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.
To understand the Rousseau stance on claims to why the free republic is doomed we must understand the fundamentals of Rousseau and the Social Contract. Like Locke and Hobbes, the first order of Rousseau’s principles is for the right to an individual’s owns preservation. He does however believe that some are born into slavery. His most famous quote of the book is “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau pg 5). Some men are born as slaves, and others will be put into chains because of the political structures they will establish. He will later develop a method of individuals living free, while giving up some of their rights to...
... middle of paper ...
...believed it kept many in bonds or slavery. While Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that freedom was attained by entering into a social contract with limits established by good will and community participation. Both theories would put restraints on personal property and capital creating ownership relinquished to the state. He believed that laws to protect citizens could not keep up with the changing economic environment. One could conclude that Marx and Rousseau’s theories were relatively close in the role that it plays between citizens and personal property ownership.
Works Cited
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels reader . 2d ed. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.
Marx, Karl, and Freidrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto . USA: Soho Books, 2010. Print.
Rousseau, Jean. On the social contract . Mineola, NY: Dover, 2003. Print.
The Marx-Engels Reader by Robert C. Tucker is an anthology containing essential writings of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Major writing selections are to understand Marx perspective about history and society, such as The German Ideology. Marx introduces his historical materialism philosophy in the German Ideology: Part 1 of this book, where he proposes communism. Although I agree with a few points Marx gives, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that communism is the only way to become truly free. Marx suggest abolishing private property ownership and remove economic power from the hands of privileged people to accomplish freedom.
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher that helped develop concepts such as general will, and improved on the early norms on child-raising. Born in Geneva, he was a “citizen” of the city. “Citizens” were the two hundred members of the Grand Council of Geneva, which made most of the political decisions in state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an important part of the Enlightenment. He led an interesting life, as told by his three memoirs, had a solid philosophy, did not believe in reason, and left a lasting legacy that still affects us today.
Throughout his life, Rousseau suffered from severe emotional distress, and feelings of deep inferiority and guilt. Rousseau's actions and writings reflect his attempts to overcome this sense of inadequacy and to find a place in world that only seemed to reject him. His political philosophy influenced the development of the French Revolution, and his theories have had a great impact on education and literature.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
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.
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.
In the height of the enligtenment era mid 17 th century Jean-Jacques Rousseau modified and gave new impetus to John Locke's idea of social freedom through his book called The Social Contract.In the course of his book Rousseau counter argues not only Locke's perception of freedom but also his own perception through his text to let the reader arrive to his own conclusion ,is freedom really free? Rousseau is very insightful in his scriptures and trys to make his book easier to read and understand by subcatoogerizesing his chapters to key points that he thinks as followed: Right of the strongest, Slavery, Social compact and the Sovereign.
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.
The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they are subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Bibliography:.. Works Cited Cress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Basic Political Writing”.
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.
... 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.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.