German ideologists contend that the country has undergone incomparable revolution characterized with the decomposition of Hegelian philosophy, sweeping of the powers of the past, subjection of mighty empires into immediate doom, and hurling of heroes into obscurity.
With respect to German Ideology, it is befitting to note that German criticism did not quit the realm of philosophy. German criticism of body of enquiries sprung from the Hegelian philosophical system, and this explains why the Hegelian System has been criticized widely. These modern critics majored on substance, self-consciousness, the ‘unique’, and man. Many of the German philosophical criticisms were confined to religious conceptions.
It is a common notion that the existence of man is the foundation of human history. Men are different from animals in that they embody consciousness and have a religion, besides having social organizations whose basic unit is the family.
On a national scale, the relations of different nations depend on how a nation has developed its productive forces, division of labour, and internal intercourse. Division of labour resulted in a split-up of industrial and commercial labour from the agricultural labour. Various stages of development in division of labour are envisaged in clannish ownership, shared and state ownership, and feudal or estate property ownership.
Division of labour gives rise to the separation of society into individual families that are opposed to each other hence the unequal distribution of labour. Latent slavery thus arises in circumstances where wife and children become slaves of the husband. Division of labour makes the interests of individuals and those of community to conflict. Individuals become entangled in power alien to them – the world market. When the current state of society is ousted by communist’s revolution, the power becomes dissolved and the institution of the private property done away with. Single individuals will become liberated and history transformed into world history. All sided production will thus result.
Class conflict is defined as the tensions and antagonisms that characterize a society. It means that various classes in society have conflicting interests, which results from socioeconomic positions and outlooks. Class tension plays a critical role in understanding the nature of society right from prehistoric times when feudalism was the only type of class struggle to the modern type of class conflict that is capitalistic in nature. Marx defined class conflict as a struggle between the ruling class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). This class conflict is inevitable in any capitalistic society.
Bakunin based his analysis on the European enlightenment to argue that class conflict is a result of the struggle between the learned and the ruling class in society. He never believed that human beings are individualistic, which is a major difference between his views on class conflicts and the views of Marx. His view was that human beings are social beings and tend to live in communities in order to achieve efficiency. However, he supported the idea that individuals are guided by mechanical or natural laws meaning that they aspire to fulfill their selfish interests before they think of somebody else. This article compares the ideas of Marx and Bakunin. The comparison will focus on two major concepts, which include the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and political reform.
Karl Marx was a German philosopher who has extensively written on society and the factors that make it the way it is. His focus was on economics, as well as what causes the ideology and politics of any nation to change and shift in the most unexpected ways. One of the central ideas of Karl Marx was the fact that the battle between different classes in society is born through people having private property and the amount, as well as the quality of the said attributes. The reality shows that there are many people who possess much more than is needed for the necessities of life. This can be said about any society, as there are always people who are more successful than a large portion of the population.
An interesting fact is that this sort of natural law is true for any nation and country. There are places in the world that are considered the third world, but there are still people that are very wealthy and have enormous political or social status. This begs the question of how this happened and what are the results according to the greater good of society. One of the causes of such division is the number of opportunities that people are presented with. The conditions that exist for a certain individual become favorable in such a way that they are able to produce more gain with what they have. This leads to much faster development of an individual. The amount of capital that one has is a key instrument in the development of further resources.
Mikhail Bakunin is another thinker who was from Russia. He was a person who addressed the issue of division between people, and the environment that he was in was very beneficial for the study of such class separation. He was very well educated and was aware of the views of many German philosophers. He later moved to Berlin and decided to stay there, as the return to Russia seemed unbearable for the great mind. This came out of the problem that people in Russia were not favored and respected for their ideologies and heightened views of human abilities. German society was much more favorable and respectful of people who thought that individuals should not be separated. For Mikhail Bakunin, the sort of thinking and actions that he was involved in led to a revolution. His philosophy was that there is a distinct separation in society into two separate entities. One was the national and governmental while the other was social movement focused on revolution. The government was focused on the administration and control of people that are the majority of the social fabric.
In terms of political reforms, Bakunin (2004) was against the idea of the working class fighting for their rights in order to achieve equality in society. To him, this would bring about social and political instabilities since each class is concerned with its own interests. In fact, no class would sit back and watch its power being taken over by the other group. He was of the view that the state is made up of the unnatural monstrosity, implying that any attempt to capture state power would definitely contaminate the ideas of the revolutionaries. In other words, freedom fighters would easily be corrupted once they acquire state power. On the other hand, Marx (2004) was of the view that the state is made up of the committee of the ruling class. In this regard, the proletariat would not manage to acquire state since it is not yet time. For the proletariat to achieve its objectives, class-consciousness has to be attained. The struggle for reforms, according to Marx, entails reorganization, and self-determination. Through this, the working class would turn out to be active agents.
Regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat, Bakunin noted that the working class should rise up against the state since it forms classes. The state encourages the idea of inheritance of property, which is against the natural law (McLaughlin, 2007). The state machinery, such as the police and the military, are major impediments to the individual fulfillment of his or her rights. For the proletariat to achieve its interests, it has to look for ways through which the power of the state would be reduced. The absence of the state would present equal opportunities for the poor in society. Marx was against this view because the state is simply a property of the owners of the means of production. According to Marx, the state does not play any role in creating poverty in society. The ruling class uses the state to create unfavorable laws that would only support their agenda (McLellan, 1988). Therefore, the working class should aim at capturing state power it would support their guest for political and economic power.
References
Bakunin, M. (2004). Marxism, Freedom, and the State. Whitefish: Kessinger.
Marx, K. (2004).The communist manifesto. United States: Kessinger Pub..
McLaughlin, P. (2007). Mikhail Bakunin: The Philosophical Basis of His Theory of Anarchy. New York: Algora Pub.
