Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Karl marxs understanding of society
Karl Marx’s views on how societies
Karl marxs understanding of society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx both had the similar notion that property was the root of inequality, even though they both lived in different eras. Rousseau, who lived during the 18th century, was a staunch proponent of the idea that property gave rise to inequality, due to its unequal distribution. Similarly, Marx, who lived during the 19th century, contended that property gave rise to inequality because it created a class conflict between that of the upper class bourgeoisie, and the working class proletariat. However, for Rousseau, there was an underlying force that gave rise to property and that was amour propre. In simplest terms, amour propre is the vanity and self-love that leads one to seek personal gain, even if it may be at the expense of others (Rousseau 63). Rousseau argued that amour propre and private property were the sources of inequality because they drove man away from his natural state where he was equal amongst others.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
... middle of paper ...
... 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.
Works Cited
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels reader. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.
Rousseau, Jean, and Donald A. Cress. "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men." Basic political writings. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co., 2011. 27-92. 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.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a great philosopher who lived in the Enlightenment. He was a very influential philosopher and “Thinker” he has written many books including The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Rousseau’s theory was in essence that humans were created naturally pure and innocent but over time and new technologies become more evil. He had thought that in the very first light of man he was completely innocent, a being who had no intention to harm anyone else. However as time progressed and the growing capacity for man increased and the
...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.
Social inequality is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunity for various social positions or statuses within a given group or society. It is a phenomenon that has a long history as social inequalities has a wide range of varieties. From economic, gender, racial, status, and prestige, social inequality is a topic often disputed by classical theorists. Sociologists Karl Marx, Max Weber, W.I. Thomas, and Frederic M. Thrasher have formed varying thoughts on this recurring phenomenon. Marx believed that social inequality synthesized through conflicts within classes and in modern society those two classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In contrast, Weber disputes Marx’s simplistic view of the conflict and theorizes that social
As stated by Professor Veugelers “De Tocqueville happened to see that the inequality between the rich and the poor became more restricted, and thought that at some point the gap will close.” (Veugelers) Tocqueville was not a supporter of equality but he valued liberty, what he meant by liberty was freedom from a tyrannical government, one which arbitrary seizes property. De Tocqueville wondered how liberty could have been preserved as society becomes increasingly equal. When it comes to equality De Tocqueville is neither left or right. Karl Marx on the other hand had a different view on equality. He believed that families were organizations of inequality. He believed that the state would disappear if classes in society were erased because a state’s job is to take advantage of inequality. Marx speculated that he would see a good portion of the poor advance financially and socially. However, this did not occur. Aristocracy was taken over by the capitalism, they were the people who’s main objective was to acquire money and the working class were taken over by the proletariat which were those working in labor to acquire income. Marx states “workers end up alienated not only from the goods that they produce and the process itself but from fellow humans, from themselves, from nature (Marx, 6). His point was with capitalism and the people working would develop to have less money and experience alienation
In his “Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Mankind,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau attributes the foundation of moral inequalities, as a separate entity from the “natural” physical inequalities, which exist between only between men in a civilised society. Rousseau argues that the need to strive for excellence is one of man’s principle features and is responsible for the ills of society. This paper will argue that Rousseau is justified in his argument that the characteristic of perfectibility, as per his own definition, is the cause of the detriments in his civilised society.
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.
In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the poor.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
According to Philosopher’s of the time of enlightenment the nature of society created inequality. These philosophers also believed that it was the job of the government to limit inequality and try to create conformity.
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.
...y can be hard to reach. In the history of Soviet Union alone, true Marxist’s would argue that the Soviets did not adopt true Marxist ideas, and the reason for this is probably due to the fact that his ideas are too unrealistic to exist in the real world. Also the idea that there are two-classes of people because of private property is simplistic since he dismisses the importance of wages and the power that they give to the working class. I believe that the worker is free to use his wages for the acquisition of property or employees for himself. Yet these past readings have given me an open mind on the different views of the capitalist world. Private property in another sense should not be abolished in my opinion, since it is a human right and would be impossible to abolish in today’s society. Marx’s criticism is of private property is based on the value of freedom.
The Web. The Web. 15 Apr. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. "The German Ideology." The Marx-Engels Reader. Ed. Robert C. Tucker. New York: Norton, 1978. 146-200. Print