Karl Marx and Humanity

Karl Marx was born in Prussia in 1818. Later in his life he became a newspaper editor and his writings ended up getting him expelled by the Prussian authorities for its radicalism and atheism (Perry 195). He then met Fredrich Engels and together they produced The Communist Manifesto in 1848, for the Communist League. This piece of writing basically laid out Marx’s theory of history in short form (Coffin 623). The Communist Manifesto is mainly revolved around how society was split up into two sides, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. I do believe that the ideas of the Communist Manifesto did indeed look educated on paper but due to the lessons of history communism is doomed to fail in the past, present, and future. Communism did not prevail in many different countries, two of them being Berlin and the Soviet Union.

Marx’s view of human consciousness centers on his materialist method, which looks at how the economic and social life of man, influence his actual life and his thinking . Marx’s view is thus in direct contrast to German philosophy, since he holds thoughts as being determined by extra mental entities which is our consciousness, and this is what we use to define ourselves. The notion is borrowed from his teacher Hegel, for whom consciousness was a

Marx’s issue with society was that people felt alienated and estranged, mostly from their work. Marx saw the entire capitalist economic system, though a necessary stage in human development, as unjust. He blamed capitalism for the alienation people felt, identifying their need to sell their labor and work in unfulfilling jobs as the root of their dissatisfaction. He took issue with the dehumanization capitalism causes, as people are seen as a commodity and their individuality is sacrificed for industry and the success of their

So while Marx did believe that humans had some form of agency (being able to make their own history) he recognized that it should appear through the confines of a strict structure, and that the particular structure of a society is determined by the resources and modes of production utilized.

One of the greatest debates of all time has been regarding the issue of the freedom of mankind. The one determining factor, for Marx, it that freedom is linked with class conflict. As a historian, Karl Marx traced the history of mankind by the ways in which the economy operated and the role of classes within the economy. For Marx, the biggest question that needed to be answered was “Who owns freedom?” With this in mind, Marx gives us a solution to both the issues of freedom and class conflict in his critique of capitalism and theory of communism, which is the ideal society for Marx. His theory of communism is based on the “ultimate end of human history” because there will be freedom for all humankind.

Marx also defines how the bourgeoisie class is the ones being exploited because they are the working class. One of the arguments Marx makes is, “the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country (Marx, 476).” This quote is a clear example of how capitalism cannot not be separated from exploitation.

Karl Marx continues his doctrine by acknowledging that the bourgeoisie, “has historically played a most revolutionary part” shamelessly dividing man against nature, leaving man to solely rely on self-interest (Manifesto), describing how the bourgeoisie introduced the industrial revolution, revolutionizing instruments improving machinery, while also playing devil’s advocate by noting how the Bourgeoisie has, “reduced the family relation to a mere money relation” (Manifesto) and that,

The philosophy of Karl Marx begins with the belief that humans are inherently cooperative with common characteristics and shared ends. To human beings, life is considered an object and therefore, humans make their “life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” (Tucker 76). In other words, humans are able to think, imagine, and “produce even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (p. 76). It exemplifies that idea that humans not only have the capability to create things for survival but express themselves in what they produce, within the standards of the human race or universally. When capitalist wage-labor enters the picture, it forces these shared ends and the freedom of expression in human production to cease, causing a rise of competitiveness among

This idea of being restricting the development of one’s nature by confining its growth to only several methods is somewhat similar to being caught inside Plato’s Cave. It is relevant in that in Plato’s Cave people are confined in the Cave and are lead to believe that the shadows and seclusion are the only things to life, as “such persons would hold the shadows of those manufactured articles to be the only truth” Marx discusses that to a person all that matters is their social standing and the relationship to their work, and thus their relationship with others, it manifests itself to that person’s outlook and development of identity. As if they were trapped inside Plato’s Cave, these people that Marx describe are conformed by a reality that

This essay argues that the propositions put forth by Karl Marx in his political essay “Estranged Labour” presents a nuanced and logically sounder theory behind his concept of human nature than Hobbes does in his essay “The natural condition of Mankind”. Marx’s perception was that man’s labour is intrinsically a part of his human nature, and the alienation of this labour drastically negates what it means to be man. Whereas Thomas Hobbes presents that man’s natural state is one of conflict, and that this conflict can only be overcome through rules set forth by the sovereign, only then can men live in peace with each other.

Marxist human nature relies on the principle that human beings have an uncontrollable urge to “produce.” So, what is this “human nature” that Marxist ideology relies so heavily on? The answer is that if human nature is anything according to Marxists, it is the means by which human beings evolve and adapt themselves to meeting their specific needs. What are these bare necessities that humans need, that their very nature obligates them to adapt in order to fulfill them? First, there are the survival based essentials: food, water, shelter, etc. But is surviving enough for higher sentient animals like us humans to be satisfied? Is it enough to merely survive? Marx and his followers assert that there is a higher calling, or rather a need to fulfill what he referred to as a human’s “species being” (O'Laughlin 1975). The ‘species being’ of humans, the very thing that makes us unique within the animal kingdom, Marx argues, is production. Production being the ability to transform and bend the environment

Marx examines human beings from the perspective of social practices and social relationships. In his view, human nature incorporates both natural attributes and social attributes, and human characters are not solely shaped by natural attributes but are shaped by the unity of individuals and social activities, which refers to the effect of the interrelationships between human themselves and social activities.

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.

Communism is an ideal society that is unrealistic for humans to maintain. In this system major resources and means of production are owned by the community rather than by individuals. The society is without money, without a state, without property and without social classes. All people would contribute to the society according to their ability and take from the society according to their needs. Fredrick Engel's believed that a proletarian could only be liberated by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences, and replacing it with association.