McLellan, D. (1988). Karl Marx: Selected writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Communism is the political and economic teaching which goal is to abolish private property and a profit-based economy and introduce public ownership and communal control of the resources instead. Communism is a higher and more advanced form of Socialism. Opinions differ on how communism differs from Socialism (Dagger par. 1).
Among the main ideologists of communism are the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. To give some background, Marx had a doctor’s degree in philosophy, and Engels was a political scientist and a veteran of the Prussian Army (Arthur 465). They authored a lot of works on the topic of communism, which, in their turn, inspired a whole generation of philosophers and political figures.
Main body
One of the most significant works by Marx and Engels is The Communist Manifesto, which was written in late 1847 and first published in 1848 in London, and has been reissued many times ever since. It is probably the most famous and widely read work on the subject of politics (Isaacs 1). In their work, Marx and Engels declare and substantiate the goals and methods of the newly-formed Communist parties. Marx and Engels proclaim that capitalism is going to collapse inevitably and that the Proletariat will be the main force that deposes it. Some phrases of The Manifesto have become widely known even among those dissimilar to politics. For instance, the work begins with the iconic words, “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism”, and ends with the famous slogan, “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” (Marx and Engels 34).
The first chapter of The Manifesto begins with a statement that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels 16). Earlier in history, a complex, multi-level organization was typical of human societies. Marx and Engels describe ancient Rome and the Middle Ages, enumerating their many social ranks and layers. However, now that feudalism has ceased to exist, the social structure has become rather simple. The authors oppose two categories of people: the oppressors and the oppressed. The first group includes free people, patricians, lords, guild-masters, etc., and the second group – slaves, plebeians, serfs and journeymen correspondingly. Their confrontation can take different forms, but it never ends. These two hostile categories are called Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
This transformation of society did not happen at once but was a result of a long chain of historical events. Vast new territories had been discovered and were being colonized. This process created demand for a more ample and efficient production. Whole hew markets appeared and were constantly expanding. The previous guild system was replaced by a principally new system characterized by division of labor and wide use of machinery. The Bourgeoisie was the leader of this transformation process. They destroyed the system of natural superiority on which the society was baser earlier. Profit was now the central pillar of social interactions. People of the most respected occupations such as doctors, scientists, artists had lost their halo of admiration and were turned into mere paid workers. Family relations were also reduced to commodity-money relations. While earlier exploitation was justified by all sorts of illusions, the Bourgeoisie made it quite undisguised and straightforward.
The Bourgeoisie made the market cosmopolitan. It cannot survive without constant improving and revolutionization, which are its characteristic features as well as constant uncertainty and anxiety. What seems consistent and stable today, may lie in ruins tomorrow, and this change is often unpredictable. As there is constant demand for new markets, the Bourgeoisie is constantly seeking for new territories to develop, and this way is taking over the whole world, civilizing new nations, building huge cities, subjecting Nature to man and his inventions. Again, the main opposition arises here: the leaders and the dependants.
The Bourgeoisie based itself on means and notions that first appeared in the feudal system, and then destroyed this system as obsolete. Marx and Engels assert that now the Bourgeoisie is destined to demise itself, and the crises that occur regularly are the premonition. These crises create an unprecedented problem – overproduction. The bourgeois system is now too narrow for all the wealth it has created (Marx and Engels 16). The ways in which the Bourgeoisie tries to solve these crises drive it into even deeper ones.
The Bourgeoisie has not only created the weapon it is going to be destroyed with but has also given birth to the people that are going to do it, i.e. the working class. These people only live as long as they have work to do. They are an article of trade, like everything in the capitalist system. Their position is highly uncertain. At the first stage of their development, they are a scattered and uncoordinated mass, forces to compete with the likes of them. But the industry is moving forward, so is the working class. It becomes more numerous, strong, and organized. Proletarians form alliances to defend their rights and interests. Sometimes the opposition takes the form of riots. As a result, the workers merge into a class, which later becomes a political party, thus becoming more and more powerful.
Of all the classes opposed to the Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat is the truly revolutionary one, as it is a product of the system itself. The Bourgeoisie is in turmoil. It can no longer satisfy even the most basic needs of its servants, and this, according to Marx and Engels, is the minimum a system of oppression can be based upon. Therefore, its defeat by the Proletariat is predetermined.
In the second chapter, the authors expand on the relationship between the Proletariat and the Communists. They state that basically, their interests are the same. The distinguishing feature of the Communists is, however, that they defend the rights of all workers, irrespective of their origin and nationality. Their purpose is to form a Proletarian class, vanquish the Bourgeoisie, claim political influence, and destroy private property. Anticipating criticism, the authors explain their opinion, stating in capitalism, the workers’ labor did not create any property for them whatsoever, thus making capital a social phenomenon. Therefore, making property public does not mean taking it away from individuals; it only means altering its essential nature. Communism allows people to appropriate social goods, what it prohibits is exploiting other people’s labor.
Another bourgeois remnant the Communists plan to abolish is family. The bourgeois family is based upon profiteering, and only the Bourgeoisie can afford having one, whereas the proletarians cannot. The abolition of the family will stop prostitution and parents from exploiting their children. Children and wives have long ago become commodities and instruments in the bourgeois society, and it is only natural that the family institution should be destroyed.
National peculiarities are disappearing rapidly, and the Proletariat will contribute to their vanishing. Nations will not be exploiting each other anymore; there will be no disagreements within nations as well.
The formation of the Communist society will not be an easy task. But the most progressive countries can already establish some ground rules, for example, a progressive tax system, free education, everyone’s equal obligation to work, deprivation of rebels and immigrants of all property, no right to inherit, etc.
In the third chapter of The Manifesto, the history of Socialism up to the middle of the 19th century is explored. The authors enumerate several types of Socialism and expand on their specific features. These types are also analyzed and sharply criticized.
