Although both Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill theorized terrific approaches to the social and political dilemmas of their times, I argue that the economic conditions described by Marx is more of a threat to human well-being today than the restrictions on individual liberty as described by Mill. At the same time, I argue that Marx’s theory of reducing and improving economic conditions, thus dealing with alienation, is more important to securing and promoting human well-being in the current political climate than Mill’s philosophical solution.
Well-being is based upon three major principles; the first being strong human relationships, the second being that one has the ability to act meaningfully to pursue one’s goals, and the third being that basic human needs are met. Each of these conditions are imperative for well-being, but they are insufficient in and of themselves. For human well-being to be
They are not permitted to give input into the products that they create because of their status, instead being told what to do and how to do it by the bourgeoisie who possess a higher status than themselves. In the grand scheme, these proletariats are only a cog in the wheel. This violates the principle of having the ability to pursue one’s goals. If someone is reduced to only a cog in the wheel, then the conditions for human well-being are not being met. Marx says that “the division of labour is a convenient, useful means, a skilful application of human powers for social wealth, but it is a diminution of the capacity of each man taken individually (Early Writings, 373).” This quote enforces that there is a separation of man from his labor, as it is a helpful tool in the process of capitalism, but that it removes the humanness of each person. It explains that it benefits those gaining wealth but that individuality is removed, therefore removing any sense of union between man and his
Marx’s idea of the estrangement of man from the product of his labor described the suffering of countless hours or work by the laborer, contributing to the production of a product that he could not afford with the wages he made. He helped to produce a product that only those wealthier than he could afford. As the society around him became more object-oriented, he became increasingly more alienated. In the lager, one factor that distanced the laborer from his product was that he no longer worked for a wage, but for survival. In a description of his fellow worker, Levi wrote, “He seems to think that his present situation is like outside, where it is honest and logical to work, as well as being of advantage, because according to what everyone says, the more one works the more one earns and eats.” Levi pitied his fellow worker for his naivety, as the Lager was not a place of labor for prosperity, but strictly a place of labor by force. One worked in order to live, focusing more on the uncertainty of their next meal, day, or even breath than the product of their l...
In Marx’s opinion, the cause of poverty has always been due to the struggle between social classes, with one class keeping its power by suppressing the other classes. He claims the opposing forces of the Industrial Age are the bourgeois and the proletarians. Marx describes the bourgeois as a middle class drunk on power. The bourgeois are the controllers of industrialization, the owners of the factories that abuse their workers and strip all human dignity away from them for pennies. Industry, Marx says, has made the proletariat working class only a tool for increasing the wealth of the bourgeoisie. Because the aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase their trade and wealth, it is necessary to exploit the worker to maximize profit. This, according to Marx, is why the labor of the proletariat continued to steadily increase while the wages of the proletariat continued to steadily decrease.
“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products (.) chases the bourgeois over the whole surface of the globe” (Marx, 212) and creates a world that cannot exist without the separation of workers and owners and competition for the lowest price. The struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat begins when the labor of the worker becomes worth less than the product itself. Marx proposes that our social environment changes our human nature. For example, capitalism separates us from the bourgeois and proletariat because it alienates us from our true human nature, our species being, and other men.
Division of labor created alienation for the proletarians, this is why Marx suggest abolishing the private property. The lower class stop living for themselves and live to make their owners rich. This is a problem because everyone that does not belong to the upper class suffer economically and mentally. If this pattern does not change then it will continue to be passed generation after generation. “... by the overthrow of the existing state of society by the communist revolution and the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world history” (p.163). Abolishing private property will set the lower class free and bring desire to live once again and thrive. To break this barrier economic power needs to be removed from the hands of privileged
According to Marx, capitalist system has another damage rather than class differentiation and low source of income. This damage is basically alienation of labor. Labors are being fundamentally alienated from production, production process, man’s species being and also from other men. Those are the alienation steps of workers in capitalist world. According to communist theory Marx believes that in such system society divides into two different classes; on one hand there are property owners so called bourgeoisie and on the other hand property less workers so called proletariats. For Marx the class stratification that driven from private ownership causes to alienate workers from the existence world. It begins that property less workers become alienated from the product that they produce. Worker relates to...
In the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels. The authors make sure that it’s very well known that proletarians (the working class), are being oppressed by the Bourgeois, and they also make sure every one knows that it is not the first time in history when there is a minority that rules over the majority, and that this ends up in class conflict, that leads to a revolution where the powerful are overthrown. The way that the Marx, and Engels demonstrate that the Bourgeois are inherently oppressive is by talking about the way their private land is giving them increase of power over the proletarians, and that the proletarians are being in a way enslaved by their labor (job). Instead of feeling enslaved by their job they should (in a ideal society) happy about their labor, but are instead, in the contrary, being exploited to mass produce, and not being paid enough for their labor; demonstrating that Bourgeois are benefiting from the
His ideal society is that of conformists, one where the government controls every aspect of a citizen’s life. For instance, Marx assumes that the only way to diminish the unequal distribution of wealth is to abolish private property and make everything government owned. Under the communist rule, the following measures will be enacted: abolition and confiscation of all property from every person, a graduated income tax, abolition of inheritance rights, the unification of agriculture and manufacturing, free education, eliminating the distinction between urban and rural areas, and forced labor for all citizens; the following industries will be entirely government owned and operated: the economy, communication systems, agriculture, manufacturing, education, military, and basically everything else (Marx 176). His rational behind this is that private property is out of reach from the majority of the current society and the reason for that is because the minority holds control of it; “private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths” (Marx 171). It is obvious that Marx has no assurance for individual freedoms in his ideal society, which is vital component in Mill’s ideology. Mill believes that the government should be as least intrusive as possible when it comes to the running of society. He argues that the best form of government allows the people to act freely, based on their own accord, as long as their actions do not directly harm or infringe upon another persons liberties; “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 6). By allowing for complete individual sovereignty, Mill promotes the general progress of society and the free movement of ideas. Unlike how Marx calls for
In conclusion, Marx states that the worker is alienated from his own life as well as individuality. This level of estrangement from one’s own life can be equated to slavery as he cannot think, make decision or plan for his future life but rather the capitalist is his owner. Labor camps tend to characterize workers as objects which should be act or behave as normal human beings but are required to follow a set routine of activities in the production of products.
Notably, many philosophers and scholars believe that the past is a powerful stimulus that dictates a given country’s future. On the contrary, for some of them, the statement, “Do not allow yourself to be overawed by traditional beliefs and institutions. Slavish regard for the past prevents society from achieving a happier life,” seems very true. However, the past may not necessarily affect a society adversely. Indeed, philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, and Edmund Burke have conflicted thoughts on the impact on traditions on a community’s future since Kant and Marx seemed to support the statement mentioned above while Burke was more conservative with this idea and believed that the
John Stuart Mill suggests that a person’s ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mill’s position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critique the theory of Utilitarianism. By showing the problems that the theory have will reveal what should make up ethical decision-making. John Stuart Mill supports and explains his reasoning in his book, Utilitarianism. Mill illustrates the guidelines of his theory. Mill defines utilitarianism as the quest for happiness. His main point is that one should guide his or her judgements by what will give pleasure. Mill believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain. Utilitarianism also states that the actions of a person should be based upon the “greatest happiness principle”. This principle states that ethical actions command the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill further explores the need for pleasure by noting “a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy.” . He acknowledges that some pleasures are more alluring than others are. He adds to this by making known that when placing value in things to calculate pleasure, not only quantity important but quality as well. Mill’s criteria for happiness is easily understood, some statements that he gives are questionable. John Stuart Mill plainly laid out what he believes that the basis for ethical decision-making. First, the pursuit of pleasure is directly related to happiness. This idea can be easily accepted. It is natural for a person to focus his goals on things that will bring him pleasure. It would be absurd if someone’s goal in life was to be poor and starving. This being said, it does not mean that people are only happy due wealth but that no one’s goals are focused on poverty. Although there are many issues that can be agreeable with Mill, there are problems that exist with his theory of utilitarianism.
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).
Marx, Karl. “Alienated Labor.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 1160-1166. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.
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...
Marx’s theory of alienation describes the separation of things that naturally belong together. For Marx, alienation is experienced in four forms. These include alienation from ones self, alienation from the work process, alienation from the product and alienation from other people. Workers are alienated from themselves because they are forced to sell their labor for a wage. Workers are alienated from the process because they don’t own the means of production. Workers are alienated from the product because the product of labor belongs to the capitalists. Workers do not own what they produce. Workers are alienated from other people because in a capitalist economy workers see each other as competition for jobs. Thus for Marx, labor is simply a means to an end.
Karl Marx had very strong viewpoints in regards to capitalism, making him a great candidate for this assignment. People constantly debate over whether his ideologies held any grain of truth to them. I believe that although not everything Marx predicted in his writings has come true (yet), he was definitely right on about a lot of issues. As a matter of fact, his teachings can definitely be applied to today’s society. This paper will give a summary of Marx’s political philosophy. It will also discuss a contemporary issue: the current economic crisis— and how Marx believed racism played a crucial a role in it. Finally, through the lens he has developed, I will explain how Marx would analyze this issue and how one can argue that it spurred the current movement known as Occupy Wall Street.