This Sovereignty, however, is not who holds all of the power, rather the people in power doing things for the benefit of the people. Which is why Rousseau believed in participation rather than representation. He feels that if we are represented we will not necessarily be represented in the exact manner in which we please. If we were to participate in the government instead we could all deliberate with one another and come to a better understanding of what everyone’s ideas are. Also in The Social Contract, Rousseau comments about how the grouping of people into a civil s... ... middle of paper ... ...o be perfect our flaws and inequalities emerge.
In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes contends that government should highly restrict individual liberty. Readers find it difficult to determine why Hobbes thinks government should restrict so much individual liberty. On the surface, it seems that Hobbes believes that individual liberty engenders revolt against the government, threatening the stability of the government and preventing the government from protecting its people. However, a closer look shows that Hobbes does not believe that individual liberty is a threat to the government; he believes it is a threat to the very society that is free. Hobbes contends that the government should greatly restrict individual liberty because free individuals necessarily act in ways that threaten the survival of their society.
The difference between Locke and Marx would be that that have a different conclusion about the nature of humans and the desires for the consenting public. Both of these viewpoints are in stark contrast with that of Machiavelli’s and his advocacy for imperialism. Marx could argue Locke’s position on human rights to be too utopian and would only drive the bourgeoisie to becoming more prosperous and thus further antagonizing the working man. The philosophies of human rights made by these three were all from different eras in time and their viewpoints definitely reflect this matter. To start off, one should argue that differing viewpoints from Locke and Marx are somewhat similar and how they are both very in disagreement with the literature of Machiavelli.
We can assume, just with this in mind, that his writing’s contextual framework will differ greatly from Locke, which is true. However, Marx’s ideas would not exist if Locke’s theories were not there to form a precedent. Locke centers his ideas around political sovereignty, Marx uses this concept and applies it to his unique context. Marx lived during the time of the industrial revolution, so he talks about economic sovereignty. One key difference that will, if we read their works casually, make most readers assume that Marx and Locke are incompatible, is Marx’s critique of private property.
Both authors also have differing views on moral obligation since Marx also claims that morality as a whole is a social construction used to oppress the Proletariat and that it is therefore invalid, whereas Mill claims that moral obligation is one’s debt to oneself to express their opinion, since not doing so would leave one’s character undeveloped. In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in sile... ... middle of paper ... ... that it is one’s responsibility to further the society as a whole by expressing one’s own ideas because doing so is key to preventing society from stagnating and becoming stale. Both authors also have differing views on the role of moral obligation since Marx also claims that morality as a whole is created by the Bourgeoisie to oppress the Proletariat and that it is therefore invalid, whereas Mill claims that moral obligation is one’s self owed debt to express one’s opinion, regardless of the society’s view on it, since not expressing one’s opinion would leave one’s character undeveloped. Despite their differences in view on the content of social and moral obligation, both authors agree on the point that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own decisions, and insofar as these decisions affect others, they are also responsible for the state of their society.
According to Marx, the worker should create a product freely in order to develop his or her capacities. But under capitalism, the worker who creates a product does not have control over how the product is made, over what product is made, or what is to be done with the with the product once it is finished. Marx argues that the strong connection that should exist between the worker and product is fragmented; therefore workers are alienated under capitalism. He also argues that workers are often enemies because they are competing for jobs that are offered by the capitalist (Lecture, 10/7). Jaggar then goes onto describe human nature.
In contrast, Rousseau believes men are born with the potential of goodness but the social systems in place propagate animosity. Despite the fact that Hobbes and Rousseau are both concerned with self-preservation, Hobbes supports the idea of an authoritarian regime ruling men in order to prevent a state of war, and Rousseau specifies that freedom consists in men giving themselves their own laws. Years later, many of the issues of inequality and questions of the nature of men are still relevant in our societies. Hobbes and Rousseau have deeply impacted the world of philosophy with their arguments and theories. Despite their differences, both dominant intellectual figures wrote these texts with the central aim to highlight the necessary conditions for the subsistence of a society and ideal governing body and
Weber describes the routinization of capitalism by stating, “The Puritan wanted to work in a calling; we are forced to do so” (1905: 123). When an economic system becomes routinized, the worker has difficulty seeing an alternative to his present situation. As a result, routinization impedes class consciousness and the desire for revolution because it causes capitalism and the inequality it entails to appear normative. Similar to Weber, Simmel also explores social forces that Marx’s economically centered theories fail to consider. Marx focuses solely on macro-level structures and disregards the role that individual agency might play in social and economic life.
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.
In countries where the rights of the people were being oppressed by the government, revolutions took... ... middle of paper ... ...n to Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche did not support nationalism. In his work, Nietzsche talks about how humans are always going to be doing what we want, and that no matter what, they we are always going to get personal gain from what they are doing. Furthermore, he thought that those who impose what is going to be right and wrong in a society are those who are louder and more aggressive. This goes completely against nationalism, because nationalism involves the individual sacrificing him or herself to people of superior status in order to support the people of the country. When looking at different themes throughout history, it seems as though nationalism has been brought to the center stage.