The first type of Socialism described is Reactionary Socialism. It has three subtypes, the first of which is Feudal Socialism. It was the very first form of the doctrine, created by aristocrats who were displeased with the changes caused by the Bourgeoisie. These people aimed mainly at restoring the previous state of affairs and did not care about historical progress. They did not realize that it was them who made the existence of the Bourgeoisie possible in the first place, and the Bourgeoisie, in its turn, made the Proletariat possible. Marx and Engels state that this form of Socialism was incapable of any serious political confrontation and was “half lamentation, half lampoon” (Marx and Engels 28).
The second subtype of Reactionary Socialism is Petty-Bourgeois Socialism. As has been stated above, Marx and Engels believe that Bourgeoisie empowerment led to the division of society into two classes. However, a remnant of the third class was still present – it was the Petty-Bourgeoisie. It was soon absorbed by the Proletariat, and this is where the Petty-Bourgeois Socialism has its roots. Marx and Engels recognize its positive features, such as exposing the many contradictions in the current industrial relations and revealing all the terrible problems the Proletariat was facing at that time. However, Marx and Engels still find this type of Socialism faulty: it aims to bring back the old ways of production and trade and does not realize that it is necessary for the Proletariat to be revolutionary.
The last subtype of Reactionary Socialism in German, or “True”, Socialism. At that time, there were a lot of Socialist and Communist publications. These publications then leaked into Germany, and German Socialism appeared as a response to them. German philosophers, political scientists, and also other people who were not that qualified began to add their thoughts and ideas to the French socialist texts. Marx and Engels call these attempts “nonsense” (Marx and Engels 30), and it is clear that they consider these ideas shallow and immature. These additions spoiled the originals and distorted the ideas expressed in them, which was dangerous as these distorted variants were spread among broad masses of people. The original French ideas were also written for a society different than German. In France, they already had the conditions that Germany was just beginning to establish. As a result, the German socialist movement was misdirected and slowed down.
Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism is the next type. Those who adhere to this type of Socialism want to make reformations in their class and not eliminate it. They would like to keep all the privileges their political and economic dominance has given them, but they do not want to face the inevitable result of this development – the restless Proletariat. They want harmony but do not understand that their type of society prevents its appearance. All they do is prolong the suffering of the working class and stop the historical progress.
Lastly, Marx and Engels scrutinize Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. Their first interpreters existed very early, and therefore, did not understand the full value of the Proletariat as a means of historical progress. They saw the Proletariat as the most miserable and helpless class. They reckoned that changes would happen smoothly, and the initiative would come from those in power. Marx and Engels find these visions utopian, as it is impossible, in their opinion, to abrogate class conflicts when there are still reasons for the classes to exist. The upper classes become reactionary as soon as the revolution begins, and stand in its way, preventing the working masses from claiming their rights.
In the last chapter, Marx and Engels give their opinion on different opposition parties. In different countries, the Communists have to unite with various parties to gain support. The parties the Communists ally with include the Social-Democrats in France, the Radicals in Switzerland, and also the parties that suggest revolutionary ideas in Poland and Germany. The latter becomes the main focus of attention for the Communists: its pending bourgeois revolution is going to happen in more suitable conditions than those in England in the 17th century or France in the 18th. Finally, Marx and Engels encouragingly say, “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win”, and urge the Proletarians of the whole world to unite (Marx and Engels 31).
Being one of the most famous works on politics, The Communist Manifesto has often undergone analysis. Thus, for example, it is believed that the main advantages of the work are a clear and laconic description of Marxist ideas, and that is “a guide to action” (German n. pag). Marx and Engels do not hesitate to criticize the existing social relations. The language of the work is often praised: it is written in a pithy, audacious and sometimes even ironic style (Bookchin n. pag.). The phrase “Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime, we plead guilty” (Marx and Engels 24) is a very good example. The authors confront their opponents unreservedly. The opening of the work already openly declares it as revolutionary. The authors emphasize that capitalism is an unfair and exploitative system and creates conditions for its collapse (Bookchin n. pag.).
Conclusion
It has been more than 150 years since The Communist Manifesto was first published, so it is possible to try and estimate whether Marx and Engels’ postulates have proved viable and realistic. Some of the aims set there have been implemented in several modern societies: for example, child labor is abolished, education is free, and a progressive tax system has been introduced. However, this is true for a relatively small number of countries. It must be mentioned that some of the goals have not come to life at all.
References
Arthur, John. Morality And Moral Controversies. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
Bookchin, Murray. ‘The Communist Manifesto: Insights And Problems’. New Politics 6.4 (2015). Web.
Dagger, Richard. “Communism.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web.
German, Lindsey. ‘Reflections On The Communist Manifesto’. International Socialism 79 (1998). Web.
Isaacs, Jeffrey. ‘Rethinking The Communist Manifesto’. 1-10. Web. 2015.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 2015. Web.
This political pamphlet was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The two German philosophers published it for the first time during the upsurge of revolutions in 1848. Several countries have used this pamphlet to develop their leadership structures. The authors gave their analytical viewpoint on the challenges of capitalism and discrimination based on one’s social class. They voiced their discontent with the capitalist mode of production instead of focusing on the possibilities of adapting a political theory that will favor collectivism in a classless society. Marx presents his own theories that explain various disconnections in the society characterized by capitalist ideologies. In addition, he explains the way societies can switch from capitalism to communism.
In the third chapter of the manuscript, Marx examines the thoughts expressed about the communist theory. At the time when this document was written, most countries thrived in a deep-rooted culture of capitalism. For example, Marx is very critical of the economic system applied by countries such as the United States of America, which advocated for state ownership of resources. He examines the troubles of workers in the country who had to endure policies that denied them their rights. Slavery resulted in the creation of social classes, whereby colonial masters always looked down upon their servants. According to Marx, there were two categories of social classes, namely bourgeois and proletariats.
