Marx Vs Saussure

This assessment of turning objects and persons into something of value is a fragmented yet archetypical manifestation of Marx’s greater philosophical works. The literary criticism that implements Marx’s theories of socialism and dialectics is the basis on interpreting literary works.

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.

Have you ever wondered how we speak? How about why our communication is considered a language and other animal’s communication is not considered language? A wide range of beliefs exist on what defines language. Thus, by exploring the definition of language and lexicon, evaluating language’s key features, the four levels of language structure and processing, and the role of language in Cognitive Psychology, an understanding of what language is becomes clear. Let us begin by defining language and a term named lexicon.

Marx and Freud are two thinkers of roughly the same time period, mostly the 19th century, into the 20th for Freud. Comparing and contrasting their theories provides for a deeper understanding of both of their philosophies. Marx’s theory of human nature stresses the idea that people are inherently social. He saw that most of an individual’s behavior is dependent on the actions of others, and noted that even the most mundane aspects of human existence are socially learned. Additionally, he believed that a person’s society determines their behavior, noting differences among cultures and the fact that there is no one, unified way of thinking that all cultures subscribe to. This ties in well with his materialist theory of history, which places tremendous

Marx argued that the goal of intellectual work such as his was to change the world; an opinion obviously shared by Gilman since she was also on a mission to change the world, for women.

Marx’s conception of society has its grounds in a theory of action: as he put it, human beings make their own history. But Marx goes on to argue that they do this is circumstances which are not of their own choosing, and he develops an analysis of how action is organized by these circumstances as material conditions of production which structure and determine the social relationship that are primarily generated by the particular material forces of production utilized, which include not only raw materials but also the technology which is used to extract and work them into products (Jenks 15).

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.

Compare and contrast the various early European urban theorists as found in Chapter 1 of the course text. (300-400 words)

Though Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville differ, they both contributed greatly to revolutionary concepts of their era. To better understand the analyses between politics, social, and economic changes Marx and Tocqueville discuss, we must first understand the shift of their time and the need for sociological analysis. The 19th century was a time of change and adaptation for everyone and few scholars were capable and willing to understand the impacts these changes would have on society and its entities. Both industrial and democratic revolutions affected their times and created shifts in society. The industrialization affected many aspects of society. It created a structural change in the economy shifting from agrarian income to industrial and commercial income. Technology impacted labour force and production shifting to large-scale manufacturing creating new types of investments. These changes affected class structure, migration, and workers which in turn affected economy and a shift in politics.

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.

There was once a time when the societies of the world were nothing more than a ruling class and a class that was ruled. In these feudal societies classes were set. There was little chance for a member of the ruling bourgeoisie class to cross over to the oppressed proletariat class or from the proletariat class to the bourgeoisie class. Every individual within each class had the routine for each day set out for him or her. There was little change in the lives of individuals of these societies. There was monotony in their work and their work did little more for them than keeping them alive. In those societies,

Key features of language include its words and their sub structures such as morphemes, graphemes and syllables at the writing level as well as reading or speaking, words, their meanings and contexts in which the words get spoken or read. Language has to be interpreted as a whole, and not just as the specific word. There must be an explicit pattern or structure. In order for language to be understood correctly, the meaning of words must be arranged in a given context. This is what constructs language; even though words are arbitrary themselves, in order to integrate as a language, they must be used in the appropriate context. This pre-established cultural context is what will enable effective communication. (Daniel Willingham, 2007, p. 1).

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

When people look at the world, they see it is structured in a specific way. Each perspective varies depending on the person. For instance, when looking at classical theory in sociology, there exists three viewpoints on society. Karl Marx believed the world based on conflict while Weber made sense of it by viewing the meanings. As for Durkheim, he made sense of it through social cohesion. Unlike Marx, whose primary focus was conflict, Durkheim’s writing centered around how people were capable of coexisting harmoniously.

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