Essay Choice (1)
When choosing their social structures, one must decide whether for the rights of the people, social conditions or for sovereignty. Both Locke and Marx had similar views when it came down to the consent of the people. People want to be free and less oppressed by their superiors and thus anyone in the way would be a problem for their society. In Locke’s view it was the monarchs and aristocrats of the world as for Marx it was the bourgeoisie. 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. For Locke, humans have a natural right as humans to be free and that our decisions should be based off our own desires and “not to be under the legislative authority of man” (Locke, 17). As Locke puts it, the foundation of which man is appointed to be “evident in itself” and we have an “obligation to mutual love” (9). He would argue that there are certain natural agreements that should not be violated and protected prior to any mutual arrangement because we have the obligation to love ourselves and our freedom. Similarly Mar...
... middle of paper ...
...ould be by the people for the people while Marx believes in a communistic by the people for the nation. Machiavelli believes that the governed should have the right to revolt if they are not happy but they ultimately need to be made happy by the monarch. Locke would consider Machiavelli an advocator for absolutism while Marx would consider Locke an advocator for modern capitalism. The three views are quite similar and very different on their own right and are very relevant to their times of that which they try to instill philosophy of the rights for societal needs.
Works Cited
Locke, John. The second treatise on civil government. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 1986. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist party. New York: International Publishers, 1948. Print.
Although this manifesto is small, it emanates one of the most recognized and well thought out political arguments in history. The basis of Marx’s reasoning for the use of this type of gov-ernment is seemingly straightforward. He believed all resources in a nation should be distributed equally to all citizens, so that the division of social classes would cease to exist and to make sure there was no exploitation of any citizens. Marx also wanted the abolition of owning private prop-erty, which is the main contributor to the bourgeoisie’s source of wealth. Marx broke this manifes-t...
...ety. Both authors believe that all people should have an equal chance to pursue the life that they want to lead. They believe that society should not be run by the wealthy. Marx argues against social classes, the sense of nationality and the idea that private property lead to social power and the bourgeois dominance in society. They had all the control. Bastiat believed that all people had a God given right to defend themselves, their property, and their liberties. He believed that law was necessary, but that it should be fair and consistent to all of the individuals in a society, no matter their economic stature. He argued that law was changing, and that it was actually going against what it was designed to uphold in the first place. These two authors presented ideas of government that at the time were unheard of, but are still very present across the globe today.
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.
... 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.
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 German thinker, Karl Marx (1818-1883), wanted to understand and explain the changes that occurred in society at the time of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. (ibid) In 1843 Marx met Engels in Paris. It marked the beginning of a lifelong of friendship and professional collaboration. In 1848 Marx and Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”. The Manifesto outlined the struggles between classes. From then onwards it has become apparent that Marx was not an economist. His theories are a combination of economics, history, sociology and politics. Marx moved to London in 1849 where he spent the rest of his life.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Trans. Paul M. Sweeny. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998.
Machiavelli focused more on the country 's political power, whereas John Locke focused more on the rights of the people. Is that true? I said they both had the same goal which was to look out for the best of the state, but Locke was a lot less extreme and focused more on his people rights. Despite their contradictions on "sovereignty", John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is 'how ' a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. Machiavelli and Locke both considered the nature of government and man 's individual interests as they relate to governmental structures. Machievelli 's idea of fortune and Locke 's 'state of nature ' concept both shaped the theorists arguments about the purpose of political life. It has been posited that for Machiavelli, politics is an unpredictable arena in which ambition, deception and violence render the idea of the common good meaningless, while Locke would argue that political or civil society exists only to preserve the rights of the individual. It can be argued that for both Machiavelli and Lock, political activity, then, becomes merely a means of satisfying selfish
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. New York: International, 1948. Marxist Internet Archive. 2000. Web.
One of the greatest debates of all time has been regarding the issue of the freedom of mankind. The one determining factor, for Marx, it that freedom is linked with class conflict. As a historian, Karl Marx traced the history of mankind by the ways in which the economy operated and the role of classes within the economy. For Marx, the biggest question that needed to be answered was “Who owns freedom?” With this in mind, Marx gives us a solution to both the issues of freedom and class conflict in his critique of capitalism and theory of communism, which is the ideal society for Marx. His theory of communism is based on the “ultimate end of human history” because there will be freedom for all humankind. Marx saw communism as the ideal society because it is "the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and man- the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence...between freedom and necessity" that capitalism fosters. Marx was also committed to the notion that theory and action go hand in hand. Marx dismissed earlier thinkers because they (philosophers) "have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." He also stated "Ideas cannot carry out anything at all. In order to carry out ideas men are needed who can exert practical force". However, Marx would have been appalled by the way his theory of communism was misused. It can be said, though, that Marx's theory of communism was clearly open for interpretation because he failed to offer "principles or guidelines of even the most general kind" for how the system of communism was to be fully established. It was this opportunity for interpretation that made Marx's theory of communism doomed for failure when it was used in practice.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 1st Signic Classic print. ed. New York, NY: Signic Classic, 1998.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in order to give a voice to the struggling classes in Europe. In the document he expressed the frustrations of the lower class. As Marx began his document with "the history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggles" he gave power to the lower classes and sparked a destruction of their opressors.1 He argued that during the nineteenth century Europe was divided into two main classes: the wealthy upper class, the bourgeoisie, and the lower working class, the proletariat. After years of suffering oppression the proletariats decided to use their autonomy and make a choice to gain power. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century the proletariats were controlled and oppressed by the bourgeoisie until they took on the responsibility of acquiring equality through the Communist Manifesto.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. "The Communist Manifesto." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: Norton, 2001. 769-773.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the communist party. CH Kerr & Company, 1906. Print.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. "The Communist Manifesto." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: Norton, 2001. 769-773.