Bourgeois was the individuals who owned property, while proletariats were people in the working class. Bourgeois always exploited people in the working class because they provided cheap labor for their industries. They forced workers to take up social roles that did not match their interests. At the time, the United States of America and several European countries were at the center of the slave trade. Workers were often denied social benefits because their masters wanted to retain control over them. Marx was right about the certainty of an uprising by proletariats. History backs all the claims made by Marx as evidenced by the social rights movement that highlighted the process of social and economic restructuring in America.
Views expressed by Marx in this manuscript depict money as the main driving force for the behavior shown by the colonial masters, who aimed at exploiting their workers for greater economic gains. Production was highly monopolized due to the fact that only a few individuals had enough resources and easy access to cheap labor. However, as the world continued to grow, people started developing newer ways of making money and increasing the efficiency of the production process. People developed machines that were used for production. This had a direct impact on the labor market because the demand for laborers was highly reduced, while those who retained their jobs received low wages.
Money was viewed as the main determinant factor in the growth of industries. Money was also used to determine one’s social class, as people associated with those that match their economic pedigree. Colonial masters were obsessed with getting money to the extent of ruining family relations with an orientation that compromised the sentimental value attached to it. Due to the developments made in the production process, the bourgeois had to expand their market in order to create demand for their products. Their strong desire for expansion led to the development of a global economic system. Marx argues that the bourgeois was effective in using monetary resources to develop the world by creating urban centers in all the areas they moved to sell their products.
The arguments presented by Marx have both moral and political implications. Morally, it is wrong for anyone to be discriminated against because of their social class and financial incapacities. Capitalist and socialist ideologies should be discouraged in favor of communism in order to abolish private ownership of investments. Marx argues that there is an urgent need for social reconstruction as a way of building a classless society. People need to interact freely without being forced to fulfill certain roles that do not serve their interests. In addition, such ideologies can have a prolonged negative effect on the political system of a country. It is important for political leaders across the world to promote a culture that gives everyone equal opportunities to own property. Another political implication is the lack of democracy. Marx argues that capitalist and socialist ideologies often compromise the ability of communities to adopt communism. The reason for this is that a communist political system reduces the authority of leaders over the people’s resources. This will limit the ability to fulfill their selfish interests using public capital.
It is imperative to note that ideas suggested by Karl Marx are truly fascinating, and they frequently lead to numerous discussions and disagreements. One of the most important aspects that should not be disregarded is that many scholars believe that some of the theories that were suggested by the philosopher are reasonable and can be applied to modern society.
The article is focused on the current situation in the world, and the author suggests that Marx has recognized that capitalism has several weaknesses that may be incredibly problematic. He was able to predict that masses would be impoverished if necessary measures are not taken. The fact that he has considered the possibility of economic crises also should not be overlooked, and it indicates that the philosopher had an enormous understanding of possible consequences of such approaches. Also, the author provides pieces of evidence to justify his perspective. Numbers signify that there is tremendous dissimilarity between earnings of rich and poor people is enormous (Schuman par. 3).
Moreover, it has been recognized as a significant problem that should be resolved. Another aspect that is worth noting is that factory workers have become much more educated, and the introduction of new technologies was also vital. For instance, individuals may openly voice their opinions with a use of such tools as the Internet. It is evident that people are not satisfied with the current situation and think that it needs to be addressed.
The stance of the government on such issues is also quite interesting. A range of policies that would be beneficial for workers have been introduced, but the problem is that they are not allowed to participate in meetings most of the time, and one could feel helpless under such circumstances. On the other hand, the influence of employees has been increasing, and companies are willing to provide them with a broad range of benefits.
However, the situation is much more complicated in countries that are less developed because many individuals lack education and are not provided with necessary information. It is true that enormous numbers of people are not satisfied, but the system has been established over many years, and the situation is not going to change anytime soon. Furthermore, Marx’s perspective on the flaws of capitalism is justified, and it can be seen that the level of tension between the classes has been increasing over the years. However, it is necessary to mention that the philosopher has overlooked the fact that such issues as unemployment would be so significant. Moreover, many employees have to deal with unfair treatment and must accept the situation. Moreover, it is not possible that they will be capable of overthrowing the current capitalist system.
In conclusion, it is evident that some of the ideas suggested by Marx were reasonable, and his works should be studied because he was able to predict some of the processes and issues that may occur. It can be seen that capitalism has several flaws, and it has led to the introduction of numerous complications. On the other hand, communism also should not be viewed as the most efficient approach. Overall, the governments should focus on the development of policies that would help to address some of the most significant issues because the level of tension between classes is unacceptable.
Works Cited
Schuman, Michael. “Marx’s Revenge: How Class Struggle Is Shaping the World.” Time. 2013. Web.
The notion that man makes religion and that religion does not make man has formed the foundation of irreligious criticism. A widely held concept is that religion is for persons that have not discovered themselves or have lost themselves for a second or subsequent time. Religion originates from state and society and can be said to correspond to an inverted cognizance of humanity due to the fact that state and society are similarly inverted. Religion is the universal known and held theory of all humanity in all aspects. The fight against religion is, therefore seen as a fight against the whole of humanity.
Religious suffering or oppression is the expression of real pain and is also viewed as a protest against real pain. It is the opium of the people. Putting an end to religion can result in real happiness to civilization. However, denunciation of religion leads to man losing his path and therefore beginning to reason, act, and shape his reality in a manner similar to one who has thrown away his illusions and recovered his sanity or intellect.
Philosophy uncovers self-disillusionment in its profane form when the religious side of man has been uncovered. Hence, attacks against the earth, religion, legislation and intellect amount to criticism of haven. Germany stands to redeem herself from the middle ages only if she emancipates herself from the partial victories over the middle ages. The emancipation of Germans is the emancipation of man. Philosophy can be the only head of this emancipation while the proletariat forms the heart. Philosophy cannot in itself realize itself without transcendence of the proletariat. Proletariat gets to transcend himself by the realization of philosophy.
The function of religion is, in my opinion, closely related to people’s need to have a major set of moral guidelines, making individuals more confident and satisfied and societies more viable. Therefore, it is difficult for me to choose the most persuasive perspective when it comes to Freud’s and Durkheim’s positions.
