Theories Of Human Nature By Karl Marx And Thomas Hobbes Essay

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher (1588-1697), is well known for his great political notions and thoughts, and deservedly so. His main concern is the problem of social and political order. In “introduction”, Hobbes was depicted to believe that the entire phenomena in the universe, including human nature was to be explained in aspects of material bodies. According to him, soul and mind were not separate from the body as other writers believed. Human beings are essential machines. Their aspects and emotions operate pertaining to the physical part of the law, as well as chains of cause, impacts, action and reaction. As machines, human beings pursue their own self- interest avoiding pain at all cost and pursuing pleasure. Society is a similar machine, greater than the human body, as well as artificial (temporary) but operating as stipulated by the laws governing motions, as well as collision.

The theory of Marxism generates a method for the analysis of society, which focuses on class relations and conflict amongst humanity. Inspired by Karl Marx (a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian and journalist), the theory influences contemporary understanding of labour and its connection to capital. Marx’s most notable publications ‘The Communist Manifesto’ and ‘Das Kapital’ showcase his analytical work and well-know themes related to Marxism.

The simplistic perception of capitalist society varies greatly among Smith and Marx. Smith believed that capitalism is a mechanism designed to curb man's selfishness and put it to work for the general good of all (Baumol, 1976). Conversely, Marx believed that capitalism is based on neither good nor evil, but a product of historical circumstances or experience (Baumol, 1976). Marx also believed that the law of motion in capitalism frustrates, rather than facilitates, the individual ends (wealth). Marx believed that wealth divides capitalists by class, and that workers must develop in a universal class (Levine, 1998). Marx also disagreed with Smith in believing that production must cease to be a labor process if it

Making products in a capitalist system puts many people in a position that are repetitive and laborers end up going through the motions. They have one specialized job in producing the whole product. The labor does not give input into the purpose of design, distribution, and marketing of the product. According to his essay “ Alienated Labor,” Marx tells us the things we go through in a work under the capitalist society:

Karl Marx witnessed first hand the rise of the industrial revolution and the beginning of capitalism. He also became one of capitalisms biggest critics. Marx believed that society needed a better way of distrusting wealth but also a better way a finding people’s full human potential or what he called “species-essence”. Marx believed that what we do connects to who we are, for example, work is what makes us human. It fulfills our species essence, as he puts it. Work allows us to be creative and flourish. However, in the 19th century Europe work did the quit opposite, it destroyed workers, particularly those who had nothing to sell but their labor. To the mill and factory owners a worker was simply an abstract idea with a stomach that needed to be filled. The workers had no choice but to work for long hours for a pathetic wage. Even worse, their labor alienated them. Alienation is a disorienting sense of exclusion and separation. Factory labor, under capitalism, alienated the workers from the product of their labor. They made stuff they couldn’t afford to buy themselves. The products they made were shipped out to other places far way to make money

Workers may earn more money today than they did in the last century, but so do the capitalists. The wealth and income gaps between the bourgeois and proletariats is greater than ever. The workers relations to their labor, products and capitalists are unchanged from Marx’s day. The only difference between today’s capitalism and Marx’s is because of a more direct involvement of the state in the capitalist economy. Plus Marx theories concentrate on the more advanced industrial capitalist, he never thought that socialism would be achieved in relatively poor, politically underdeveloped countries. Marx’s vision of socialism emerges from his study of capitalism. Socialism is the unseen potential of capitalism. For a more just and democratic society in which everybody can develop their own qualities of being human.

Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep

To begin, Marx claims that labor power is a special commodity that describes the physical and mental abilities found within human beings (Marx, page 270). Humans have this unique ability to transform natural materials into commodities through their own power. This is why individuals must be “free” in multiple senses in order to sell their labor as a commodity.

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls

From the very beginning of human civilization, the driving force behind humanity’s ostensibly incomparable will to not only survive, but to thrive, is based upon one factor: human nature. But what is human nature? According to Karl Marx, human nature is the consistent dependency humans have on one another rather than the popular capitalist belief that the unyielding desire for wealth and material goods is what motivates humans; however, true human nature lies somewhere in-between.

People always wonder what makes them who they are. However, the extent to which our characters are derived from ourselves is always an argument for many philosophers. Marx, a German philosopher, and Mengzi, a representative thinker of Confucianism, present similar accounts in explaining how humans are shaped. Both Marx and Mengzi believe that our individual character is not solely shaped by ourselves but are shaped in ways by external forces. However, I will argue that, compared with Mengzi’s view of the moral attributes that inherently exist in humans themselves, Marx’s account is more systematic and compelling due to his emphasis of the effect of the interrelationship between humans themselves and the external forces of labor and social structures.