Comparing Marx and Freud Marx and Freud are regarded as very controversial individuals. They both had very unusual view of the world around them but were not afraid to express their ideas, which to many people were revolutionary. Marx and Freud formulated their opinions about the development of human history with which some might disagree. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx states that development of human history is based on economics, while Freud in Civilization and its Discontents claims that history of civilization is influenced by human nature and interaction with one another. Marx views history as being determined by economics, which for him is the source of class differences. History is describe in The Communist Manifesto as a series of conflicts between oppressing classes and oppressed classes. According to this view of history, massive changes occur in a society when new technological capabilities allow a portion of the oppressed class to destroy the power of the oppressing class. Marx briefly traces the development of this through different periods, mentioning some of the various oppressed and oppressing classes, but points out that in earlier societies there were many differentiations of social classes. Marx sees the modern age as being distinguished from earlier periods by the simplifications of the class conflict, splitting up society into two great hostile groups: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marx starts off stating that in order for men to make history they must be able to live. According to him a human beings needs for survival include food, water, shelter and clothes. All these things need to be produced therefore the first stage of history is the production of the goods needed for... ... middle of paper ... ...s an order yet there should not be a big gap between the workers and the owners. This would create tensions and would eventually lead to disruption of peace and also of the means of life. Even though Freud and Marx?s view slightly differ, they both provide us with many new and interesting ideas that are well supported. Although some might disagree with all their opinions about the development of history and how it affects humans, one cannot say that Marx and Freud?s ideas are not to some extend correct. When all they have to say is well thought and analyzed one must conclude that some of the ideas are very well constructed and that actually can be beneficial in solving problems in our society. Maybe they both do not have the exact definition to the origin of human history I think they give us some basic principles that one can thing about and expand on.
Marx sees history as a struggle between classes: “Oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx and Engles 14).
Marx believes there is a true human nature, that of a free species being, but our social environment can alienate us from it. To describe this nature, he first describes the class conflict between the bourgeois and the proletariats. Coined by Marx, the bourgeois are “the exploiting and ruling class.”, and the proletariats are “the exploited and oppressed class” (Marx, 207). These two classes are separated because of the machine we call capitalism. Capitalism arises from private property, specialization of labor, wage labor, and inevitably causes competition.
In chapter 5, Freud tangentially discusses communism, and why he thinks that it wouldn’t solve the problem of misery. Freud states that, “The communists believe … man is wholly good and is well disposed to his neighbor; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature… If private property were abolished, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men” (Freud 96-97). He counters the communist ideas by stating that, “In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression one of its instruments…but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature” (97). To Freud, there isn 't an easy fix for human misery, and suggestions such as communism just serve to direct the problem elsewhere. It seems that Freud lacks a solution and, with World War II on the horizon, concludes with the suggestion that either Eros or Thanatos will need to assert itself, but none can foresee the
Both Freud and Nietzsche presented almost the same interpretations of human nature and the society they lived in. Though, the societies in which they lived in were different. Freud and Nietzsche’s thoughts may be similar, but human nature constantly changes. Freud is more aware, he examines into the past to find reasons that make life more civilized, however Nietzsche is more doubtful, he sees that humans should be led by a hero.
Marx and Engels's account on the development of history regards it as a series of staged progression as powered by social relations between humans. History in Marx and Engel's opinion is established in a framed historical-materialist view. By this the two mean that history is viewed in the materialist man's struggle for survival, or production for the necessities to life. As written by Marx, in his essay The German Ideology, "the first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history...men must be in a position to live in order to make history", what Marx means by this is that it history is as defined first and foremost as the work of men to stay alive. Marx goes on to argue that the fulfillment of survival will lead to new needs, and as such is the basis for the progression of acts of history. Continuing on from this interpolation of history, Marx says that the first act for the production of life [and therefore history] will require th...