Nevertheless, I would rank Sigmund Freud first with his ideas about religion as a person’s attempt to come to terms with oneself and live in a world full of challenges. Freud believed that people chose to believe in God in order to absolve their own flaws and misfortunes, as well as wrongdoings (Ramp, 2016). I would also add that this perspective explains the function of religion on the micro-level. Many people do need to believe in the divine to get relieved of responsibility for their actions. I place Freud at the top of the list as I believe that people choose religions on this micro-level that further impact their functioning in society.
Durkheim’s position is second on the list as it concentrates on the macrolevel, which is, to my mind, determined by the human psyche. Clearly, it is much more convincing than Marx’s approach, which focused on conflict. Durkheim saw the function of religions as a glue uniting people, making them collaborate and build a strong society (Ramp, 2016). I also believe that rules, standards, and patterns are based on a specific religion in every society. These standards are consistent with the values and major goals of each country.
Karl Marx is the least persuasive with his focus on religion as a tool to oppress the oppressed. Marx’s perspective does not explain why the suppressed people embrace the values of the ruling elites. It would be logical to assume that underprivileged groups would try to create their own religion to get access to resources, which has quite a few if any, illustrations in the history of humanity.
Reference
Ramp, W. (2016). Durkheim and after: Religion, culture, and politics. In B. S. Turner (Eds.), The New Blackwell companion to the sociology of religion (pp. 52-75). John Wiley & Sons.
Machiavelli’s Silence on Legitimacy vs. Hobbes’ Focus
Why did Machiavelli, in his Prince, not discuss the question of legitimacy?
All the pages of history are a collection of tales on how to obtain, retain, and rule. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes have written about the concept of power, its transitory and elusive nature.
Machiavelli takes a cynical stand on who should rule and how they should rule. Machiavelli states, in one of his many works, that whosoever intends to rule must start by relying on the assumption that all men are evil and forever ready to display their vicious nature to accomplish their interests. Such a statement speaks volumes about Machiavelli’s view on the aspect of political governance and rule.
In his book ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli evades the subject of legitimacy simply because of his rather cynical stand on the issue of legitimate governance. Prince was a forecast of what was to happen later. Machiavelli was responding to the political unrest and the endless wars between the Ducal and Pupal states of Italy (Machiavelli 194).
Machiavelli was more of a realist than an idealist in his approach towards the issues of political leadership. According to Machiavelli, an ideal ruler is the one who draws legitimacy from the use of absolute force. He is the one who demands complete submission of their subjects. In his view, a leader should never collaborate with his subjects but should be dictatorial when enforcing rules. The citizens, according to the Machiavellian idea, should not have the voice to express an opinion. The ruler’s opinion forever overrules anybody else’s opinion. The subjects should also never have the freedom to speak against political ideologies that they are opposed to.
According to Machiavelli, a prince never lacks the legitimate reasons not to fulfill his promise and never owes an apology to his subjects in case of unfulfilled promises. A Machiavellian leader should practice limitless and absolute power.
Although most philosophers and political scientists agree that Machiavelli preferred a rather democratic and liberal form of leadership, he loved to consider his views as realistic as opposed to being idealistic. This is more so because he lived in a period that was marked by many political anarchies and bloody wars.
A state, in order to function appropriately, has to have a theoretical justification of its existence. The justification should be able to answer the simplest form of the question. The question seeks to find the reason why an individual should obey the law of the land. For effective political administration, a comprehensive account, which justifies a particular distribution of power and decision, is necessary.
It is obvious that a country can never function effectively in the absence of a well-presented framework. The framework is important for the establishment of well-balanced power distribution. Without a proper framework, a government would act with force – ‘obey or you get hurt’. Any political system operates upon this basis. Should this be the only basis of authority, then in some manner, the state lacks identity and it will only be functional as long as the existing power arrangement holds. A proper example of such a state is the Nazi state or Germany, a leadership structure that was legitimized on a particular leader’s ideology of race. Another example is North Korea, whose political leadership is founded on sham political elections.
Machiavelli’s sense is what is known as ‘Real Politics’ (Marx and Engels 492). The leadership types illustrated in the Prince were and are still viewed as shocking and its inappropriateness is, until today, a topic of serious discussion. The Prince advises the prince or rather the prince to be tyrannical. However, contemporaries agree that Machiavelli favored democratic forms of leadership.
In contrast, why was Hobbes so interested in this question?
Hobbes is another English philosopher whose work is closely related to that of Machiavelli. However, the two have differences in opinion but their contrast is much inclined on the surface. The question of legitimacy was of particular interest to Hobbes due to his rather divergent view on the whole issue. Machiavelli and Hobbes had different perspectives concerning the use of power. Machiavelli believed that it was used to maintain sovereignty. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed it was used for maintaining leadership.
Hobbes’ political theories were founded on psychological egoism. He argues that people are generally egoists. We live in fear of one another because of our inherent sense of insecurity and fear. Hobbes affirms that everyone should find it within themselves to keep to the morality of respecting human existence, to keep to agreements made, and to obey societal laws.
Hobbes speaks of the right of nature, which is normally referred to as jus natural writers. This implies that everyone is at liberty to use his own ability as he wills (Pojman 95). From this, we virtually learn that Hobbes was more attuned towards the idea of man’s freedom to do as he wills.
On matters of leadership, Hobbes believes in democracy rather than despotism or dictatorship for that matter. He stated that every individual had the right to liberty. Everyone could do whatever he or she wanted since the power has been accorded to him or her (Harrison 23).
Hobbes maintains that every person is entitled to a certain level of freedom and that one should pursue his or her own interests and should never be forced by a leader. Rulers should never force their subjects into submitting to their rule. He adds that rulers must earn power and maintain it through fairness. According to Hobbes, a ruler should ever be motivated to serve the interests of his subjects and that the citizens should be incorporated into the political process. He believed in ruling by conscience rather than ruling through forceful means.
