Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction: Marx, Nietzsche, and Du Bois
Marx, Nietzsche, and Du Bois have contrasting views on modern ideology, specifically liberalism. Liberalism as a concept, both from an individual and societal level, has been criticized by all three political thinkers, yet for different reasons. Marx, who was the founder of the communist political ideology, supported the idea of a society in which resources, both social and economic, are shared. This opposes the idea of liberalism, in which the right to private property. However, Marx confronts the ideological component of liberalism as well as the political structure it illustrates. Marx highlights that a society can only be successful if nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity (Marx & Simon, 1994, p. 119). Thus, society itself shapes the individual, which, in turn, creates demands that one is to fulfill despite being interested in other activities. As a result, the liberal ideology based on individual freedom is overthrown by the needs of the community.
Nietzsche and Du Bios, on the other hand, did not believe liberalism at its core can benefit everyone. However, the two critical thinkers differ based on the perceived negative aspects of said ideology. Nietzsche believed in a similar paradigm as multiple Greek philosophers. Namely, that freedom is a luxury that not every individual deserves and is only reserved based on ones capacities. This is partly while the philosopher has argued against Kantian beliefs in operating based on the hearts desire on their own responsibility ((Nietzsche & Samuel, 2021, p. 102). Since Nietzsche does not believe freedom correlates with responsibility, it cannot be linked to morality.
This material may be protected by copyright. The political thinker highlighted that repulsive growth as it was, it would be missing, had not a tremendous quantity of freedom been expelled from the world . Thus, the lack of freedom is an opportunity for improvement since creativity arises from limitations, and overcoming barriers implies an extensive effort that would otherwise not be needed. Those who manage to prove their right to freedom through their exclusive capabilities do, in turn, deserve to enjoy the benefits of liberalism. Du Bois, on the other hand, criticized liberalism for the same reason as Nietzsche partly accepted it. The author does not agree with the idea that the ideology facilitates equality.
Furthermore, Du Bois highlights that African Americans, while being granted more freedom, cannot access the same opportunities as liberalism benefits white people. The authors mention the intrinsic persistence of heritage that shapes ones freedom by saying, American and black are two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings (Du Bois & Edwards, 2007, p. 13). Thus, freedom is different for the two demographics, which in turn cannot contribute to equality. When ones freedom is different from the same concept for someone else, the notion of liberty becomes redundant.
On the one hand, the thinkers are similar in acknowledging that certain individuals can benefit from a liberal ideology. In Nietzsches case, it can benefit society only if liberation is earned through an illustration of capacity and not a given right accessible to each individual. Du Bois also believes the liberal agenda benefits a specific demographic, namely, white Americans. However, the thinkers differ when it comes to the predicted outcomes. Nietzsche suggests a liberal ideology leads to degradation and hedonism, a world in which self-interest, pleasure, and desires rule men. Du Bois, on the other hand, associates liberalism with inequality. Since freedom allows each individual to strive for success individually, competition is created. Under the condition that competition rules society, bias creates circumstances in which different groups have contrasting inputs. As a result, marginalized demographics always lose while majorities win at their expense.
This may be interpreted as a critique of Nietzsches standpoint on enslavement. According to the political thinker, The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of resentment becoming creative and giving birth to values (Nietzsche & Samuel, 2021, p. 35). Thus, ones lack of opportunities and freedom generates creativity, which is the opposite in Du Bois work since suffering creates inequality. From this standpoint, Du Bois appears to be more compelling. The philosopher highlights that intrinsic characteristic that hinders ones opportunities create circumstances in which freedom cannot be beneficial for everyone equally. If it were the case, the Civil Rights Movement would have been enough to erase all social and economic disparities.
