Marx Vs Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French aristocrat and adventurer who spent nine months traveling America during 1831. He wrote a book “Democracy in America” about his adventure and experiences in America. He was a well educated European who spoke to many important figures of the time and this helped to develop very good insight about current American culture. Some of his adventures include steamboat, visited the Eastern cities, stayed in a log cabin, and even explored the northwestern frontier. He wrote this book for the French audience, and was hoping to better explain what democracy was so it could help France transition into a democracy. He believed that Democracy was the way of the future, and he was a strong supporter of Democracy. His book

Tocqueville further argues that unlike “aristocracy (that) links everybody, from peasant to king, in one long chain. Democracy breaks the chain and frees each link…men have gained or kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody” (Tocqueville, 2006, p. 508). The chain that exists in aristocracy no longer exists in democracy for individuals earn their own keep and does not need to rely on others. Thus, with democracy, individuals in capitalist society are independent and equal in social and economic

Alexis de Tocqueville and James Madison had two distinctly different philosophical views when it came to the problem of “majority tyranny.” In Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority, Morton J. Horwitz discusses in length the writings of the Frenchman when he came to and became fascinated by America. Horowitz argues each man believes the public’s best interests and freedoms were being terrorized. The former (de Tocqueville) believed that society itself is a monster, but the latter (Madison) believed danger came from a temporarily impassioned majority making lasting decisions in government.

Alexis de Tocqueville was born on July 29, 1805, in Paris, France. He was a historian, political scientist, and a politician, but he is best known as the author of Democracy in America. He began his political career as an apprentice magistrate, a role he was easily able to enter into due to his father’s role in French government. In the role of apprentice magistrate, Tocqueville witnessed the constitutional upheaval between the conservatives and liberals in France. With the inevitable decline of the aristocratic privilege on the horizon, he began to study the English political development. For Tocqueville, the July Revolution of 1830 and the resulting kingship of Louis Philippe of Orleans helped

Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto was most appealing to and revolutionary for the industrial workers of 1848 (and those to come after that time). The call for unification of the proletariat and abolishment of the Bourgeoisie was an urgent one during a time of rapid progress in all aspects of industrial life. This urgency of The Communist Manifesto and the desire for change of political ideologies (to match the exponential rate of progress of wealth and industry) created not only a spate of revolutions, but a long lasting change in political ideas for industrialized European nations. The Communist Manifesto created a sense of unity and class awareness throughout the

De Tocqueville's talks about the vices that comes from allowing democracy to take over aristocracy, but doesn't realize that his theory is flawed because he ignores the fact that aristocrats oppressed peasants, the lower classes in general, and pushed them to fight for democracy once they realized the inequality they are living through . Marx, conversely, mentions in his writings how the bourgeoisie turn the working class into "animals" in the capitalist society (Marx, 1844) for workers are not forced into working for the capitalist class, yet they end up doing so because the capitalist class is the one that controls all means of production and provides jobs for them. Workers will provide mass production and make more profit for the bourgeoisie,

I think that tocqueville would think that John Locke perception on this was to religious and not true. I think that he would raise question to understand why locke thinks like this. He would also say that locke is talking about a very egoism society , where men on there own goal and motivation. it says in “ yet every man has property in his own person , that nobody has right but him”. Supporting that man work for himself and not society as a whole. tocqueville would he describing people that are bad citizen Tocqueville would think that it is impossible for everyone to be equal there has to be equality somewhere. that a society can not live with out a little equality.

He had the opposite view of Kant and Tocqueville. Tocqueville had the belief that the best way to have a reform towards democratic principles and government would have been to follow America’s example and not have a democratic revolution. Their opposition toward the revolution was for different reasons entirely.

He considers democracy a secularisation of Christianity, and by extension the slave morality. His argument against democracy is similar to that of Tocqueville: if everyone is equal, no one has the incentive to be exceptional, which dulls one’s resolve to assert their will to power. The individual’s power is nearly insignificant compared to the society’s, which leads to the tyranny of the majority, where anyone who does not share in the majority opinion has no influence. Here, Tocqueville is referring to a tyranny of the majority over thought, which he believes happens in democracies because once the majority opinion is pronounced, no one challenges it. Because of this phenomenon, even though their laws allow for freedom of speech, Tocqueville claims that he “[does] not know of any country where, in general, less independence of mind and genuine freedom of discussion reign than in America.”

Tocqueville’s Democracy in America arose out of the desire to understand the underlying reasons behind the difference between French and American democracies. While both societies have had moved towards democracy, New England, which Tocqueville defines as America, seems to be much more successful in organising a stable democratic society. As such, Democracy in America was written with the motive of mapping out how American society was

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.

“Politically, this development led Marx into an actual surrender of freedom to necessity. He did what his teacher in revolution, Robespierre, had done before him and what his greatest disciple, Lenin, was to do after him in the most momentous revolution his teachings have yet inspired…Yet even Lenin, despite his dogmatic Marxism, might perhaps have been capable of avoiding this surrender…” Ardent believed that this did not have to happen that way, both Robespierre and Lenin could have used their power to empower the community itself but, instead they choose crowd pleasing and never had a foundation. Popularity is based on what that ruler can give to its people but what the people really need is freedom and empowerment so they can fix their

Although Karl Marx and Frederic Bastiat agree that governments should aid society, they have very different views about what "aiding" really means. Written in 1848, The Communist Manifesto explains how Communism could create a utopia, where class does not exist and everyone has their needs met. After a bloody overthrow of the property-owning upper class, the working class would form a new government, which would own all property and control all production. Appealing as his argument sounds, Marx bases several of his claims off of false assumptions and errors in his reasoning. In his essay The Law, Frederic Bastiat points out many of those faulty arguments. He emphasizes God-given human rights, and the importance of small government. While idealistic,

The revolution of 1848 was a great disappointment to both Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville. To Marx, the revolution should have been a step along the way to socialism, with the bourgeoisie capitalists overthrowing the previous landed feudal society. In turn, the proletariat would rise and bring both the end of class antagonism and the beginning of the socialist state. To Tocqueville, the revolution was about the reduction in the power of the aristocracy, as the lower classes were on their way up. This broadening equality must necessarily give rise to democracy, with all its hopes and shortfalls. Yet the revolution ended not in socialism or democracy, but with an emperor. Marx and Tocqueville may have had different ideas on how and why a society should conduct itself, but both found the revolution of 1848 and its resolution a disappointment.