Comparison of Karl Marx and Matthew Arnold
Through their writing, Karl Marx and Matthew Arnold show their opposing views on the importance of internal and external functions of culture. In the first chapter of Culture and Anarchy, "Sweetness and Light", Arnold describes culture as being responsible for the progress of politics and society and as
"the best knowledge and thought of the time" (19). Matthew Arnold's culture is based on two main aspects, religion and education. Karl Marx, however, strongly contrasts Arnold's ideas. Marx views culture as being derived from the advancement of the sciences.
Matthew Arnold's definition of culture comes from "a mid-nineteenth- century Germanic notion of culture which is founded upon his study of Goethe and
Schiller" (19). He believed many other cultures are based on the thought of curiosity and on scientific expansion. Arnold believed culture was based on the expansion of the individual's mind; only through education can a perfect culture be reached. In his writings, Arnold stated that for a man to be cultured he has to be versed in both religion and classic literature. Although
Arnold's culture sought the advancement of the human mind; he did not want people to get wrapped up in technology. "Faith in machinery is, I said, our besetting danger; often in machinery most absurdly disproportioned to the end which this machinery" (23). Arnold believes his culture is "more interesting and more far-reaching than that other, which is founded solely on the scientific passion for knowing" (21). Arnold believed that culture dealt with perfection; as he stated in "Sweetness and Light", "Culture is then properly describe not as having its origin in curiosity, but as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection" (21). Arnold also says that culture is the endeavor to make the moral and social characteristics of individuals prevail. Because culture is a study of perfection, then it is also an "inward condition of the mind and spirit, not in an outward set of circumstances"
(Arnold 23). Arnold states that, "In thus making sweetness and light to be characters of perfection, culture is of like spirit with poetry…" (25).
Matthew Arnold felt that religion was an important aspect of culture.
Arnold felt that when the reason of God prevailed all society will be cultured.
As Arnold states, "Now, then, is the moment for culture to be of service, culture which believes in making reason and the will of God prevail, believes in perfection, is the study of perfection,…" (21). Marx states that the ruling class of culture would be the intellectual and material force, he makes no
While Karl Max and W. E. Du Bois primarily address two distinct forms of alienation—economic and racial, respectively—their arguments share core underpinnings, which ultimately connect these two types of exclusion. Marx believes that the system of capitalism alienates workers from each other and their own labor; Du Bois believes that the prevalent racial inequalities isolate black Americans. While ostensibly, these seem entirely different, in actuality, they share common themes. In this essay, I will demonstrate that Marx believes that people have the right to autonomously construct their own identities, which capitalism then corrodes. I will also argue that Du Bois shares this core value and consequently believes racial equality is necessary
Two great writers, whose ideas have been read by many, are Karl Marx and Abraham Kuyper. Marx was a philosopher and because of his writing about Communist many places responded with revolutions. Kuyper was a Christian leader inspired many with his writings about society and culture. Marx and Kuyper both addressed how social issues in the world. Marx and Kuyper’s views of human nature are very different. While Kuyper believes that God shapes our lives and humans have no control; Marx, on the other hand, believes that human beings can shape and control the direction of their own lives. Both men show their beliefs of human nature through history, government, economy, and society. Though they both believe in equal society they don’t agree on the
The theories of John Stewart Mill and Karl Marx, although vastly different, share the main idea of utilitarianism in the most basic sense. Utilitarianism promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both philosophers believed that the people should be empowered when it came to the governing of society, and that the greatest threat to society is oppression.
The rapid development of global economy with the opening of new markets worldwide gave way to the development of new means of production and also to the change of ideologies across the world. Alongside with that, the division between different groups or classes within societies became more apparent as some people got richer and other poorer. These two phenomena, the worldwide development of industries and consequent class struggles, have been analyzed by two major thinkers of their times, Karl Marx and Robert Reich. Their essays have been influential and are similar in sense that they analyze existing conditions of societies and give projections on future fates of people, or more specifically, fates of classes. In this paper, the main focus will be on the fate of the wealthiest people; these are the bourgeois for Marx and symbolic analysts for Reich. More specifically, it will be argued that the rich people will be in the worst position according to Marx and this position will cover two aspects: material aspect, which is how well the rich will eventually manage their properties, and the inherent antagonism of classes and its consequences for the wealthy.