Gandhis Transformational Power
Gandhi was a transformative political actor and thinker who formulated certain ideas in relation to how the political environment of a society is to look. The proposed ideology encompasses certain elements present in socialism yet differs in regard to several elements. First, it is important to mention that ethical consideration is at the core of the ideology presented by the author. The ethicist believed in equality, liberty, fraternity and mutual assistance (Ghandi & Parel, 1997, p. 16). Thus, competition is diminished, and, instead, the ideology is to be based on the shared and collective input. This, in turn, does not correlate with the previously covered topic of liberalism, as individual freedom and non-secular society are not implemented in Gandhis ideological doctrines. Instead, non-violence, common interest, and a communal way of living were promoted. Marx would have associated with certain aspects of the doctrine. Namely, the father of communism would support the implementation of communal interest over personal gain. However, the non-violent approach to current political systems would not have been associated with a plausible solution as Marx believed in a global revolution against elitists. This contrasts with Nietzsches views in regard to the capability-based elite who is able to exercise freedom with dignity.
Moreover, Marxs views oppose those of Ghanis in regards to a secular vs. non-secular society. The presence of religion is not a product of communism, but it is a vital component of Gandhis ideological beliefs. From this perspective, Marx also criticizes Hegel in regards to differences in definitions when it comes to the presence or lack thereof historical meaning of change (Marx & Simon, 1994, p. 188). Thus, in regards to the transformational power of the approach, Marx would have agreed with certain elements and their potential in relation to a systematic change. However, aspects such as non-violent approaches, the focus on ethics over benefit, and the presence of religious doctrines within political aims would have been disregarded by Marx and considered non-efficient and not transformative enough.
Du Bois, on the other hand, would have aligned with multiple aspects of the ideology presented by Gandhi. The thinker wrote, By every civilized and peaceful method, we must strive for the rights which the world accords to men (Du Bois & Edwards, 2007, 44). The aim is similar to Gandhis proposal of a non-violent approach to societal change. Both ideologies are based on pacifism. Hence, from this particular perspective, Du Bois would have assessed the transformational power of Gandhian politics as high.
Du Bois also aligns with Gandhi in regards to socialism as he was a member of the socialist party (Du Bois & Edwards, 2007, p. 32). Gandhian socialism, while differing from the traditional ideology, is rooted in the same belief system (Ghandi & Parel, 1997, p. 28). Thus, both believe the means of production are to be communally controlled. The view opposes capitalism and liberalism in the sense that society is to have power over production. From a religious perspective, the two differ. This highlights that Du Bois would not have ranked the transformations of Gandis teachings as high. According to the thinker, in relation to separation, the church has done much to stop this practice (Du Bois & Edwards, 2007, p. 98). However, religion is also portrayed as something that has given white Americans a foundation to discriminate and exploit. Gandhi, on the other hand, based multiple aspects of his ideology on religious dogmas. These include the peaceful approaches to protests, the ethical consideration of others as having the same importance as everyone else, and cooperation. While the same concepts are present in the works of both thinkers, the implications of spirituality are different. In one case, it is to be separated from political systems, while in the other case, it is vital.
Marx, Gandhi, and Du Bois have similar views when it comes to certain perspectives aligning with socialism. Thus, both Marx and Du Bois would have agreed that Gandhis transformational politics would have a revolutionary impact if practically implemented. However, in regards to the religious, peace-centered approaches to political systems, Marx does not align with the same premises. Du Bois, on the other hand, shares similar views, which implies that the critical thinker would have agreed with the notion that the ideology can provide transformational power. The only contrasting limitation is on the importance of religion when it comes to the governing system and political importance.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the three political thinkers, the most persuasive appears to be Du Bois. The philosopher managed to highlight the essence of inequality as illustrated not merely through a lack of written liberties but through inherited biased. Thus, freedom cannot be achieved when the conditions vary based on different demographics.
References
Du Bois, W. E. B., & Edwards, B. H. (2007). The souls of Black Folk. Oxford University Press.
Ghandi, M., & Parel, A. (1997). Gandhi: hind swaraj and other writings. Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K., & Simon, L. H. (1994). Selected writings. Hackett.
Nietzsche, F. W. (2021). The genealogy of morals. (H. B. Samuel, Trans.). Global Grey.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.