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. Even with that said, we can still argue that Locke complements Marx. Looking at their theories from the perspective of a linear spectrum, a question and answer standpoint, we can infer that Locke’s promotion of property rights based on one 's own labor is later challenged by Marx to argue against private property. Even though Marx was opposed to private property, in a capitalist sense, he still believed that there should be property owned, in a collective sense. Marx states that true freedom is achieved when man is able to contemplate himself in a world he created.
It stressed on the difference between the appearance and essence of things. Marx saw that economic and social systems developed set of ideologies and ways of seeing them that were self-justifying. He stressed the importance of going beyond how things presented themselves and identifying the underlying realities. A good example is that capitalism looks like it is based on free labor, but it actually focuses on exploiting, and a monopoly of the production means. Workers, on the other hand, cannot work without the production means since their freedom really is a chance to starve or work.
If so, yes; if not, why not? Collectivism¡¦s main argument is that society should not be controlled by people who are irresponsible. Hayek counters that point by stating that collectivism is nothing more than totalitarian in which individual freedoms are lost. He also states that the welfare and happiness of the society cannot be satisfied by a single plan (Hayek 63-64). This is especially true in countries that are very diverse in their people¡¦s education and culture.
Marx's conclusion is that in so far as the state continues to claim to represent universality it can do so only by neglecting all particular interests, divorcing the state from the social needs of real individuals. 'This point of view is certainly abstract, but the 'abstraction' is that of the political state as Hegel has presented it. It is also atomistic, but its atomism is that of society itself. The 'point of view' cannot be concrete when its object is 'abstract'. The atomism into which civil society is plunged by its political actions is a necessary consequence of the fact that the community, the communistic entity in which the individual exists, civil society, is separated from the state, or in other words: the political state is an abstraction from civil society' (Marx CHDS EW 1975:145).
Mill writes that “… when he begins to deduce from this precept [the universal law test] any of the actual duties on morality, he fails … to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct” ( Troyer 97). In defending his own moral theory, Mill gives a similar example to Kant’s, explaining how the principle of utility does not justify lying. Mill writes that “… it would often be expedient … to tell a lie. But inasmuch as the cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity is one of the most useful… and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth does that much toward weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion… [a person who lies] acts as one of their own worst enemies” (Troyer 112). Mill’s rejection of lying as right course of action is based on the negative consequences it
Transcendental arguments are therefore all but common sense. They are in no respect "realistic" or ontologically dependent. (2) Whoever wants to get familiar with transcendentalism — perhaps just in order to criticize one or several of its representatives — must overcome the threshold of open or covert realism and ordinary experience. One also has to avoid the common misunderstanding that transcendental reconstruction represents a form of idealism. So this kind of philosophy seems to be a fortiori charged to give a good deal of pedagogical help for its own sake.
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.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom.
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, displays societal destruction caused by intense government economic intervention. Rand heavily stresses Capitalistic views, however straying from “public good” appeals. On the contrary, Rand views the public good as inconsequential and possibly detrimental when considering capitalism. Ayn Rand varies from Capitalist defenders supporting views disregarding public good and considering competition driven innovation, public works downfalls, and unrestrained governmental control. Ayn Rand and Capitalism’s defenders understand competition drives innovation and progression.
In the essay titled “Anarchism,” Emma Goldman provides a defense of anarchism and attempts to persuade skeptics of the philosophy 's efficacy. Specifically, Goldman attempts to convince the reader that, contrary to the skeptics’ arguments, anarchism is functional in practice and not just an abstract idea. Goldman argues that the current capitalist social structure is inherently exploitative and dominating, particularly of the working class, and an anarchistic future is the most practical solution to the ills of society. While Goldman dismisses the critics that argue that anarchism is a nice idea in theory but is not practical, I disagree with Goldman’s assessment. Although anarchism has worthwhile qualities and, in theory, would provide solutions