Robespierre Vs Lenin

Moreover, it argues that economic exploitation causes political oppression and the powerful will then use their power to turn the state into a “servant of bourgeois economic” (Marx). For that reason, the only way to breakout of this conflict is through revolution, in which the working class people overthrows the owner of the capitalist system. Conflict theorists might argue, for instance, religion fulfills the bourgeois interests by appeasing the population by pacifying them. In essence, under this theory there will always be conflicts for scarce resources, and whenever one group gains control of the resources there will be an oppressed group. And according to Marx, this can be broken if we have a classless society where resources are allocated equally.

Whereas Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler are different as Joseph Stalin was the Communist leader of the Soviet Union, while Adolf Hitler was the Nazi leader of Germany; they both were more concerned with consolidating and expanding their own power, rather than pleasing the people.

In the conceptualization of the predominant 19th century political thought process, none- if any- were more influential than John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Both were philosophers, sociologists, economists and political thinkers, but each held unique views towards the ideal government, to freedom, and to the impact of the industrial revolution. Each discussed some of the ramifications of the industrial revolution, and the ways in which the government can be re-aligned for greater social prosperity. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated for Liberalism, a system in which liberty and equality would remain at the forefront of all political proposals, and representative interests. Mill celebrated individuality, and the ability to not conform to a higher power. In contrast to Mill, Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a revolutionary socialist who advocated for a complete social revolution throughout society, in an effort to counter the ill perceived effects of capitalism. Marx’s central tenet relied upon the fact that he sought to abolish private property, and monopolies, so as to enable all individuals to acquire an equitable means of living. Marx’s belief was that capitalism forces the economy into constantly being exploited, which in turn leads to recessions. Mill believed that all power should be allocated to the individual; whereas Marx believed that bestowing such power within a socialist regime would allow for the creation of a truly egalitarian society. This paper will analyze how

"We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange." (Marx, 424). In this sense, the bourgeoisie have the ability to change since they themselves are products of revolutions. In other terms, the bourgeoisie are an always changing class that has found ways to stay in power through political hegemony over the proletariat class. Marx conjures the proper preconditions for a successful rebellion but again contradicts himself through his own ideologies. Although Marx believes that capitalism will be responsible for the proletariat rebellion it is the same system that will estrange man from each other and thus prevent a successful revolt.

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'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

Everyday their main goal was to figure out how they were going to get through that day, how they were going to keep their family alive until tomorrow. The decision, although not appealing was quite simple, another day of working under the bourgeoisie. For if they did not do this than they simply did not survive. A proletariat agreed to accomplish what was asked of him or her; there was no other way around it. Thus, a necessity to speak up and work for changes was found in the people after going through enough unfair treatment and disrespect that no human being deserves. “Marx preached the fiery rhetoric of class warfare, explaining to the mesmerized workers that revolution was not only the sole answers to their difficulties but was indeed inevitable.” [iii]

     The Communist Manifesto was written by two world renowned philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This book was produced in an era of great suffering and anguish of all workers in a socially distressed system. In a time when revolutions were spreading through Europe like wildfire, Marx organized his thoughts and views to produce the critical pamphlet “The Communist Manifesto”. Marx’s scrutiny illustrates his belief that unless change is to occur the constant outcome will repeatedly remain uniform. This is a novel that displays the differentiation between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. Marx’s

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.

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.

Marx understanding of society shift into modernism lead to develop a form of communism that would come to be known as Marxism, communism is the economic thought of Marxism. Marx understands that Modernism calls for society to embrace equality for the betterment of society. Part of the problem with Capitalism comes from its exploitation of the working class; Marx understands this problem to be a vein of Pre-modernism and not a pillar of Modernism. Marx calls for the working class to rise up over their bourgeoisie oppressors and seize the equality that rightfully belongs to them. “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. (Communist pg. 9)” If society wants to embrace modernism, then society needs to shift its focus from fighting each other and one exploiting another to a classless society. Marx highly criticizes the bourgeoisie in The Communist Manifesto, and this stems from the problems they created for themselves and for the rest of society. In their attempt to gain more power, land, and resources, their material conditions, upon the prominence which their families had been formed, were dissipating due to the lack of foresight and selfish greed. If the Bourgeoisie continues to exploit the proletariat then society will head to conflict, as is expected of Pre-modernism, but if the Bourgeoisie cease its exploitation and relinquish its power for the group,

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in order to give a voice to the struggling classes in Europe. In the document he expressed the frustrations of the lower class. As Marx began his document with "the history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggles" he gave power to the lower classes and sparked a destruction of their opressors.1 He argued that during the nineteenth century Europe was divided into two main classes: the wealthy upper class, the bourgeoisie, and the lower working class, the proletariat. After years of suffering oppression the proletariats decided to use their autonomy and make a choice to gain power. During the

As capitalist societies expanded, Marx argued that exploitation amongst workers became more apparent. Marx believed that the only way to get rid of the exploitation, oppression and alienation was for a revolution amongst the proletariat workers. Marx suggests that it is only when the means of production are communally owned, that class divisions among the masses will disappear.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was written by Karl Marx a few months after the December 1851 coup d’etat of Louis Bonaparte in France. In this short text, Marx further examined the revolution of 1848 and the series of political reversals which eventually led to the coup. Marx views the coup as a consequence of sharp intensifications of class antagonisms in modern bourgeois society, which is the central idea of the theory of revolutionary change presented in the Communist Manifesto. Therefore, his analysis in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte allows us to understand how his theory bears out in practice. However, in the latter text, Marx also made some adjustments to his theory. He went from a simple, bifurcate model consisting of only a dominating class and a dominated class to a more sophisticated understanding where he identifies the subgroups within the main groups, as well as the roles each of these factions played during the course of the revolution. In this paper, I will explain the revolution theory proposed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, and how the theory was applied and adjusted in the Eighteenth Brumaire to make concrete historical sense of the events happened during the years between 1848 to 1851.

Karl Marx is often called the father of communism, but his life entailed so much more. He was a political economist, philosopher, and idea revolutionist. He was a scholar that believed that capitalism was going to undercut itself as he stated in the Communist Manifesto. While he was relatively ambiguous in his lifetime, his works had tremendous influence after his death. Some of the world’s most powerful and most populace countries follow his ideas to this day. Many of history’s most eventful times were persuaded by his thoughts. Karl Marx was one of the most influential persons in the history of the world, and a brief history of his life will show how he was able to attain many of his attitudes.