In "Brave New World", the main characters, Bernard Marx and John the Savage both slowly come to realize the faults with their societies. In "Fahrenheit 451", Guy Montag quickly discovers that things could be better in his society, because of some unfortunate events. His wife Mildred tries to commit suicide, Clarisse gets killed by a speeding car, and a woman refuses to leave her home and her books when firefighters come. These events force Montag to think about the way things are. He is forced out of his society to live with others like himself who think differently. Marx questions the lack of history that his society has. He wonders about books, banned because they did not encourage the new culture, which had no place for old things. By visiting
America is supposedly where all men are created equally, yet society has created a hierarchy based on socioeconomic standing and political power. Theorists Karl Marx and Max Weber has applied their theories of social class on the model of social stratification; a system in which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. According to Karl Marx, the main classes of society are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; those that are the owners of the means of productions and those who work for it. On the other hand, Max Weber argued that there is a multidimensional ranking rather than a hierarchy of clearly defined class. America has created a social system in which those of middle and lower classes tend to struggle to decrease the gap within
In the closing of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber writes, “it is, of course, not my aim to substitute for a one-sided materialistic an equally one-sided spiritualistic causal interpretation of culture and history. Each is equally possible, but if it does not serve as the preparation, but as the conclusion of an investigation, accomplishes equally litte in the interest of historical truth” (125). This closing statement presents Weber's main argument in The Protestant Ethic in a slightly different view than what many scholars think . Does Weber's essay merely criticize the theories of Karl Marx? Or is Weber simply trying to deepen the understanding of the cultural origins of capitalism, which includes Marx's materialist conception of history? In this paper, I will explore the ways in which Karl Marx and Max Weber might actually be compatible. By examining the two theorists' analyses in The Protestant Ethic and Marx's writings, including Capital and various essays, this paper will show how the difference between the two is not a matter of historical versus contemporary or historical materialism versus idealism. Rather, the two are compatible in their attempt to comprehend the connection between modern capitalism and history, their mutual understanding of religion as a practicality, and their pursuit of a diachronic analysis.
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.
Karl Marx was an idealist. He observed the cruelties and injustices that the poor working class endured during the period of industrial revolution, and was inspired to write of a society in which no oppression existed for any class of people. Marx believed in a revolution that would end socialism and capitalism, and focus on communist principles. The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx, describes the goals of the communist party for ending exploitation of the working class and creating a society in which there is equality without social classes. As a historian, philosopher, and revolutionary, Marx has helped shaped the society of the past, present and future. He is known for being a liberal reformist who believed that capitalism could be reformed and inequality of the working classes could be addressed and abolished. I agree with Marx?s view points and feel he is a man that has achieved many great experiences throughout his lifetime for which he is remembered.
Being from the same era- the industrial revolution, yet separated by almost a century in existence, Adam Smith and Karl Marx had contrasting and distinctive theories of economics. Smith, being a Professor of moral philosophy, associated moral theory with economics, which led to the development of the modern world capitalism. Karl Marx positioned his thoughts on injustice and disparity between different social classes, these thoughts became the underlying foundations of communism.
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.
My paper talks about the riveting account of human nature and modern society that Karl Marx gives us, in comparison Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Meanwhile, Durkheim believes that organic solidarity and division of labour are modernity’s main features. Weber looks at rationalization and disenchantment, and Marx offers an account aimed centered on class struggle and social instability.
Workers of the World Unite: You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Chains. Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx had very strong viewpoints in regards to capitalism, making him a great candidate for this assignment. People constantly debate over whether his ideology holds 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 a lot of issues.
As a German philosopher, a politician, and an important figure within the Communist League, Karl Heinrich Marx birthed a new way of looking at things through his beliefs, ideas, and writings. Karl Marx was considered to be “…certainly one of the most important minds of modern times”(1). He wanted to know more about philosophy, so that he might understand the political and social system better.
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.