governing bodies of society. The former creates and supports the latter by a process of legitimisation of the economic activities, and in turn, the superstructure ensures the processes remain in place. Class domination plays a large part in this process of organisation; for example, private education providing better opportunities for advancement and primary socialisation into the higher echelons of society. However, a counter argument claims that the state is just as involved in the stresses and “struggles of civil society’’ as opposed to being a mere extension of it for the pure benefit of a particular class interest (Held 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, p 113).

There are many of sociology's founding figures that have extremely well-built ideas, practices and studies that I could explore, but one renowned philosopher stands out amongst the crowd, and that person is named Karl Marx (1818-1883). In this essay I aim to explore and critically assess his ideas, theories, and studies in his contribution to sociology, and if his ideas, theories and studies are useful to this contribution to sociology.

Though Marx’s theories were first conceived over 150 years ago, his work continues to be tremendously influential and is perhaps the most well known scholarship within the sociological canon. Despite their prominence, some of Marx’s most famous ideas have yet to be proven by the course of history. Neo-Marxists may insist that the revolution is coming, but the fact remains that the overthrow of capitalism has yet to materialize. I argue that the communist revolution has not yet occurred because the proletariat has been unable to develop the universal class consciousness that Marx asserts is a necessary condition for his predicted mass uprising. Additionally, I postulate that the theories of Weber and Simmel reveal the factors impeding

According to Marx, religion can be seen as the opiate of the people (Engels, Marx 1955, p.41). Here, Marx is suggesting that just like opium, religion is trying to relieve people of the pain and suffering in their lives. Marx also puts forward the idea that religion is used by its oppressors in order to make people feel better about their lives. Thus, it can be seen that Marx chooses to adopt a negative view of religion. Max Weber can be seen as the only sociologist to place so much scope and emphasis on the subject of religion (Nisbet, p.250). Biographical and textual evidence suggests that biblical religion played a part in shaping and influencing Weber's life and the context of his sociology. Weber's main concern was to attempt to demonstrate that religious ideologies were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, however it does shape individuals behavior and actions in everyday life (Swingewood 1984, p.152). Weber also came to several conclusions regarding the remarkable relationship between capitalism and Protestant. According to Weber, the more capitalism had a free hand to alter social distribution, the larger the relationship between capitalism and protestant (1930, p.4). Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology theorists differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding to religion.