Rousseau and Marx are leftist thinkers who believe in freedom and equality for all humans. Rousseau and Marx agree that modernization and industrialization ruin society, Rousseau believes that it leaves men in chains hooked to materialistic things, and Marx argues that it creates class differences where not everyone is equal to gain theses materialistic things. Marx was interested in moving beyond materialistic equality to a society where everyone is equally free to develop to the fullness of their potential.
Rousseau like Hobbes and lock distinguished between what is natural and what is constructed by society. He argues that other philosophers do not go back far enough in describing the state of nature, Hobbes and Locke describe civilized, competitive men corrupted by civilization, rather than describing true natural state of humans. Even though Rousseau acknowledges that the state of nature is a hypothetical idea he believes that one must explain how life was before society in order to really understand and know how to construct a fair and equal society.
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all agree that humans are born equal in the state of nature, and like Locke, Rousseau also believes that the state of nature is a happy one, with optimism towards human nature. He believed that people were only concerned with survival instincts and reproduction, like sleeping, eating, and having sex. Hobbes saw this state of nature as brutal and a constant state of war, while Rousseau argues that it reaches this point when societies develops and population grows, so do people's needs. People start living together in families then small small communities, then they start acquiring properties and the propertyless works for those property owning in...
... middle of paper ...
... have a say in what is produced and how it’s produced, and even how they are distributed. This is how Marx believes the labor and market could become democratic and humans can be emancipated.
In western capitalist societies, communism is portrayed as a system that practices wealth distribution where everyone makes the same amount of money and own the same exact things with no competition. In reality Marx’s idea of communism gives people the chance to develop their skills and advance their potential to the fullest extent, that is actually denied under the capitalist class system. Marx agrees with rousseau that political and civil rights are important and gives the people more power but he takes it further and argues that in order for people to be truly free they must have control on their labor and their production by democratizing the economic and labor system.
When speaking about the nature of man, Crèvecoeur speaks about the natural man and man in society. He proclaims ‘Evil preponderates in both; in the first they often eat each other for want of food, and in the other they often starve each other for want of room.’ (Crèvecoeur, 608). He does not see one state as better than the other; he believes that they both have their disadvantages. On the other hand Rousseau as well as Locke both believes that man in his natural state was better. For Rousseau all man’s needs are filled in nature (Rousseau, 47), while in society man can take more than he needs which leaves his fellow man lacking. For Locke, even though man entered society in order to enjoy properties in peace and safety (Locke, 69) he believes that living in society has caused greediness as well as governments governing without the consent of their people. So while the authors disagree about what it was like in the state of nature, with only Locke really insisting that things ...
Somewhat like Mill, Marx’s idea of communism states that women and children will be relieved of their lives as “simple articles of commerce…[and] mere instruments of production” (Marx 173), and be given more freedoms under his political ideology. Despite these few similarities, the principles of Marx and Mill could not be any more different. As part of The Communist Manifesto,
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
Rousseau then discusses what the original way of living is. He would say that there is an inequality in how we live, because we are born free and that is taken away from us. The chains that led from the inequality are subjugation, dominance, and oppression. These chains are artificial, because we are born free. Humans acquired the chains, Rousseau would argue. He will go on to say that because humans began to rationalize these chains were caused. Thinking ratio...
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.
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 his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes’s’ theory was based upon the assumption that human nature was naturally born competitive, violent, and seeking power, Rousseau viewed human nature as good and pure, only until society corrupts it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both viewed the state of nature quite differently, both their theories were similarly based on the image of how society was, before political government existed. The argument I would like to make is the idea that Hobbes’s vision and beliefs of human nature from the State of Nature is profoundly more logical and realistic than Rousseau’s. To be human is to desire nothing but accomplishing ones own selfish pleasures, including their interest in self-preservation.
Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
Though the rewards are pleasing to the ear, the path to obtaining the benefits of communism is a violent one. This strict governing idea was derived from Communist Manifesto, a book written by two German economists, Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, who declare that many problems in society are caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. These two believe that “Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations.” To achieve the goal of happiness and prosperity for all, the lines that distinguish the differences between the rich and poor must be erased. Obviously, the rich will never voluntarily give up their goods or status; therefore the figureheads must force equality among the citizens. Communism places their citizens, whether they be the wealthy or the laborers, into working classes that specify their contribution to the government. With such balanced placement of the people, individuality is impossible for any single person to achieve.
...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.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live
State of Nature - Theories about how humans were before society changed us. Hobbes believed it was ‘man v. man’, while Locke believed people were equal, and would not harm each other.