How Does Karl Marx Promote The Abolition Of Property

According to Marx and the Communist Manifesto, history is the rich battling with the poor, also history has always been a history of class struggle. The Communist Manifesto calls for equality among all classes, therefore there would be no classes. Workers are paid different salaries according to the quality and the training of their work. "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."[iii] As Marx’s states here, he feels that society is splitting more and more in to classes, which is feels is wrong. He thinks that society should be one and everyone should belong to one class. Marx did not deny the close connection between personal freedom and property rights. "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."[iv] Marx thought that the role of every individual was for everyone to be a worker and to make an equal amount of money as everyone else. Marx even stated that having a capitalist society would therefore make that society fall, all because of the ongoing struggle between the rich and the poor. The Communist Manifesto states that communism would change a person’s role in life from being decided on the basis

Under Karl Marx’s conflict theory, society has two classes of people: the owners and the workers. The theory suggests that owners basically exploit the workers, depriving them of the basic human necessities such as food and shelter. Meanwhile, the workers believe that they are taken care of adequately, and they rely on the owners for their well-being. But the owners do not have the workers’ best interests in mind because they want to produce wealth by any means. “Potent social forces [capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, home ownership] do exist and being homeless is to lose a stake in several of them” (Neale, 2007,

Karl Marx believes that a capitalistic society separates the rich from the poor. corporations that holds the money hold the power to dictate whether certain fucntions of society.

John Locke and Karl Marx, two of the most renowned political philosophers, had many contrasting views when it came the field of political philosophy. Most notably, private property rights ranked high among the plethora of disparities between these two individuals. The main issue at hand was whether or not private property was a natural right. Locke firmly believed that private property was an inherent right, whereas Marx argued otherwise. This essay will examine the views of both Locke and Marx on the subject of private property and will render insight on whose principles appear more credible.

He begins trying to use a sort of a reverse psychology, by saying the communists do not write their principles specifically for the proletarians. Rather, just by chance, the communist vision is perfect for the proletarians to use. He said the problem of all other societies before this time have been a battle between the oppressors versus the oppressed. The basis of these battles has been property. So Communism looks to get rid of different classes in society. Therefore getting rid of different property levels or class levels. Marx says it best by “In sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” He says with no private property there will be no reason to fight or feud.

In Communist Manifesto, Marx introduces his philosophy by stating, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Marx presents various illustrations of class struggles between the oppressors and oppressed. Some examples include the “lord and serf”, “freeman and slave”, and “patrician and plebeian” to name a few. Marx suggests that the current struggle in society is between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisies are the class of owners or the ruling class. What separates the bourgeoisies from the rest is that they have private property. According to Thoreau, private property is that which produces capital. It is buildings, engines, and machinery. In

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

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.

In fact, he believed private property was “sacred” to civilization because it allowed competition and competition resulted in more people being able to purchase products of better quality. He believed “the poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries have become the necessities of life.” (Paragraph 4) He added, “Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it.” (Paragraph 7)

Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) was a revolutionary German economic theorist and communist with many publications on sociology, economics and politics. Many of his writings can be used and applied into the media. Marx stated that in prehistoric times, people had no concept of private ownership, and everything was shared freely. There was no government to rule over everyone, but small tribes of people who each had their own leaders. This was known as primitive communism. As time went by, people became greedy and craved wealth. Private ownership of land led to the class system developing, with the upper class owning the land that the lower classes lived on and worked off. This became the feudal system, which was headed by a king. This system suited the upper class however it also meant that the lower class was always kept at the bottom, with no way of moving up from their positions. Industrialisation in the 1700’s meant that power in society fell into the hands of the wealthy, as they owned the land and had the money to build factories,

Marx’s primarily aims to explain how communism will free men, end the class struggle. The work argues that class struggles, and the exploitation of one class by another is the source of all inequality. Marx’s theories become one the motivating force behind all historical developments. The work strongly advocates the freedom of the proletariats which Marx’s claims can only be achieved when property and other goods cease to be privately owned. He see’s that private property has been a problem through out history, capital that aids the ruling class to maintain control. Marx argues that the lower class come together in a revolution and gain power and eventually take the power away from the upper class.

Karl Marx on the other hand, has a wildly different opinion on property. In his most famous piece, The Communist Manisfesto, Marx’s opinion is set up in one line; "… the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx in Cahn 885). Marx firmly believed that ownership of private property was a way in which the social classes became more divided, and in turn, a way to oppress the poor. His opinion largely stems from the time period in which he lived (1818-1883), where factory owners infamously underpaid employees for dangerous work in treacherous conditions. However, Marx idea of private property was a bit different from Locke and did not mean things like land ownership or personal items, but the relation of individuals used for the means of production in a privately owned enterprise. Marx points out however, that in this state, unlike the ideas and time of Locke (1632-1704), the laborers do not benefit or acquire any property from their labor. In fact, the capital they are producing is the “kind of property that exploits wage labor” (Marx in Cahn 886) and serves to oppress them and further the division of classes. Therefore, Marx aimed to take this “private property” and give it to the Proletariats in order to change its status from the elite ownership of the Bourgeoisie, to the

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

Rousseau and Marx both argue in their works that men seek to control property, as a way to control others. Rousseau argues in his work, discourse on the origin of inequality, that man is not equal due to the greed and selfishness of individuals who control the government. Charles Bertram argues that, “ Rousseau believes that a system of individual rights of private property and self-ownership that is accompanied by massive disparities of wealth and income inevitably leads to distortion and deformation of the will as the people seek to curry favour or seek advantage”, Bertram (2004) . Bertram points out Rousseau’s idea that the idea of owning property purely to survive off of does not work, as others seek to reap the wealth and rewards from the land, through tariffs or quotas etc. Today this is obvious in western society. Karl Marx believes that all property should be owned by the state, as he lists in the Communist Manifesto. According to Lowith (2003), he also believed working men become property themselves through the work they put in. This is common in England during the industrial revolution, as workers were easily replaced. Lowith (2003) also finds that Marx compared man in bourgeois society with the commodity as a product of simple labor. I support this statement strongly. In Mexico, due to

Marx argued that due to capitalism’s competitive nature, it would eventually die out and be replaced with a new form of government, communism. It is to Marx’s beliefs that change cannot simply occur through reforms or changes in government, rather a revolution in which the proletariat overthrow the bourgeois is necessary. Marx promoted the revolution, moving history towards its natural conclusion, through his ten proposals for a communist society. Among them include: a heavy progressive income tax, an exclusive monopoly of the banks under the state, transferring ownership of the modes of production to the state, a more equal distribution of the population over the country, and most importantly, the abolition of private property. Marx stated,” the theory of communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.” Marx acknowledged that this notion was radical and asserted that it is due in part to the liberal misconception that landowning is the fundamentals