Hobbes and Machiavelli, though differing in ideologies, concur at some level of the debate since their differences are quite superficial. Both of them agree on the use of force to maintain rule. Machiavelli states that wisdom does not make law but authority does. At the same time, Hobbes affirms that if one does not believe in force then it means the person does not believe in gravity (Dolgoff 199).
Conclusion
This work presents the not-so-divergent views of the two philosophers whose ideologies about legitimacy in governance are based on strong political backgrounds. Both concur on the issue that political leadership of any state needs some element of force to impress legitimacy on its people. The end here implies a secure, powerful, and stable state. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes believed in the selfishness of the king and their divine rights. The Two developed or rather adopted a strong central power as the only way to maintain stability and avoid social order disintegration. Machiavelli stresses an all-powerful leader who commands the respect and obedience of his subjects. A leader who impresses legitimacy on his subjects using sheer force practices what we would call ruling with an iron fist. According to Machiavelli, the only true state is the one whereby the voices of the citizens are too feeble and weak to be heard. Not only should they be weak to be heard but should also never be heard and if heard then they should be ignored.
Hobbes envisions a closer view on the use of force to acquire legitimacy. He points out that a law that impresses on its subject to do according to the will and ideology of an individual is no law at all. A ruler, according to Hobbes, should be at his subjects’ service. The legitimacy should not only be illustrated to the people but they should openly feel it. This is the feeling of liberty.
Marxist Critique of Modern State Legitimacy vs. Anarchist Perspective
Why Marx and his followers deny the legitimacy of the modern liberal state?
Marx and his followers argue that the modern state is a product of an established modern industry. An industry that has established the world market and this market has brought about advancement in commerce, which in effect has resulted in the expansion of the industry. In the same proportion to the industry, railways and commerce have also been extended. According to Marxists, this industrial revolution has pushed to the back all classes from the middle age.
This is a situation the Marxists term as the modern Bourgeoisie (Marx and Engel 502). They argue that each step in the advancement of the bourgeoisie was always followed by a political development or a political advancement of that particular class. Under this bourgeoisie, there exists an oppressed class under the cover of the feudal nobility. This was followed by the advent of self-governance, armament, and taxation. According to Marxists, the bourgeoisie legitimized itself under the disguise of political or even religious ideologies.
An executive heads the bourgeoisie, according to Marxists. This is the committee that runs the affairs in its entirety. The bourgeoisie has torn apart the feudal relationships that bound humans to their ‘natural superiors’. In an effort to legitimize itself on the people, the bourgeoisie has left nothing behind but a rift between men in the form of naked self-interests and callousness. Callousness is in the name of cash payment (Marx and Engel 490).
The political leadership has put asunder religious fervor, philistine sentimentalism, and other such heavenly ecstasies. The leadership has taken up every man’s freedom in the name of setting up a free trade for the sole purpose of exploitation under the disguise of politics and religion. Marxists argue that in an effort to make it legitimate, the modern states have only succeeded in turning family relations into sheer money relations.
Marxists argue that the modern state is an instrument of one class oppressing all the other classes. They add that any state is in the form of a dictatorship of one class over the other class.
How the Marxist view on the legitimacy of the modern state differs from an anarchist’s view?
Both anarchism and Marxism are similar political ideologies or philosophies that emerged in the 19th century. Their elementary intent has been the liberation of humans, which is to be achieved through political activism. Both philosophies including Marxism and anarchism are strongly opposed to wage labor and the industrial revolution. Both have argued and agreed that the working class is the mainstay of revolution.
The divisions, or rather the differences between the Marxists and the Anarchists have emerged in their divergent theoretical ideologies, practice, and immediate political achievements. The Marxists support the idea that socialist parties could participate in politics (in parliament). On the other hand, anarchists argue that politics are not democratic.
Anarchists state that parliamentary politics does not provide any liberal and democratic control over the workplace. While Marxists believe that only dictatorship can create the will of the people, the anarchists dispute this by stating that dictatorship has no proper intention other than self-perpetuation and the enslavement of its subjects. Moreover, freedom is only-begotten through freedom. Anarchists state that there is no legitimacy in the dictatorship. They claim that dictatorial rule can only be overcome through a universal rebellion.
Bakunin reiterates that anarchy is the aim and dictatorship is the means. Anarchism here refers to freedom. For Marxists, for a people to be liberated, they have to be first enslaved or dictated upon.
Marxists reiterate that a legitimate modern state requires a successful transition to communism. According to the Marxists, this will need the repression of the capitalists for them not to revive their control over the state. According to them, this will require the presence of a state governed by workers. The anarchists argue against the formation of a state of any form stressing the fact that once the said party gains power, the persons involved with time turn to become the oppressors.
Marx and his followers’ arguments support communism. Mikhail Bakunin who is an anarchist is against anything that is similar or even resembles communism or even state socialism. According to Bakunin, a modern state such as the United States of Europe has no legitimacy, is malicious, and has no beneficial intentions. He puts a big question mark on the legitimacy of the objectives of the league. Bakunin argues against the sovereignty of a state. Sovereignty according to the anarchists means state socialism. Bakunin states that state sovereignty is an attempt of a social organization to deliberate individuals as well as associations (Quentin 46).
Anarchists postulate ideas on the nature of man and the ties of a man to his society, which – according to them – are only touched on in catechism. Majorly, the Marxists argue that a legitimate state should comprise of political leaders who through transition gain leadership. The leadership is gained through a revolution of the working class against the capitalists. Marxists aim at replacing the existing state with a workers’ state. Anarchists contradict this view saying that the recreation of a state of any form and structure would hand over power to a minority. Most anarchists including Bakunin himself point out on the case of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its failed ideology of creating a workers’ state (Pagden 121).
