Marx, Mill And Freud 's Critique Of Political Economy And The Communist Manifesto Essay

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

From the book “The Giver”, I have noticed an important message that the author wanted to tell us – The importance of freedom.

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion,” is a quote written by Albert Camus, which displays the complexity of defining the term freedom. Jean-Paul Sartre’s play “The Flies,” defines the concept of freedom as the accountability of one’s own guilt, which allows individuals to recognize their own freedom. Furthermore, an individual that accepts accountability for one’s own guilt and responsibility for the city, or complete isolation, is living in freedom. Likewise, Zora Neal Hurston’s novel Their Eyes Were Watching God explores the notion of being or becoming absolutely free, finding her voice,

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

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.

For example, it shapes the nature of religion, law, education, the state and so on. According to Marx, capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. For example, by polarising the classes, bringing the proletariat together in ever-increasing numbers, and driving down their wages, capitalism creates the conditions under which the working class can develop a consciousness (or awareness) of its own economic and political interests in opposition to those of its exploiters. As a result, the proletariat moves from merely being a class-in-itself (whose members share the same economic position) to becoming a class-foritself, whose members are class conscious – aware of the need to overthrow capitalism. The means of production would then be put in the hands of the state and run in the interests of everyone, not just of the bourgeoisie. A new type of society – socialism developing into communism – would be created, which would be without exploitation, without classes and without class conflict. Marx’s work has been subjected to a number of criticisms. First, Marx’s predictions have not come true. Far from society becoming polarised and the working class becoming poorer, almost everyone in western societies enjoys a far higher standard of living than ever before. The collapse of so-called ‘communist’ regimes like the former Soviet Union, and growing private ownership and capitalist growth in China, cast some doubt on the viability of the practical implementation

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.

Karl Marx, in the Capital, developed his critique of capitalism by analyzing its characteristics and its development throughout history. The critique contains Marx’s most developed economic analysis and philosophical insight. Although it was written in 1850s, its values still serve an important purpose in the globalized world and maintains extremely relevant in the twenty-first century.

In the publications The Communist Manifesto and Walden, Karl Mark and Henry David Thoreau express the prevailing issues of a flawed functioning society. Marx conveys the economic instability of his imperfect civilization, while Thoreau states the materialistic difficulties that prevail in his. Both authors portray a goal to pursue harmony throughout their societies but differentiate in their ways of achieving such freedom.

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.

The act of possessing individual freedom and not conforming is an American ideal. American Ideal of Individual freedom is exemplified by “Fashion” by Anna Cora Mowatt, “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave” by Frederick Douglass, Zitkala-Sa’s autobiography, and The Awakening by Kate Chopin.

Among the most controversial figures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The rhetoric of the first of these men, Karl Marx, both inspired revolutions in China, Russia, and Cuba, as well as led to his expulsion from Germany, France and Belgium. As for Freud, Yale history professor Peter Gay notes in his biography of the psychologist: “[He] has been called a genius, founder, master, a giant among the makers of the modern mind, and, no less emphatically, autocrat, plagiarist, fabulist, the most consummate of charlatans.” (xvi). Though Marx is perhaps best described as a political theorist and Freud a psychologist, there is a great deal of overlap in the work of the two intellectuals. Most importantly, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx shared a fervent dissatisfaction with society and its oppressive mechanisms. Yet the source of this oppression was not a point of agreement among the two thinkers. Where Marx advocated class struggle and bourgeois domination as the main obstacles to a harmonious, peaceful society, Freud contended that the fundamental barrier to such a society is human nature itself, which, in his opinion, consists of a constant struggle between a desire for pleasure and the constraints of reality; while Marx believed that Communism could bring about societal contentment, Freud held that the pleasure which man derives from aggressiveness precludes the possibility of collective peace and, concurrently, the restraint with

Though Marx views the communist revolution as an unavoidable outcome of capitalism, his theory stipulates that the proletariat must first develop class consciousness, or an understanding of its place within the economic superstructure. If this universal character of the proletariat does not take shape, then the revolution cannot be accomplished (1846: 192). This necessary condition does not pose a problem within Marx’s theoretical framework, as the formation of class consciousness is inevitable in Marx’s model of society. His writings focus on the idea that economic production determines the social and political structure (1846, 1859). For Marx, social class represents a person’s relation to the means of production, a relation that he believes is independent of

Wars, death, and other acts of violence have all been part of a process to attain true freedom. However, what is true freedom? John Stuart Mill and Georg Hegel tackle this notion of freedom. Mills states that freedom is when individuals have unlimited liberty, while Hegel says that is a false freedom. He states that freedom is when the individual’s morals align with external laws within the nation state. Despite what many say freedom is more similar in Hegel’s and Mills than different. We can see this through Hegel’s notion of absolute mind and Mill’s value of liberty and notion of diversity.

It is important before breaking down the thinks conceptions of freedom, to examine the basis for which they ground their claims. Both Marx and Goldman agree that the starting point for a vision of the politics of a society is the state. This remains at the heart of their political theories despite their conflicting analysis at times. Anarchist freedom can largely be defined through the quote: “the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government” which will be further analysed within the paper. Additionally, as quoted by Marx, “Beyond begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity