Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx are two different philosophers that undeniably had different opinions on countless themes. They both had strong opinions and delve into the topics of community, individualism and inequality. One would say that they differ in countless ways about democracy and inequality, however when dealing with individualism they seem to agree on how the society should come together. The perspective Marx and De Tocqueville take on each of these subjects is different but their overall message seems to give away the same sort of thought. When looking back on these ancient sociologists how does one know which of them were right and which to believe. When looking at community, individualism and inequality we examine the works In the past, Marx acquired an intriguing stand on individualism he found that it was far more important than equality. He argues individualism allows workers to achieve a consensus and breakdown the dictatorial leader. De Tocqueville on the other hand mentions that capitalism thrives on individualism. De Tocqueville’s argument was between equality versus individualism. He describes individualism as “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends” (De Tocqueville, 506). His perspective was that individualism empowers people to become competent but also strengthen and reassure society to work with the others in the community to magnify the possibilities for As stated by Professor Veugelers “De Tocqueville happened to see that the inequality between the rich and the poor became more restricted, and thought that at some point the gap will close.” (Veugelers) Tocqueville was not a supporter of equality but he valued liberty, what he meant by liberty was freedom from a tyrannical government, one which arbitrary seizes property. De Tocqueville wondered how liberty could have been preserved as society becomes increasingly equal. When it comes to equality De Tocqueville is neither left or right. Karl Marx on the other hand had a different view on equality. He believed that families were organizations of inequality. He believed that the state would disappear if classes in society were erased because a state’s job is to take advantage of inequality. Marx speculated that he would see a good portion of the poor advance financially and socially. However, this did not occur. Aristocracy was taken over by the capitalism, they were the people who’s main objective was to acquire money and the working class were taken over by the proletariat which were those working in labor to acquire income. Marx states “workers end up alienated not only from the goods that they produce and the process itself but from fellow humans, from themselves, from nature (Marx, 6). His point was with capitalism and the people working would develop to have less money and experience alienation
Locke and Tocqueville were born nearly two hundred years apart from each other. This span of time corresponds to great changes in the European political spectrum, with Locke being born before the English Glorious Revolution (1688) and Tocqueville born after the French Revolution (1789). Much of what Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have written would have taken for granted the innovations to political thought which Locke and his contemporaries would have fostered. Thus, in areas such as the primacy of human self-interest, to the necessity of nominal societal participation in government, to the belief that “freedom cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith,” our authors share a common ground. It is from this common ground that Locke and Tocqueville most radically depart from one another, beginning with Locke’s conception of
Socialism as defined by the parameters of the post revolution into the pre industrial period was the nearly universally marked by the race to empower the working class. Yet, within this broad definition of socialism, Karl Marx, Gracchus Babeuf, and Robert Owen differ in their views of a utopian society and how it should be formed. It was to be their difference in tradition that caused their break from it to manifest in different forms. Although they had their differences in procedure and motive, these three thinkers formed a paradigm shift that would ignite class struggle and set in motion historical revolutions into the present. Within their views of a utopian community, these men grappled with the very virtues of humanity: greed versus optimism.
Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes violence is necessary to reach the state of communism. This paper will reflect upon these two topics: the relationship of the individual and society, and the issue of violence, as each is portrayed in the manifesto.
During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists. Both of them tried to explain social change taking place in a society at that time. On the one hand, their views are very different, but on the other hand, they had many similarities.
While the problems within civil society may differ for these two thinkers it is uncanny how similar their concepts of freedom are, sometimes even working as a logical expansion of one another. Even in their differences they shed light onto new problems and possible solutions, almost working in tandem to create a freer world. Rousseau may not introduce any process to achieve complete freedom but his theorization of the general will laid the groundwork for much of Marx’s work; similarly Marx’s call for revolution not only strengthens his own argument but also Rousseau’s.
Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim are all part of a “holy trinity” of classical sociological interests. They all hold different beliefs and agreements, which ultimately end up being the social norms/ideas that they stand by. Ultimately, the different beliefs held by each sociologist, are based on their background and the different viewpoints they grew up around. Max Weber was raised by a tyrannical father creating a terrible life for him, but was very smart, which lead to Weber’s success and his belief in authority. Karl Marx was raised around intellectual parents in a middle-class home, which deters his viewpoints towards the relationship to the means of production. Emile Durkheim was part of a Jewish family with a rabbi father. This made her serious about the scientific method of everything and framework. In the end, they all have different beliefs on the way one should live or may currently be living, but they also correlate back with each other.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx on the other hand took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics. Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism.
The first quote from Marx is “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle” (Levine 19). This quote reflects the stratified time period Marx grew up in. he was born during the French revolution and saw the effects of the industrial revolution on the communities around him. This time has influenced his writing because one of the major themes he talks about is social stratification. The quote describes how stratification has existed in every culture and society and will continue to. This class structure affects history and the revolutions and other significant events that happen. The reign of the house of Bourbon caused a lot of social stratification in France and their reign ended with the French revolution that
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
Inspired by the works of Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin nonetheless drew his ideology from many other great 19th century philosophers. However, Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” was immensely important to the success of Russia under Leninist rule as it started a new era in history. Viewed as taboo in a capitalist society, Karl Marx started a movement that would permanently change the history of the entire world. Also, around this time, the Populist promoted a doctrine of social and economic equality, although weak in its ideology and method, overall. Lenin was also inspired by the anarchists who sought revolution as an ultimate means to the end of old regimes, in the hope of a new, better society. To his core, a revolutionary, V.I. Lenin was driven to evoke the class struggle that would ultimately transform Russia into a Socialist powerhouse. Through following primarily in the footsteps of Karl Marx, Lenin was to a lesser extent inspired by the Populists, the Anarchists, and the Social Democrats.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
... in a way that lead to inequality. Marx similarly argues that private property has led to inequality, because it has put the means of production into the hands of the bourgeoisie, thereby subjugating the proletariat. Even though both men resided in different centuries, their theories are similar because they perceived the singular issue of inequality. As theorists they did differ on where equality would lie; Rousseau believed that man had lost equality as he evolved out of the natural state, whereas Marx believed equality had yet to be realized.
Critics may charge that by abolishing private property, the communist is instead eliminating the “groundwork of all personal freedom, activity, and independence.”(235) Standing in defense of communism, Marx states that wage labor does not really create property for the laborer. In fact, it only creates capital, which Marx defines as being a kind of property that works to exploit the worker rather than benefit him or her. (235) The worker works just to increase the wage of his boss, while his wage remains stagnant. Marx states that this capital in the modern bourgeoisie society is based on class antagonism, which makes it become a social power. Communists do not want to abolish property as right, but rather want to abolish the class character associated with property. Keeping capital private will continue to give the bourgeoisie the ability to have more power over the workers of the world. (236) By making capital public, it eliminates the class antagonism that is attached to that
Karl Marx had very strong viewpoints in regards to capitalism, making him a great candidate for this assignment. People constantly debate over whether his ideologies held any grain of truth to them. I believe that although not everything Marx predicted in his writings has come true (yet), he was definitely right on about a lot of issues. As a matter of fact, his teachings can definitely be applied to today’s society. This paper will give a summary of Marx’s political philosophy. It will also discuss a contemporary issue: the current economic crisis— and how Marx believed racism played a crucial a role in it. Finally, through the lens he has developed, I will explain how Marx would analyze this issue and how one can argue that it spurred the current movement known as Occupy Wall Street.
Marx thought of a society that would create equality and bring power to the people. He didn 't expect society to be totally equal but a society with distributed justice. According to Marx, a good society is when there is no exploitation. To get rid of exploitation, we have to get rid of surplus values and make everyone equal. But Marx also knows that no good society can exist as long as exploitation is allowed. That is why some societies will want a Marx type of living and some will not. A society that has used and embodied the Marxist tradition is Russia. They have used Marx ideas and lived by the communist manifesto. This way of life worked for many years and to the people of Russia, it made a good society. But to people outside of Russia, people who lived in a democratic state or country, they looked at it as a failed society. A type of society that should not be allowed to exist in the world of democracy. But like Marx said, some societies will be able to live in a Marxist environment and some won’t. Marx also states, “ In a communist society, the working class will be more important than the capital class”(M 10-25-2016). By having everyone equal, this allows for class conflict to be no more and exploitation not exist. Marx knows there can be no good society but a Marxist society will do its best to form a ideal