The Soviet leaders kept the dictatorship and did away with the socialistic nature of their governance. This to the anarchists illustrates how the transition from capitalism to freedom would never result in actual freedom. Marxists view political parties as an essential proponent of capturing state power they argue that this would be very effective in abolishing the political class. Anarchists generally disagree on the institution of governments through the establishment of political parties.
Anarchists in contrast do not believe that after founding a legitimate state, the capitalist class will simply disappear. Rather they believe that after a revolution, the political parties take up leadership and in effect assume superiority. This would obviously be followed by repressions on the other classes of individuals.
Conclusion
Marxists and the anarchist present convergent views on political leadership through their ideologies differ in some way of reasoning. The Marxists believe in the institution of parliamentary political elects who should form a state. In addition, this state should be ruled by workers and not the capitalists. Marxists talk of a revolution that paves the way for a transition of rule and order. According to the Marxists, a state is only legitimate when ruled by non-capitalists.
The anarchists do not share in this. They believe that the anarchists just like the capitalists once they gain power will always exhibit the type of leadership shown by the capitalists. Bakunin does not believe in communism or state socialism as the way to go. He points out the Soviet Union as an example of a failed state, which was based on the wrong ideology of a political transition.
Marxists affirm that the modern state is an instrument of one class oppressing all the other classes. They add that any state is always in the form of a dictatorship of one class over the other class. They argue that each step in the advancement of the bourgeoisie was always followed by a political development or rather a political advancement of the political class in position.
Works Cited
Dolgoff, Sam. Bakunin on Anarchy: Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologian. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1867. Print.
Harrison, Ross. Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion’s Masterpiece: An Examination of Century Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The prince and the discourses. New York: The Modern Library, 1950. Print.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Manifesto of the communist party. NJ: John Wiley & sons, 1975. Print.
Pagden, Anthony. The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe. U.K.: Cambridge, 1987. Print.
Diversity is one of the integral and fundamental parts of our world. It preconditions its further development, evolution, and survival. Applying this idea to human society, the existence of multiple opinions and perspectives on the same issues can be taken as the guaranty of the emergence of some new concepts that appear while debating or discussing a certain point of view. In such a way, the old saying that truth is born in arguments remains topical even today.
At the same time, the above-mentioned diversity results in critical differences in cultures and mentalities, which, in its turn, means that there will be vigorous debates and discourse concerning a particular question. This idea becomes especially topical for the sphere of politics as its significance creates an atmosphere beneficial for multiple discussions. Because of the radical divergences in views, compromise is still hardly possible even if various political theories are applied.
Background
The fact is that disagreements related to the further evolution of our society or states emerged during the first stages of civilization’s development. The ability to think critically resulted in the appearance of different perspectives on certain actions or strategies that might help to continue growth and generate a competitive advantage to win the rivalry. These divergences, especially among individuals involved in policy-making activities or having the power to impact nations’ development, preconditioned the increased importance of political discourse.
Trying to understand the nature of this important sphere, numerous thinkers and philosophers proposed their understandings of the nature of power, state, and relations. These theories contribute to the improved understanding of some views and ideas and can be applied to solve some problems; however, they are not a universal tool to make sense of divisive political discourse because they emphasize the importance of different factors or propose different ways of policy-making.
Locke’s Ideas
For instance, John Locke’s theory of government and power rests on the idea that all people are born to be free, equal, and possess rights for the preservation of these fundamental states. These inborn, or natural rights, provide them with an opportunity to be selfish and independent.1. From this very perspective, government or any power can be considered a form of agreement that is needed to create an authority that will be able to protect and cultivate these values, caring about citizens and providing them with things that demanded their evolution.2.
In such a way, to understand political power correctly, one should also understand the state that is natural for all people, or the state of freedom to act and to make choices not asking for someone’s permission3. From this political theory, the authority can be disputed using these very rights and people’s natural qualities. These ideas remain topical for contemporary humanistic society.
Rousseau’s Vision
Another perspective on the political discourse and the nature of power offers Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the majority of his works, the philosopher tries to explain the idea that modern societies are unequal.4. In accordance with this perspective, the state of nature is a primitive and undesired condition as there are no laws, morals, and ethical issues that are critical for people’s survival and evolution.5. If individuals remain in this state, they are doomed to degrade and disappear. For this reason, cooperation becomes a necessity that is accepted by all persons as the only way to resist and guarantee the evolution of species6.
However, this cooperation cannot be equal because of the division of labor, private property, and differences in available resources, which means that there is the need for institutions of law limiting people and providing them with different opportunities7. Rousseau states that only by engaging in the social contract and leaving their claims for natural rights individuals will be able to form a stable society, powerful authority and evolve8. These ideas become central to his philosophy and theories.
Marx’s Theories
As for Karl Marx, he also offered some unique explanation of the nature of human beings, the roots of the state’s emergence, and power. In accordance with his ideas, human nature critically depends on its ability to produce and possess material objects. This factor significantly shapes people’s mentalities, and any person can be actualized only through labor as the only way to create and own things.9. This assumption critically impacts the nature of power and people’s attitude to their labor power. Capitalism creates an environment characterized by the unfair distribution of authority as workers and owners have various resources.10.
At the same time, the desire for civic, political emancipation remains one of the most potent ones among many nations.11. For this reason, the ability to control labor and its results precondition the current attitude to power and can help to create the only fair society that will help individuals to evolve and acquire desired benefits and states critical for their further evolution and empowerment of the nation to which they belong.
Comparison
In such a way, the ideas offered by the three philosophers mentioned above prove the fact that agreement in political discourse is hardly possible even if to apply these paradigms. The main problem is that due to the peculiarities of cultures of thinkers, their countries’ evolution, problems, and periods, all these paradigms have different perspectives on the nature of the state, authority, and people’s relations.
Locke is sure that all people are born equal, and the government should provide them with opportunities to evolve preserving these values, while Rousseau explains that there is a necessary inequality because of the need for social agreement, and Marx is sure that the only way to succeed is to own the ability to enjoy the results of labor. All these lessons remain topical and relevant today as they might be appreciated by various politicians and utilized by them depending on the situation. However, the diversity of perspectives make the compromise, or some sense, impossible.
