Two great writers, whose ideas have been read by many, are Karl Marx and Abraham Kuyper. Marx was a philosopher and because of his writing about Communist many places responded with revolutions. Kuyper was a Christian leader inspired many with his writings about society and culture. Marx and Kuyper both addressed how social issues in the world. Marx and Kuyper’s views of human nature are very different. While Kuyper believes that God shapes our lives and humans have no control; Marx, on the other hand, believes that human beings can shape and control the direction of their own lives. Both men show their beliefs of human nature through history, government, economy, and society. Though they both believe in equal society they don’t agree on the …show more content…
The stronger will do anything in their power to make a profit, leaving the weak with nothing. Kuyper says, “…the more powerful exploited the weaker by means of a weapon against which there was no defense” (Kuyper, Abraham, and James W. Skillen 26). Additionally, he states that “…the idolization of money killed the nobility in the human heart” (Kuyper, Abraham, and James W. Skillen 31). Kuyper talks about how Jesus felt bad for the rich and sided with the poor (Kuyper, Abraham, and James W. Skillen 32). Matthew 6:19-21 says, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Earthly materials mean nothing because the real treasure awaits in …show more content…
Humans are born sinful and are full of evil desires, like greed and selfishness. Individualism drives us apart and poisoned our mutual relationships” (Kuyper, Abraham, and James W. Skillen 25). Kuyper says that, “Every creature, our Confessions says so beautifully, must serve man, so that man may serve God” (Kuyper, Abraham, and James W. Skillen 23). Humans being are called to serve each other; in God’s commandments He says to love our neighbor as ourselves. Kuyper says, “…the cause of evil lay in this: that men regarded humanity as cut off from its eternal destiny, did not honor it as created in the image of God, and did not reckon with the majesty of the Lord” (Kuyper, Abraham, and James W. Skillen 26). Kuyper says that “Our society is losing touch with Christ…” and that is the main problem with society (Kuyper, Abraham, and James W. Skillen
Jesus never proclaims that possessions or money is inherently evil, but he does warn against the danger of greed. Jesus does not attack money and possessions, but speaks against becoming enslaved to things of this world. Kraybill proclaims, “We too easily bow down and worship at the altar of materialism.”(Kraybill 2011). Kraybill explains that Jesus’ intentions were to have us apply the same structure and economic principles of the Jubilee to our entire life. The Jubilee system requires that the rich distribute what they have evenly, just as God distributes his love to us all without judgment. Jesus encourages us to practice this on a daily basis. Jesus builds his teachings around serving and loving others first. The pleasures of the world should never be the main focus of our life. Jesus teaches that only when we live our lives in this way can we truly see the Kingdom of God. If we allow money and possessions to be the ruler of our lives they will choke our spiritual growth and we will never be able to live out the true purposes of our lives. Jesus also teaches that we should not get caught up worrying about money or possessions. Faith that God will provide everything we need is all we need in the Kingdom of
The Industrial Age brought much hunger, poverty, and despair with its many technological innovations aimed to make man’s life better. Although Kuyper and Marx agreed that social conditions in the Industrial Age were not acceptable, they differed on the cause and solution to the poverty and despair in the modern world. Kuyper’s approach to the problem of poverty is like minimally invasive surgery, less damaging but more time-intensive. Marx’s approach, however, is like amputation with no cauterization, quick but with little chance of recovery. Marx seeks to heal a wound by creating another; Kuyper seeks to heal through correcting the heart of his age.
What is the author’s main argument in “How and how not to love mankind” The main argument in the essay, How and how not to love mankind is about how alike, yet how different Ivan Turgenev and Karl Marx are. They were both born the same year in 1818 and they both passed away the same year in 1883 and they were both European writers as well. They studied the same things, attended the same university, and wrote about the same topics although they both had different personalities and distinct beliefs also different views on the world around them, especially in humans. Their perspective in While Turgenev saw man, Marx saw classes of man and while Turgenev saw people, Marx saw the people. They both were so alike yet so different in so many different
...e rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.” (1 Timothy 6:17)
In “The problem of Poverty” Kuyper has the view that we all need God in our lives. We cannot survive on our own. In contrast, in “The Communist Manifesto” Marx believes that socialism is the fix for our problem. He thinks that we should all have equal authority and power of our own lives. We should not trust anyone but ourselves to solve the problem. Throughout this paper we are going to analyze the solutions that Kuyper and Marx suggest to fix our society. separately and then see where they agree and disagree. Both have strong opinions on how to fix the social crisis.
While history continues to be made everyday that goes by, we take a look at three famous philosophers to interpret their ideas. These philosophers include John Locke, Karl Marx, and Niccolo Machiavelli. They all have something in common, which is to observe and form an opinion on the human nature of people and how society works as a whole. Even though all three discuss about the same topic, their ideas are quite different from one another. While Locke and Marx place their opinions on human reasoning, Machiavelli does not. Each of their opinions derived from the actions that people make, such as Locke, who believes that all humans are created equal, Marx who believes that people are consciously good and will do the right thing to balance society, and Machiavelli on the other hand, who believes people are selfish and will act in accordance to their best interest.
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.
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).
..., not only will we acknowledge the needs of others by redeeming ourselves from sensuality, but avoid being prideful by acknowledging how unessential material wealth is in our own lives. When we do this we will break out of the the “competitive rat-race without meaning”, or the “vicious circle” (Arrupe 10), by choosing God’s love and the love for others.
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.
During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists. Both of them tried to explain social change taking place in a society at that time. On the one hand, their views are very different, but on the other hand, they had many similarities.
Stalin's and Lenin's arrangements were fundamentally the same yet Stalin changed Lenin's strategy and Stalin's approach was significantly more cruel. Lenin and Stalin's social strategies were to dispose of religion. Lenin and Stalin were likewise similar in their monetary strategies, which were to have the administration control the economy. Stalin's financial arrangements broke with Lenin's to make, what were basically, two new Soviet upheavals in industry and in farming. Lenin and Stalin both needed to accomplish communism in Russia, however their arrangements to accomplish this were diverse with Stalin's way being more brutal. Lenin trusted that communism couldn't be accomplished without transformations in other propelled western nations.
Much of scripture speaks to the issues of money and taking up cause for the poor, who are among the most vulnerable in society. The Old Testament has a key theme of protecting the powerless. The powerless in biblical times were often the most financially vulnerable within society, yet God cares for them. Kyle Fedler explains that God’s favoritism seems to rest with the poor and oppressed, and to reject those members of the community, is to reject the God that so deeply loves them. Within our society we often show our favoritism not to the poor, but to the wealthy. Our society runs off of individualism. That individualism blinds us to the needs of
With the idea of equality of all people no matter what race or previous financial situation, the concept of a god was in complete opposition of the Marxist philosophy. ?Marx?s idea of God as a projection of alienated human beings whereby God becomes in rich proportion as humanity becomes poor.?[2] Marx is criticizing society and their overall views of how religion should be treated. The society is letting God become the main focus of their lives, and since they are giving almost all their attention to God, they are becoming oblivious of the other members of the society and the relationships between each other.
Politics and many aspects of society today have been heavily influenced by political thinkers and scholars from ages before our time. Whether their ideas were implemented or avoided, society today has learned and grown from these influenced; there has been societal adaptions and changes with every success and failure. One important philosopher that is still widely talked about today is Karl Marx. His theories and ideas are still studies, discussed and utilized today. Some aspects of Marxism is relevant to modern day but there are still some major critiques to his opinions that prove there in inconsistencies with the relevance of Marxism. This is a result of his failure to predict how advanced and revolutionized society would be in modern day.