Karl Marx, a German philosopher, saw this inequality growing between what he called "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat" classes. The bourgeoisie was the middle/upper class which was growing in due to the industrial revolution, and the proletariats were the working class, the poor. These two classes set themselves apart by many different factors. Marx saw five big problems that set the proletariat and the bourgeoisie aside from each other. These five problems were: The dominance of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, the ownership of private property, the set-up of the family, the level of education, and their influence in government. Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, exposes these five factors which the bourgeoisie had against the communist, and deals with each one fairly. As for the proletariat class, Marx proposes a different economic system where inequality between social classes would not exist.
Marx’s perspective was not based on the conflict of ideas, but rather on the conflict of classes. This conflict is the results of a new mode of production. According to Marx, history would consist of epochs of modes of production. He states that these modes of production are: primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, and then socialism and communism.
It did this by outlining the history of classes and class struggle. The Communist Manifesto stated that society and history are shaped by class struggles and that two classes were present in 1848, the bourgeois and the proletariat. The document goes on to state that the bourgeois had created capitalism and were oppressing the proletariat. Marx defines the proletariat as “an appendage to the machine”. He recognized how the proletariats were being exploited and he brought it to the attention of the public.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto explores class struggles and their resulting revolutions. They first present their theory of class struggle by explaining that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx 14), meaning that history is a repeated class struggle that only ends with a revolution. Marx and Engels’ message in The Communist Manifesto is that it is inevitable for class struggles to result in revolutions, ultimately these revolutions will result in society’s transition to communism.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was one of the most influential thinkers and writers of modern times. Although it was only until after his death when his doctrine became world know and was titled Marxism. Marx is best known for his publication, The Communist Manifesto that he wrote with Engels; it became a very influential for future ideologies. A German political philosopher and revolutionary, Karl Marx was widely known for his radical concepts of society. This paper give an analysis of “The Manifesto” which is a series of writings to advocate Marx ‘s theory of struggles between classes. I will be writing on The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, which lays down his theories on socialism and Communism.
"History is nothing but the succession of separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, capital, and productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations." Marx resists any abstraction from this idea, believing that his materialistic ideas alone stand supported by empirical evidence which seems impossible to the Hegelian. His history then begin...
In the Communist Manifesto it is very clear that Marx is concerned with the organization of society. He sees that the majority individuals in society, the proletariat, live in sub-standard living conditions while the minority of society, the bourgeoisie, have all that life has to offer. However, his most acute observation was that the bourgeoisie control the means of production that separate the two classes (Marx #11 p. 250). Marx notes that this is not just a recent development rather a historical process between the two classes and the individuals that compose it. “It [the bourgeois] has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie ...
Marx and Engels turn to history to understand the world and argue that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (Manifesto 65). These class struggles, based on who owns the capital, are the Marxists ' way of reading history. According to Marx and Engels, the current bourgeoisie, with their power and the growing industrial city, is "itself the product of a long course of development" and the final bourgeoisie to exist before the proletariat revolution (Manifesto 67). By stating this they illustrate the understanding that material possessions are what have driven history, ideas, and progress. They see the end result as a place where "class distinctions have disappeared" (Manifesto 84). By this the authors mean that private property, and any other type of personal material wealth will disappear, leading to the best society. The entire premise behind the ideas of the Marxists is that it is the wealth - the capital - that directs society and these class struggles. While these ideas describe the power wealth has on the ideas and history of a society, the impact that Marxist philosophy even further solidifies the relationship of the two seemingly separate
... to a different society. Marx’s theory for social change is based on history, this in contract how history is more or less the reason for class conflict and social change. (This material/information is taken from lecture slides from sociological imagination).
Politics and many aspects of society today have been heavily influenced by political thinkers and scholars from ages before our time. Whether their ideas were implemented or avoided, society today has learned and grown from these influenced; there has been societal adaptions and changes with every success and failure. One important philosopher that is still widely talked about today is Karl Marx. His theories and ideas are still studies, discussed and utilized today. Some aspects of Marxism is relevant to modern day but there are still some major critiques to his opinions that prove there in inconsistencies with the relevance of Marxism. This is a result of his failure to predict how advanced and revolutionized society would be in modern day.