Conclusion
Altogether, utilizing Marx, Locke, and Rousseau’s philosophies and their approaches to authority, we prove the idea that the political discourse and debates significantly depend on the perspective of people who are involved in them and on their views on certain events. The diversity of opinions and the increased importance of discussed issues result in the desire to protect a particular point of view and explain its role in further evolution. The use of political theories cannot help as they also offer multiple paradigms for the discussion that depend on the available resources, current problems, and people’s basic needs. For this reason, it is possible to conclude that political discourse will remain divisive, and multiple vigorous debates will emerge.
The modern mainstream culture encourages private ownership over tangible and intangible goods and promotes it as a form of success and ultimate life achievement. It is seen by most of the people as the only right form of ownership, and it significantly determines the way they live and interact with others. Nevertheless, as part of the social and economic relations context, private ownership may have some flaws, including excess competition and conflict of interests among different classes.
They are explained in the theory of Karl Marx who regarded private property in close links to the phenomena of alienated labor and social inequality. At the same time, the philosopher believed that in order to realize the full potential of humanity and every individual, the practice of alienated labor, as well as private ownership and class division associated with it, must be abandoned. The major ideas pertaining to this matter will be analyzed in the present paper.
Private Property and Alienated Labor
Marx defines property in the contexts of social relations and production or activities performed by individuals to maintain sustenance. Private property, in the philosopher’s view, is the appropriation of goods produced by other people and their utilization for some personal gains (Fromm & Marx, 2013). It implies that various objects created by individuals may serve as a means for enslaving them to others because the present-day, dominant form of seller-purchaser relationships in the society encourages economic dependence. The context of alienated labor is applied by Marx to describe such a situation in which a person produces something for not their own use.
While, in its ideal understanding, labor can be considered a definite form of individual self-expression, alienated labor, on the contrary, interferes with human self-realization by making people subordinate to the overall economic system and others (Marx & Engels, 1998; Fromm & Marx, 2013). Nevertheless, this is not the only problem associated with alienated labor. Considering that concern for personal survival is emphasized in the current social and production contexts, excess competition among individuals is created (Fromm & Marx, 2013). As a result, the human race becomes disunited, and significant class differences take place.
Problem of Class Antagonism
The desire for private property and the division of labor is at the root of class antagonism in Marx’s theory. Notably, the philosopher defines social classes as such by property ownership. As noted by Rummel (n.d.) in his summary of Marx’s perspectives, “such ownership vests a person with the power to exclude others from the property and to use it for personal purposes” (par. 5.1). In this regard, a strict class division occurs depending on the total amount and value of property owned.
Based on the evidence provided in the work that Marx wrote jointly with Engels, three major classes are identified: bourgeoisie that controls production assets, landowners that rent lands to others, and the proletariat that produces and sells goods (Marx & Engels, 1998). Rummel (n.d.) states that when the society matures, land ownership and capital or, in other words, the property of production, merge. Therefore, it is the opposition between proletariat and bourgeoisie what matters when analyzing social inequality issues.
The main problem associated with class division arises when the interests of higher classes are pursued at the expense of other classes and when a substantial disparity between their life conditions emerges. Overall, by owning production assets, including plants, factories, and technologies, and not allowing others to access them, members of the bourgeoisie class have a chance to fulfill their own interests, such as the maximization of personal profits.
At the same time, with limited to no access to production property and resources, members of the proletariat class become engaged in alienated labor more. In this way, the issue of social inequality and economic enslavement of individuals perpetuates.
Communism as a Solution
Communism is for the eradication of any class opposition, and inequality and, therefore, Marx is for the abolition of property. However, he notes in the Communist Manifesto that “the distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property” (Marx, 2013, p. 86).
He also observes that communism “deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society” but deprives him/her “of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation” (Marx, 2013, p. 86). These statements imply that in an ideal communist society, the upper class of bourgeoisie will not exist because the private ownership of the production property will no longer be permissible. Consequently, the resources produced by using a production asset will be more easily distributed among all members of the society.
Notably, the abolishment of private property will lead to the elimination of labor division as well. Marx observes that in modern society, each person has a certain specialization and is forced to comply with it in order to survive (Marx & Engels, 1998). When production activities and outputs are no longer an individual’s concern, and when one’s livelihood does not depend on them, he/she becomes free to engage in any activity he/she deems meaningful. In this way, a person obtains a chance to lead a truly productive and happy life.
Conclusion
Marx’s ideas regarding the abolition of private property and consequent elimination of labor division seem compelling, and I agree with the assumption that only the bourgeois property should be abolished. The reason for that is the fact that lower-rank employees in large corporations often work longer hours but earn considerably less than many company owners (stockholders), who often do nearly nothing to benefit their business on a day-to-day basis. The ownership status and related specialization may thus be closely linked to the unfair distribution of resources. I also agree that alienated production takes away life forces from individuals and frequently makes them unhappy, and that desires for private property increase greed and competition.
Nevertheless, Marx’s solutions are unlikely possible to implement in reality at this moment not least because a complete abolition of private property implies that resources will be owned by the state. Obviously, it may entail even greater risks that they will serve to meet the interests of the ruling class and their close ones. Therefore, it seems that a solution to the problem of social inequality will not be purely political but will comprise an ethical element as well.
To create an ideal communist society in which each person will freely engage in different productive activities and will have access to all necessary resources exempting them from a concern for basic survival, a supportive economic, social, and cultural environment is needed. The main issue in these endeavors is to determine how and by whom social resources will be controlled and distributed.
References
Fromm, E., & Marx, K. (2013). Marx’s concept of man: Including ‘Economic and philosophical manuscripts’. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Marx, K. (2013). The communist manifesto. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The German ideology. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.